Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Judge Chapman noted that the appellant, born in 1999, had been deserted by his father not long after his birth. In [36], Judge Chapman noted that:
"There is no evidence that [the sponsor] was taking such an interest in the eight or so years before [she started paying school fees etc.] ... for example, there is no evidence from the sponsor's sisters which might have confirmed the role that the sponsor was playing in her son's life throughout this time. Indeed there was no evidence from the appellant himself about his mother's role in his life."
"Except for the sponsor's own evidence, to which I attached little credibility, there is very little evidence she has resumed any greater role in her son's life than she previously had played. I also note that, had she wished to do so in 2006 after an asylum claim had been rejected, the sponsor could have returned to Zimbabwe to play a more active role in her son's life. She chose not to do so, nor to seek his entry into the UK to join her at that time."
"Having considered all these factors, I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the sponsor has had sole responsibility for the appellant. I do not go as far as saying she has abrogated all responsibility for her son, but I find that it is more likely than not that, at the very least, responsibility for the upbringing of her son has been shared with her sisters and therefore not her sole responsibility."
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.