In re G (Children) (Shared Residence: Same Sex partner): CA 6 Apr 2005

A lesbian couple had children by IVF. After the relationship failed, application was made by the non-resident partner for a shared residence order. She appealed a refusal.
Held: the judge had erred. The report from Cafcass had recommended the order sought, and the judge had not given sufficient reasons to depart from that report. The position of same sex parents was that a shared residence order was the only way of protecting the position of the parent who did not have residence by providing an equivalent to a parental responsibility order. A failure to make an order would marginalise that parent.
Thorpe LJ said: ‘But perhaps more crucial for me was the judge’s finding that between the first and second days of the hearing the mother had been developing plans to marginalise Miss W . . The CAFCASS officer had expressed a clear fear that unless a parental responsibility order was made there was a real danger that Miss W would be marginalised in the children’s future. I am in no doubt at all that, on the judge’s finding, the logical consequence was the conclusion that the children required firm measures to safeguard them from diminution in or loss of a vital side of family life – not only their relationship with Miss W, but also with her son . . The judge’s finding required a clear and strong message to the mother that she could not achieve the elimination of Miss W, or even the reduction of Miss W from the other parent into some undefined family connection.’


Thorpe, Tuckey, Arden LJJ


Times 29-Apr-2005, [2006] 1 FCR 436, [2005] EWCA Civ 462, [2005] 2 FLR 957


England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoCG v CW and Another (Children) CA 6-Apr-2006
A lesbian couple had split up and disputed the care of the children. An order had been made but then, in breach of that order, one removed the children overnight to Cornwall. An argument was made that the court had failed to give proper weight to . .
Appeal fromIn Re G (A Minor) (Interim Care Order: Residential Assessment); G (Children), In Re (Residence: Same Sex Partner) HL 26-Jul-2006
The parties had been a lesbian couple each with children. Each now was in a new relationship. One registered the two daughters of the other at a school now local to her but without first consulting the birth mother, who then applied for residence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.226002