Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Preface
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- Albania: Are Albanian Legal Rules on Divorce Adequate for High-Conflict Divorces?
- Australia: Reform and Complexity: A Difficult Balance
- Brazil: The Social Food Bank and the State's Duty to the Child in the Face of the Non-Fulfillment of Child Support Executions
- Canada: Habitual Residence of Abducted Children and Divorce Act Reform
- China: On Protection of the Child's Right to Care under the Minor Guardianship System in China
- England and Wales: Familial Relationships: Entrances and Exits
- The Faroe Islands: A New Family Law is Born
- France: A Chronicle of French Family Law
- Hong Kong: Slow Progress Towards Family Law Reform?
- Ireland: ‘Best Interests’ as a Limited Constitutional Imperative
- Italy: The Divorce Allowance in Italian Law: The Role of Jurisprudence in the Formation of the Legal Rule in the Family Sphere
- Korea: AID and Surrogacy in Korean Law
- Namibia: Towards a New Juvenile Justice System in Namibia
- New Caledonia: Legal Pluralism and Diversity of Interpretation of Fundamental Rights (Common Law, Customary Law, Reservation Related to Indigenous Rights): The Example of New Caledonia
- New Zealand: Reform is in the Air
- Papua New Guinea: State and Customary Laws and the Underlying Law of Papua New Guinea: A Family Law Conundrum
- Portugal: What's Mine is Mine and Won't be Yours: The Newly Introduced Possibility of Opting Out of the Mandatory Succession Effects of Marriage in Portugal
- Serbia: Transgender Issues before the Constitutional Court of Serbia
- The Seychelles: The Seychellois Family Tribunal and its Implementation of the Family Violence (Protection of Victims) Act 2000
- UN Committee on the Rights of the Child: Reflections on Family Law Issues in the Jurisprudence of the CRC Committee: The Convention on the Rights of the Child @ 30
- United States of America: Same-Sex and Different-Sex Relationships: Is it Time for Convergence?
- Index
England and Wales: Familial Relationships: Entrances and Exits
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 November 2019
- Frontmatter
- Preface
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- Albania: Are Albanian Legal Rules on Divorce Adequate for High-Conflict Divorces?
- Australia: Reform and Complexity: A Difficult Balance
- Brazil: The Social Food Bank and the State's Duty to the Child in the Face of the Non-Fulfillment of Child Support Executions
- Canada: Habitual Residence of Abducted Children and Divorce Act Reform
- China: On Protection of the Child's Right to Care under the Minor Guardianship System in China
- England and Wales: Familial Relationships: Entrances and Exits
- The Faroe Islands: A New Family Law is Born
- France: A Chronicle of French Family Law
- Hong Kong: Slow Progress Towards Family Law Reform?
- Ireland: ‘Best Interests’ as a Limited Constitutional Imperative
- Italy: The Divorce Allowance in Italian Law: The Role of Jurisprudence in the Formation of the Legal Rule in the Family Sphere
- Korea: AID and Surrogacy in Korean Law
- Namibia: Towards a New Juvenile Justice System in Namibia
- New Caledonia: Legal Pluralism and Diversity of Interpretation of Fundamental Rights (Common Law, Customary Law, Reservation Related to Indigenous Rights): The Example of New Caledonia
- New Zealand: Reform is in the Air
- Papua New Guinea: State and Customary Laws and the Underlying Law of Papua New Guinea: A Family Law Conundrum
- Portugal: What's Mine is Mine and Won't be Yours: The Newly Introduced Possibility of Opting Out of the Mandatory Succession Effects of Marriage in Portugal
- Serbia: Transgender Issues before the Constitutional Court of Serbia
- The Seychelles: The Seychellois Family Tribunal and its Implementation of the Family Violence (Protection of Victims) Act 2000
- UN Committee on the Rights of the Child: Reflections on Family Law Issues in the Jurisprudence of the CRC Committee: The Convention on the Rights of the Child @ 30
- United States of America: Same-Sex and Different-Sex Relationships: Is it Time for Convergence?
- Index
Summary
In 2018, the Supreme Court handed down two very significant family law judgments – R (Steinfeld and Keidan) v. Secretary of State for International Development (in substitution for the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary) 1 and Owens v. Owens.
In the first of the two cases, the Supreme Court considered the current law relating to civil partnerships, which restricted entry into that status to same-sex couples, and held that the provisions of sections 1 and 3 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA) were discriminatory.
In the second case, the Supreme Court explored the meaning of the divorce provisions in sections 1(1) and 1(2)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA). It was with great regret that the Court decided to deny the appeal of a woman against the decision of the Court of Appeal to dismiss her appeal for a decree of divorce. However, in so doing, the Supreme Court drew attention to the problematic, and outdated, nature of a divorce law which has remained unchanged since 1973.
Both decisions show the necessity for a reform of the law and although such reform is under consideration by the government, no final plans have yet been published.
In light of these two important judgments with their potential consequences for family law reform, this year's chapter on family law in the jurisdiction of England and Wales is devoted to a consideration of the rights to enter into, or exit from, legally recognised familial relationships.
CIVIL PARTNERSHIP
THE BACKGROUND TO THE LAW
In 1997, following a landslide election, the Labour government of Tony Blair became concerned with the issue of gay rights and, in particular, the right of same-sex couples to enter into a legally recognised relationship. However, it took a number of years for legislation to be introduced. One of Mr. Blair's cabinet members, Stephen Twigg, suggested that the government had been nervous about doing so because of the risk of adverse media, and public, reaction. It was this nervousness that made the government opt to allow same-sex couples to enter into the newly created familial status of civil partnership and not enact legislation to allow them to marry. Mr. Twigg explained that:
The pragmatic view at the time was that we could achieve the basis of equal rights without it being called marriage, … it would be less controversial.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- International Survey of Family Law 2019 , pp. 79 - 104Publisher: IntersentiaPrint publication year: 2019