header-logo header-logo

04 April 2012 / Duncan Ranton , Jane Keir
Issue: 7509 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Deal or no deal?

illustration-converted_5

Duncan Ranton & Jane Keir assess the value of pre-conception agreements

In March, the Court of Appeal gave judgment in the case of A v B and C [2012] EWCA Civ 285, [2012] All ER (D) 119 (Mar). The child at the centre of the litigation was a boy, M, aged two. He was conceived via artificial insemination and his family comprised a gay father and two lesbian mothers. M lived with his mothers, but his parents were unable to agree on the relationship he should have with his father. The father sought what many might describe as the paradigm separated-parent contact model: visiting contact increasing in duration and frequency to staying contact and shared holidays. The mothers opposed staying contact, and wanted any time by M with the father primarily to be in their company. They wanted their child to be brought up in what they described as a 'two parent lesbian nuclear family'.

Pre-conception agreement

The mothersí stance relied heavily on what they believed was the agreement
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll