Family Law Hub

Re G (Children) [2006] UKHL 43

Judgment, published: 07/08/2006

Items referring to this

  • Application for a child arrangements order by the ex-partner of the child's non-biological mother. Application refused. Judgment, 22/06/2015, free
  • A case in which the mother of 2 children was disputing that her ex-partner, who was a lesbian, was the childrens' parent. The issue in this case was whether the steps taken by the parties and by the licensed fertility clinic, which was responsible for assisting the reproduction, were effective to grant the ex-partner's status as legal 'parent'. Judgment, 26/05/2013, free
  • Judgment concerning, among other things, the mother's application to be able to rename her children without reference to the father, who lives in Iran, and to restrict the father's parental responsibility. Judgment, 12/12/2017, free
  • Judgment, 01/10/2012, free
  • Appeal by prospective special guardians against child arrangements order that envisaged that the child would move to live with her father and partner after the expected death of the mother. The appeal was allowed as the judge had erred in thinking that there is a "presumption in law in favour of a natural parent" and the case remitted for case management directions. Judgment, 24/04/2015, free
  • As the title implies, an intractable contact dispute that has been ongoing for nearly 14 years. The F was applying to have a contact order (which only allowed him direct contact with his daughter 3 times a year) to be varied. The order was varied, but the judge also extended an order under s91(14) such that F could not apply, without the permission of the court, for any new orders under s8, or apply to have the current order varied, until his daughter's 16th birthday. Judgment, 01/10/2013, free
  • Judgment, 03/02/2013, free
  • Judgment, 08/11/2012, free
  • Case note, 04/12/2012, free
  • Child’s welfare is paramount when considering child’s living arrangements post-surrogacy agreement breakdown Judgment, 19/01/2018, free
  • In the words of Mr Justice Peter Jackson, this is "another example of the painful legal confusion that can arise when children are born as a result of unregulated artificial conception". The present applications arose from a same-sex relationship between Ms L and Ms C. Ms C gave birth to a child after artificial insemination and soon afterwards took the child to Ireland after their relationship broke down. Ms L had not seen the child since and was applying for a residence and contact order, and for declarations that at the point of the child's departure from England, Ms L was acting as her 'psychological parent'. It was held first that the court had no jurisdiction in relation to matters of parental responsibility concerning the child. Secondly, the court made a declaration that, at the date of the child's removal from England, family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights existed between the child and Ms L Judgment, 06/05/2014, free
  • Proceedings relating to a child born to a Thai mother, who had falsely persuaded her husband that he was the child's father. Judgment, 30/12/2011, free
  • Appeal by father and paternal grandparents against orders suspending contact indefinitely and a s91(14) order. Appeal allowed and remitted for further hearing, primarily to consider the proportionality of the orders Judgment, 15/07/2015, free
  • A case where the surrogate mother withdrew consent to hand over the baby to the commissioning parents. Judgment, 21/09/2016, free

Published: 07/08/2006


Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.


The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item