freger
A.P. Moller - Maersk Group: Evaluating Strategic Talent Management Initiatives
Definition = s3 CA 1989
Who has PR?
Automatic PR Apply for PR
• Mother – legal mother – s2
• Father – PR if – married to mother – birth – legal presumption (rebuttable –i.e. DNA test – Re R) – s2
• Civil partner – PR if – “other” parent under s42 HFEA 2008
• Unmarried Father – if: -s4 o PR agreement – legally o Residence order (s12) o PR order – court o birth certificate (2003)
• Step parent(married/CP to parent but not biological parent) – PR if o s4A – i.e. PRA, PRO
• Second female parent(non-CP) – PR if: o s4ZA – i.e. PRA, birth certificate, PRO
• Others: o via residence order (s12)
• Re A (Joint residence – PR)[2008] – RO = legitimate way – give PR – non-biological father -
• contrast – Re R (Thai woman/British man/sweden) case o guardian – s5(6) o special guardian – i.e. foster parent – s14
Criticism(2) –
• reliance – mother = unfair
• compulsory joint registration = negative – vulnerable parent – o BUT – exception = if “unreasonable”
COURT PR
Who can apply to court?
• biological fathers or fathers under HFEA – if unmarried at birth + not registered(after 2005)
• step-parents(marriage or CP) + second female parent(Non-CP)
Parental Responsibility Order:
What?
• apply under s4(1c)
• order must be made – if residence order – s12
• Statutory criteria – 1) child’s welfare = paramount , 2) no-order principle
Starting point
• Leading case = Re H (Parental Responsibility test)[1991] – (Mother put children in care – LA want adoption – father apply for PRO)
• Re H test = CAR – (non-exhaustive btw) o commitment shown towards child o attachment – child + father o reasons for applying
• applying shows commitment – but courts – other factors + welfare – each case – decided on facts
OTHER FACTORS
1. Contact -
• Herring – no past contact – not barrier to PRO – particularly – prove mother’s fault o contrast – Re J
Definition = s3 CA 1989
Who has PR?
Automatic PR Apply for PR
• Mother – legal mother – s2
• Father – PR if – married to mother – birth – legal presumption (rebuttable –i.e. DNA test – Re R) – s2
• Civil partner – PR if – “other” parent under s42 HFEA 2008
• Unmarried Father – if: -s4 o PR agreement – legally o Residence order (s12) o PR order – court o birth certificate (2003)
• Step parent(married/CP to parent but not biological parent) – PR if o s4A – i.e. PRA, PRO
• Second female parent(non-CP) – PR if: o s4ZA – i.e. PRA, birth certificate, PRO
• Others: o via residence order (s12)
• Re A (Joint residence – PR)[2008] – RO = legitimate way – give PR – non-biological father -
• contrast – Re R (Thai woman/British man/sweden) case o guardian – s5(6) o special guardian – i.e. foster parent – s14
Criticism(2) –
• reliance – mother = unfair
• compulsory joint registration = negative – vulnerable parent – o BUT – exception = if “unreasonable”
COURT PR
Who can apply to court?
• biological fathers or fathers under HFEA – if unmarried at birth + not registered(after 2005)
• step-parents(marriage or CP) + second female parent(Non-CP)
Parental Responsibility Order:
What?
• apply under s4(1c)
• order must be made – if residence order – s12
• Statutory criteria – 1) child’s welfare = paramount , 2) no-order principle
Starting point
• Leading case = Re H (Parental Responsibility test)[1991] – (Mother put children in care – LA want adoption – father apply for PRO)
• Re H test = CAR – (non-exhaustive btw) o commitment shown towards child o attachment – child + father o reasons for applying
• applying shows commitment – but courts – other factors + welfare – each case – decided on facts
OTHER FACTORS
1. Contact -
• Herring – no past contact – not barrier to PRO – particularly – prove mother’s fault o contrast – Re J