Re X (2020) EWFC 39
the applicant father had also died, although this time during the course of the pregnancy (so that the child did not have her home with him either at the date of the application or the order).29.In each of those cases, for different reasons, the child was not living with both applicants in one home at the relevant time but in each case the court took a purposive approach in interpreting this requirement. As Sir James Munby P stated in Re X (ibid) the child had his home with the applicants albeit they lived in separate houses, noting the child ‘plainly did not have his home with anyone else’ [67].30.The same situation applies here. G has his home with the applicants between their two homes, on occasion they spend time when they are all together. G does not have his home with anyone else other than with the applicants and it is the only ‘home’ G has known.
- Approved Judgment
- Introduction
- Relevant Background
- Section 54 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA 2008)
- Enduring family relationship
- Timing of the application
- Child’s home with the applicants
- EWHC 3135
- Re DM and LK [2016] EWHC 270 (Fam)
- Re X (a child) (2018) EWFC 15
- Re Z (foreign surrogacy; allocation of work; guidance on parental order reports) (2015) EWFC 90
- A v P (2011) EWHC 1738
- Re X (2020) EWFC 39
- Domicile
- Welfare
