JM v United Kingdom: ECHR 28 Sep 2010

The applicant alleged that she had been the victim of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the assessment by the authorities of her financial liability under the regulations on child support.

Lech Garlicki, P
[2010] ECHR 1361, 30 BHRC 60, [2010] Fam Law 1270, [2010] 3 FCR 648, [2011] 1 FLR 491, (2011) 53 EHRR 6
European Convention on Human Rights, Child Support (Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases) Regulations 1992 1(2)
See AlsoJM v United Kingdom ECHR 21-Nov-2008
. .
At Commissioner(Un-named) SSCS 1-Oct-2003
The mother had challenged payments required of her by way of child support. The Secretary of State now appealed.
Held: The appeal was rejected: ‘a gay relationship can be a family for the purpose of [A]rticle 8’. There was no reason, in the . .
At CASecretary of State for Work and Pensions v M CA 15-Oct-2004
M had challenged the Child Support Regulations saying that they discriminated against her. She was the liable parent, and in a monogomoud lesbian relationship. As such she said that she was treated worse than she would have been since the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Discrimination, Child Support

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519966