Re M (Child) [2017] EWCA Civ 228 (06 April 2017)

Re M (Child) [2017] EWCA Civ 228 (06 April 2017)

The appeal was dismissed except as to parental responsibility for B. The trial judge's welfare analysis was upheld as properly conducted, with the child's best interests as the paramount consideration. The judge was entitled to find that the child's emotional needs and identity would be best met by remaining with X, and that X was more likely to support the child's relationship with all parents. The judge's approach to factual findings and credibility was not flawed, and no Lucas direction was required. The only error was in not granting B parental responsibility, which was corrected on appeal.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Civ 228
Parties
Appellant: A; Appellant: B; 1st Respondent: X; Respondent: P; Respondent: CAFCASS (Child's Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) on Appeal From High Court, Family Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except as to parental responsibility for B, which is allowed.
Legal Topics
Surrogacy, Parental Responsibility, Child Residence, Welfare of the Child, Best Interests of the Child
Family Law Surrogacy Parental Responsibility Child Residence Welfare of the Child Best Interests of the Child

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Appellant

B

Appellant

X

1st Respondent

P

Respondent

CAFCASS (Child's Guardian)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) on Appeal From High Court, Family Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in determining the child's residence and parental responsibility in a surrogacy context
  2. 2 Whether the welfare analysis was properly conducted and balanced
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to give adequate reasons or directions regarding factual findings and credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed except as to parental responsibility for B. The trial judge's welfare analysis was upheld as properly conducted, with the child's best interests as the paramount consideration. The judge was entitled to find that the child's emotional needs and identity would be best met by remaining with X, and that X was more likely to support the child's relationship with all parents. The judge's approach to factual findings and credibility was not flawed, and no Lucas direction was required. The only error was in not granting B parental responsibility, which was corrected on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except as to parental responsibility for B, which is allowed.

Orders

  • Z to remain living with X and P.
  • Contact with A and B to continue as previously ordered (one weekend every eight weeks, no overnight stay).