header-logo header-logo

Step-parents in 2019: family but legal strangers?

06 June 2019 / Sarah Hughes
Issue: 7843 / Categories: Features , Family , Divorce , Child law
printer mail-detail

Step-parents are fast becoming the new norm but have limited rights, regardless of their responsibilities, as Sarah Hughes explains

  • Step-parents have none or very limited rights, regardless of the responsibility they assume for a child’s day to day upbringing.
  • They remain largely dependent on the agreement of both parents or the scrutiny of the court to acquire parental responsibility.

Step families are the fastest growing family type in the UK. It is estimated that almost one in three families has a step-child from a previous relationship, meaning almost two million children living in a two-parent family where one parent is not their own.

Step-parents play an increasingly important role in a child’s life. They will often form a close bond with the child, live with that child, care for them as their own, and share responsibility for their day to day needs, particularly when the child is young. However, step-parents do not have legal standing for the child, and step-parent families are often overlooked in the drive

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll