Feminist Legal Studies

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 323–336

Recognising Family Diversity: the ‘Boundaries’ of RE G

Case note


In Re G, the Court of Appeal awarded a joint residence order to the appellant, who was the lesbian ex-partner of the child’s full biological mother. The award also indirectly vested the appellant, a social parent, with parental responsibility and extended a body of case law to same-sex couples, which had until now only been applied to heterosexual couples. The initial purpose of this note is to outline the legal issues of the case in the context of the framework of parental responsibility set out in the Children Act 1989, putting forward a test of ‘parental fitness’ (which focuses on active ‘care’ as its central consideration) for social parents who must appeal to the court’s discretion to obtain parental responsibility. Secondly, the note offers at once a positive reading of Re G while highlighting a number of reservations centring upon continued legal preference for the ‘sexual family’. It is argued that while the legal recognition of ‘family diversity’ and parenthood remains modelled on this ‘sexual family’, the relaxation of family ‘boundaries’ (despite legal victories such as Re G) will remain limited.


care Children Act 1989 parental responsibility same-sex parent sexuality shared residence order social parent 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bainham A., (1999) Parentage, Parenthood and Parental Responsibility: Subtle, Elusive Yet Important Distinctions. In: Bainham A., Day Sclater S., Richards M. (eds) What is a Parent: A Socio-Legal Analysis. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp. 25–46Google Scholar
  2. Bainham A., (2005). Children: The Modern Law. Family Law, BristolGoogle Scholar
  3. Barker N., (2004). For Better or For Worse? The Civil Partnership Bill [HL] 2004. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 26/3:313–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton C., Douglas G., (1995). Law and Parenthood. Butterworths, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Dolan, A., “Lesbian Wins Equal Parental Rights Over Ex-Lover’s Children”, The Daily Mail, 8 April 2005Google Scholar
  6. Eekelaar J., (2001). Rethinking Parental Responsibility. Family Law Journal 31: 426–423Google Scholar
  7. Equal Parenting Council, “Shared Parenting: the Right Starting Point” (2003), at http://www.equalparenting.org/Download/SHARED%20PARENTING%20100 903A.pdf
  8. Fineman M., (1995). The Neutered Mother, The Sexual Family and Other Twentieth Century Tragedies. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Miccio, K., “A Reasonable Battered Mother? Redefining, Reconstructing, and Recreating the Battered Mother in Child Protective Proceedings”, Harvard Women’s Law Journal 22 (1999), 89–122, as exerted in Lemon, N. K. D., Domestic Violence Law (St. Paul, MN: West Group, 2001), 393–400Google Scholar
  10. Pilditch, D., “Lesbian Wins Equal Rights Over Children”, The Express, 8 April 2005Google Scholar
  11. Probert R., (2005). Same-Sex Couples and the Marriage Model. Feminist Legal Studies 13/1:135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sandland R., (2000). Not ‘Social Justice’: The Housing Association, the Judges, the Tenant and his Lover: Fitzpatrick v. Sterling Housing Association. Feminist Legal Studies 8/2: 227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sheldon S., (2001). Unmarried Fathers and Parental Responsibility: A Case for Reform?. Feminist Legal Studies 9/2: 93–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawKeele UniversityStaffordshireUK

Personalised recommendations