1
______
Media Release
Court of Appeal rules that judges can make
Child Arrangement Orders concerning biological grandparents
1st March 2018
______
In a judgment handed down on 28th February 2018, the Court of Appeal has upheld a Child Arrangement Order that gave the grandparents of a child born from private donor insemination, permission to accompany their son to contact sessions.
The same sex parents of the child had sought to argue that it was not within the courts power to make such an order as the donor’s parents have no legal or psychological relationship with their child, nor were parties to the proceedings.
The Child Arrangement Order provided that:
“The arrangements for the child to spend time with the Applicant may include the applicant’s parents on two occasions per year if the Applicant so wishes.”
Facts of the case [real names are not used]
Aidan was born at the end of 2012 to same sex mothers who had entered into a Civil Partnership in 2010. He was conceived through private donor insemination and his biological father, Brian, had frequent contact with the child for the first 3 years of his life. During this time, Brian’s parents also saw the child and they had become familiar figures.
The couple split in 2013 and went on to form new relationships, and for a while contact continued. However, in 2015 the mothers began to impose boundaries on the nature and level of contact which resulted in a period of 18 months where contact ceased. This prompted Brian to seek a Child Arrangement Order that was eventually given in June 2017. At the hearing which determined the contact arrangements, evidence was given by the Guardian appointed to represent the child that “it was in the interests of the child’s welfare” to spend time with Brian’s parents.
Legal Argument
The court considered the Children Act 1989, more specifically section 10. The child’s parents sought to argue that when considering making an order under section 10 (1)(b) in favour of a third party, it should go through the mental process required by section 10 (9) before considering the welfare question. The court felt this submission was misconceived and referred to the case of Gloucestershire County Council v P [1999] 2 FLR 61. The court also felt that this would introduce a further layer of complexity, when any court making an order on its own initiative will procedurally ensure that the parties have had an opportunity to be heard on the matter and will substantively need to decide whether such an order is in the child’s best interests.
Quote
The solicitor representing the interests of the Donor, Demelza Wrigley of Bell and Buxton Solicitors said, “We are delighted that the original order has been upheld. This Court of Appeal decision is important as it reaffirms the ability of the court to make child arrangement orders involving third parties if it in the best interests of the child. Contact with my client and his parents, will give the child a greater understanding of his parental lineage and biological heritage.”
END
______
NOTE TO EDITORS
The court has ordered that the individuals involved in this case are not to be identified and their real names are not used in the judgment or this media release.
About Bell and Buxton Solicitors
Bell and Buxton Solicitors are a Legal 500 recommended, 6 Partner law firm based in Sheffield. They provide a range of niche private client and commercial legal services. They are well-established with a proven track record regionally in family law, wills, probate and trusts matters. They have a national reputation for advising in contentious probate and abuse of the elderly cases. The commercial team comprises several senior and experienced Partners who work collaboratively to provide a nimble and highly personal service to corporate clients.
Need more information about this media release? Please contact: Natalie Rodgers, MCIPR, Managing Director, Scala t. 0114 4070159 m. 07881 780608