TJ v CV & Anor [2007] EWHC 1952 (Fam) (09 August 2007)

TJ v CV & Anor [2007] EWHC 1952 (Fam) (09 August 2007)

It would be contrary to BA's welfare to grant TJ parental responsibility, as it would undermine the autonomy and stability of the nuclear family of CV and S, and create conflict detrimental to BA. However, BA's interests are best served by maintaining some contact with TJ, recognising his unique biological role, but...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1952 (Fam)
Parties
Applicant: TJ; 1st Respondent: CV; 2nd Respondent: S; Child (by Guardian): BA (by his Guardian ad litem Mr James Johnstone)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Family Law Children Act Proceedings / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Application for parental responsibility: no order made. Application for contact: granted in limited form. Section 91(14) order made against all adults for five years.
Legal Topics
Parental Responsibility, Contact Orders, Same Sex Parenting, Biological Parent Rights, Section 91(14) Orders
Family Law Child Law Parental Responsibility Contact Orders Same Sex Parenting Biological Parent Rights Section 91(14) Orders

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TJ

Applicant

CV

1st Respondent

S

2nd Respondent

BA (by his Guardian ad litem Mr James Johnstone)

Child (by Guardian)

Procedural Posture

Family Law Children Act Proceedings / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the biological father (TJ) should be granted parental responsibility for the child (BA) in a same-sex female family unit
  2. 2 What contact, if any, should be ordered between the biological father and the child
  3. 3 How to balance the autonomy of the nuclear family with the interests of the child in knowing his biological origins

Ratio Decidendi

It would be contrary to BA's welfare to grant TJ parental responsibility, as it would undermine the autonomy and stability of the nuclear family of CV and S, and create conflict detrimental to BA. However, BA's interests are best served by maintaining some contact with TJ, recognising his unique biological role, but limiting contact to avoid undermining the primary family unit. The court therefore makes no order for parental responsibility and orders limited, structured contact. A Section 91(14) order is made to prevent further litigation for five years without leave.

Court Disposition

Application for parental responsibility: no order made. Application for contact: granted in limited form. Section 91(14) order made against all adults for five years.

Orders

  • No order for parental responsibility under Section 1(5) Children Act 1989
  • Contact between TJ and BA to occur four times a year (three individual, one family gathering), with conditions on location, supervision, and duration