The Supreme Court handed down judgment in the case of In re B (A Child) [2009] UKSC 5 on 19 November 2009.

Reversing an order of the High Court that the child should live with his father and upholding a residence order in favour of the child’s grandmother, the Supreme Court held that the High Court judge had fallen into error and had incorrectly interpreted the judgment of the House of Lords in ReG [2006] UKHL 43. The Court of Appeal had been incorrect in confirming that the original order made in the Family Division had been plainly wrong.

The words of Lord Nicholls in ReG that “in the ordinary way the rearing of a child by his or her biological parent can be expected to be in child’s best interests...” had been taken out of context; the judge had failed to concentrate on the importance of the welfare of the child and had been distracted by the idea that it was the child’s right to be brought up by his or her natural parent. Although agreeing with the High Court judge that it was not necessary to establish “compelling reasons” to alter the status quo, the Court held that the High Court judge’s conclusion that as long as the father’s care was “good enough”, it didn’t matter that the grandmother’s care was better, offended the principle that the child’s best interests are paramount.