CR2-09-10-14-Session1_IMX30_1.mxf

Session: am
Session date: 2009 Oct 14

CASE ID: UKSC 2009/0019
Case name: In re B (a child) (2009) (FC)
Case summary:
Judgment: The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal by GB. In doing so, it reaffirmed the central message in Re G that, where in a case between private individuals a child’s custody or upbringing is in question, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. The judgment delivered by Lord Kerr was the judgment of the court to which all of its members contributed.
Reasons for the judgment: A child’s welfare is the paramount consideration in the determination of the question of his or her residence. (Paragraphs [18]-[19], [32]-[37]) The justices’ decision was not “plainly wrong”. They had recognised that H’s welfare was the paramount consideration and had carefully evaluated the evidence before them, correctly weighing up the various competing factors. For this reason, both the judge and the Court of Appeal had erred in overturning the justices’ decision. (Paragraphs [9]-[15], [37]-[39]) Both the judge and the Court of Appeal misinterpreted Re G. When, in that case, Lord Nicholls said that courts should keep in mind that the interests of a child will normally be best served by being reared by his or her biological parent, he was doing no more than reflecting common experience that, in general, children tend to thrive when brought up by parents to whom they have been born. All consideration of the importance of parenthood in private law disputes about residence must be firmly rooted in an examination of what is in the child’s best interests. This is the paramount consideration. It is only as a contributor to the child’s welfare that parenthood assumes any significance. In common with all other factors bearing on what is in the best interests of the child, it must be examined for its potential to fulfil that aim. (Paragraphs [1], [17], [23]-[25], [32]-[37]) Any discussion of a child’s right to be brought up by its natural parents is misplaced. The only consideration for the court is the child’s welfare; to talk of a child’s rights detracts from that consideration. (Paragraphs [18]-[19]) In this case, there was reason to believe that if H’s bond with GB were broken his current stability would be threatened. Whilst RJB was assessed as capable of meeting H’s needs, he had recently undergone significant changes in his own domestic position and his arrangements were untested at the time the justices made their decision. In deciding where H’s best interests lay the justices were therefore right to give significant weight to maintaining the status quo in H’s living arrangements. (Paragraphs [40]-[41]).
Hearing start date: 2009 Oct 14
Hearing end date: 2009 Oct 14