Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Mathew Thorpe
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Jurisprudence== He has presided over a number of important cases which have influenced the evolution of [[family law]]. He is regarded as a [[tradition]]alist in respect of [[parent|parenting role]] but as a [[reactionary]] by his detractors. '''1. Roles of men and women''' ''Re: S (Children) [2002] EWCA Civ 583'' This case concerned a divorce where the mother had a high salary and the father stayed at home to look after the children under a [[shared parenting]] arrangement. If [[Family law|residence]] had been awarded to the [[father]], the status quo in [[London]] would continue. However, if residence were awarded to the mother then she would move with the children to [[Linlithgow]] in [[Scotland]]. It was submitted on behalf of the father that it would be [[discrimination|gender discrimination]] to decide residence in favour of the mother: if the roles were to be reversed, a father who proposed to abandon a lucrative career with the consequence that his wife and children would suffer a dramatic downturn in the standard of living, would not have the smallest chance of being given a residence order as his reward. This submission was rejected by Thorpe LJ on grounds of [[gender role]]: :"''That submission seems to me to ignore the realities, namely the very different role and functions of men and women, and the reality that those who sacrifice the opportunity to provide full-time care for their children in favour of a highly competitive professional race do, not uncommonly, question the purpose of all that striving, and question whether they should not re-evaluate their life before the children have grown too old to benefit.''" '''2. Leave to remove from the jurisdiction''' This refers to the situation where the court must decide whether to grant permission to a parent who wants to take the children to live in another jurisdiction in the face of opposition from the other parent. It means that a parent (invariably the father) who continued to live in the [[United Kingdom|UK]] would no longer have access to his children. In ''Payne v Payne (2001) 2 WLR 1826'', Thorpe LJ found that unilateral relocation cases had been consistently decided over 30 years upon the application of the following two propositions: :(a) the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration; and :(b) refusing the primary carerโs reasonable proposals for the relocation of her family life is likely to impact detrimentally on the welfare of her dependent children. Therefore her application to relocate will be granted unless the court concludes that it is incompatible with the welfare of the children. Applying these principles, the Payne child was allowed to be taken to [[New Zealand]] by the mother since otherwise the effect on her of being forced to stay in [[England]] would be "devastating". This approach was followed again later in ''Re: B (Children) (Removal from Jurisdiction); Re: S (A Child) (Removal from Jurisdiction) (2003) (2003) 2 FLR 1043''. Thorpe LJ said, in connection with two cases involving children being removed to [[Australia]] and [[South Africa]] respectively, that to frustrate "''natural emigration''" risked the survival of the new family or blighted its potential for "''fulfilment and happiness''". He said, <blockquote>Often there will be a price to be paid in welfare terms by the diminution of the children's contact with their father and his extended family</blockquote> He said that it was also possible for a father to take employment abroad after separation or to marry a foreigner and there would be the same loss of contact: <blockquote>These are the tides of chance and life and in the exercise of its paternalistic jurisdiction it is important that the court should recognise the force of these movements and not frustrate them unless they are shown to be contrary to the welfare of the child.</blockquote>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)