*/
Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. The parties were a same sex couple. One of the couple had conceived a baby by means of an internet sperm donor. Once the baby was two months old she took the baby back to Ireland, where she was from. Ms L, the other member of the couple, issued two applications in the English court. First for permission to apply for a residence order and a contact order under the Children Act 1989 and secondly for declarations that at the point of the child's departure from England, Ms L was acting as her 'psychological parent' and that they shared family life within the meaning of art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Family Division made a declaration that at the date of the child's removal from England family life within the meaning of art 8 of the Convention existed between the couple. In accordance with art 17 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003, the court had no jurisdiction in relation to matters of parental responsibility concerning the child.
Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. The parties were a same sex couple. One of the couple had conceived a baby by means of an internet sperm donor. Once the baby was two months old she took the baby back to Ireland, where she was from. Ms L, the other member of the couple, issued two applications in the English court. First for permission to apply for a residence order and a contact order under the Children Act 1989 and secondly for declarations that at the point of the child's departure from England, Ms L was acting as her 'psychological parent' and that they shared family life within the meaning of art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Family Division made a declaration that at the date of the child's removal from England family life within the meaning of art 8 of the Convention existed between the couple. In accordance with art 17 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003, the court had no jurisdiction in relation to matters of parental responsibility concerning the child.
Now is the time to tackle inappropriate behaviour at the Bar as well as extend our reach and collaboration with organisations and individuals at home and abroad
A comparison – Dan Monaghan, Head of DWF Chambers, invites two viewpoints
And if not, why not? asks Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Head of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, discusses the many benefits of oral fluid drug testing for child welfare and protection matters
To mark International Women’s Day, Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management looks at how financial planning can help bridge the gap
Casey Randall of AlphaBiolabs answers some of the most common questions regarding relationship DNA testing for court
