G (Children), Re

G (Children), Re

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge failed to provide sufficient reasons for rejecting the CAFCASS officer's recommendation for a joint residence order, did not adequately address the risk of marginalisation of the appellant, and did not sufficiently consider the evolving legal principles supporting shared parental responsibility in same sex families. The children's welfare required firm measures to prevent the appellant's exclusion, and a joint residence order was the appropriate safeguard.

Parties
Appellant: CW (Appellant/W); Respondent: CG (Respondent/G)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Telford County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Parental Responsibility, Residence Orders, Same Sex Relationships, Children's Welfare
Family Law Child Law Parental Responsibility Residence Orders Same Sex Relationships Children's Welfare

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CW (Appellant/W)

Appellant

CG (Respondent/G)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Telford County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant should be granted a joint residence order conferring parental responsibility for the children
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the CAFCASS officer's recommendation for joint residence
  3. 3 Whether the judge gave sufficient reasons for departing from professional recommendations and current legal trends

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge failed to provide sufficient reasons for rejecting the CAFCASS officer's recommendation for a joint residence order, did not adequately address the risk of marginalisation of the appellant, and did not sufficiently consider the evolving legal principles supporting shared parental responsibility in same sex families. The children's welfare required firm measures to prevent the appellant's exclusion, and a joint residence order was the appropriate safeguard.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Joint residence order granted to the appellant and respondent
  • Further order as agreed between counsel