CG v CW & Anor (Children)

CG v CW & Anor (Children)

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge had properly applied the welfare checklist, identified the correct crux of the case (the risk of CG marginalising CW and breaching orders), and provided adequate reasons for her decision. The biological connection, while significant, was not determinative in the context of same-sex parenting where both parties had acted as parents. The judge's assessment of the risk to the children's welfare justified the transfer of primary care to CW.

Parties
Appellant: CG; 1st Respondent: CW; 2nd Respondent: G (Children)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Shared Residence Orders, Parental Responsibility, Same Sex Parenting, Relocation of Children, Welfare Principle, Children Act 1989
Family Law Child Law Shared Residence Orders Parental Responsibility Same Sex Parenting Relocation of Children Welfare Principle Children Act 1989

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CG

Appellant

CW

1st Respondent

G (Children)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in granting primary care to CW over the biological mother CG
  2. 2 Whether sufficient weight was given to the biological connection between CG and the children
  3. 3 Whether the welfare checklist under section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 was properly applied

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge had properly applied the welfare checklist, identified the correct crux of the case (the risk of CG marginalising CW and breaching orders), and provided adequate reasons for her decision. The biological connection, while significant, was not determinative in the context of same-sex parenting where both parties had acted as parents. The judge's assessment of the risk to the children's welfare justified the transfer of primary care to CW.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed; primary care to remain with CW as ordered by Bracewell J