header-logo header-logo

Landmark decision on parental status

02 August 2023
Issue: 8036 / Categories: Legal News , Child law , Divorce , International , Jurisdiction
printer mail-detail
The Court of Appeal has granted parental status to a party whose former same-sex civil partner lives with their children in Dubai, in a groundbreaking decision.

In S (Children: parentage and jurisdiction) [2023] EWCA Civ 897, the court overturned an earlier High Court decision to deny the appellant, CP, parental status and consequently decline jurisdiction for the English court to determine the welfare of four children based in a country that does not recognise the status of non-biological same-sex parents.

The children are British citizens and were conceived through a donor while CP and M, who gave birth to them, were in a civil partnership. The couple broke up and M moved to a Gulf State in 2014 with the elder children while the younger ones stayed with CP, before joining their siblings five months later.

The questions before the court were whether CP was the legal parent, under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, and whether the Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain CP’s application, under the Family Law Act 1986.

The court unanimously agreed there should be a declaration that CP is to be treated as the legal parent and that the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to entertain CP’s application and to make orders in respect of the children if they are justified on welfare grounds.

All parties, including the intervener Reunite, were represented pro bono.

Alexandra Tribe, partner at Expatriate Law, representing CP, said: ‘This is one of the most important family law decisions in the last year.

‘It has two resounding impacts: one in the determination of parental status for those in same-sex relationships and second, for those parents with children based around the world where, for whatever reason, they cannot rely on the country in which they live to provide a welfare jurisdiction for their children, the English court is now much more likely to be able to assist.

‘The law on whether someone is a parent and how children based abroad can still receive English family law justice have both been clarified, simplified and made far more accessible generally.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll