Mabon v Mabon
Articulate teenagers who are mature enough to instruct a solicitor should be allowed separate legal representation in family proceedings about their future, in recognition of their autonomy.
Facts
In proceedings between separated parents about the residence of their six sons, the three eldest boys, aged 17, 15 and 13, wished to be separately represented by their own solicitor, so that their views could be put to the court directly, rather than through a guardian appointed to represent all the children. The judge refused their application, and the boys appealed.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. Thorpe LJ said that the court must recognise the growing autonomy of children and their right to participate in decisions about their lives, in accordance with article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In the case of articulate teenagers, the court should accept that the right to freedom of expression and participation outweighs the paternalistic judgment of welfare. The boys were mature and articulate and were entitled to be separately represented.
Related cases on parentage, parental responsibility and medical decisions
- Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) [2001] Fam 147
- Re B (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1981] 1 WLR 1421
- Bell v Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWCA Civ 1363
- Evans v United Kingdom (2008) 46 EHRR 34
- Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112
- Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust v Yates [2017] EWHC 972 (Fam)
- Re H (Minors) (Local Authority: Parental Rights) (No 3) [1991] Fam 151
- Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v A [2003] EWHC 259 (QB), [2003] 1 FLR 1091
Studying family law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
