enduring - Dictionary Definition : misjon.info
Family Values and Relationships in Adolescence . The parent-child relationship is often considered to be the most enduring and significant. An enduring family relationship is one that the people who will do the The term has a legal, rather than a personal definition, so we should. In the context of human society, a family (from Latin: familia) is a group of people related either .. (What defines "same type of relationship" under such definitions seems to be genealogical relationship. This is . It generally involves the inheritance of property, rights, names, or titles by persons related through male kin.
He has promised blessings to those who honor that covenant. Adultery is unequivocally condemned by the Lord.
Husbands and wives who love each other will find that love and loyalty are reciprocated. This love will provide a nurturing atmosphere for the emotional growth of children.
Family life should be a time of happiness and joy that children can look back on with fond memories and associations. Hear these simple admonitions from the Lord which may be applied to the marriage covenant. And there are many more scriptural admonitions. Restraint and self-control must be ruling principles in the marriage relationship. Couples must learn to bridle their tongues as well as their passions.
Prayer in the home and prayer with each other will strengthen your union. Gradually thoughts, aspirations, and ideas will merge into a oneness until you are seeking the same purposes and goals. Rely on the Lord, the teachings of the prophets, and the scriptures for guidance and help, particularly when there may be disagreements and problems.
Spiritual growth comes by solving problems together—not by running from them. The secret of a happy marriage is to serve God and each other.
The goal of marriage is unity and oneness, as well as self-development. Paradoxically, the more we serve one another, the greater is our spiritual and emotional growth. The first fundamental, then, is to work toward righteous unity. Nurture your children with love and the admonitions of the Lord.
Family - Wikipedia
Responsible parenthood is the key. Above all else, children need to know and feel they are loved, wanted, and appreciated. They need to be assured of that often. Obviously, this is a role parents should fill, and most often the mother can do it best. Children need to know who they are in the eternal sense of their identity. They need to know that they have an eternal Heavenly Father on whom they can rely, to whom they can pray, and from whom they can receive guidance.
They need to know whence they came so that their lives will have meaning and purpose. Children must be taught to pray, to rely on the Lord for guidance, and to express appreciation for the blessings that are theirs.
I recall kneeling at the bedsides of our young children, helping them with their prayers.Kids vocabulary - Family - family members & tree - Learn English educational video for kids
Children must be taught right from wrong. They can and must learn the commandments of God. They must be taught that it is wrong to steal, lie, cheat, or covet what others have.
Surrogacy arrangement – the enduring family relationship test
Children must be taught to work at home. They should learn there that honest labor develops dignity and self-respect. They should learn the pleasure of work, of doing a job well. The leisure time of children must be constructively directed to wholesome, positive pursuits. Too much time viewing television can be destructive, and pornography in this medium should not be tolerated. It is estimated that growing children today watch television over twenty-five hours per week.
Communities have a responsibility to assist the family in promoting wholesome entertainment. Families must spend more time together in work and recreation. Family home evenings should be scheduled once a week as a time for recreation, work projects, skits, songs around the piano, games, special refreshments, and family prayers. Like iron links in a chain, this practice will bind a family together, in love, pride, tradition, strength, and loyalty. Family study of the scriptures should be the practice in our homes each Sabbath day.
Daily devotionals are also a commendable practice, where scripture reading, singing of hymns, and family prayer are a part of our daily routine. Parents must prepare their children for the ordinances of the gospel. The most important teachings in the home are spiritual.
Parents are commanded to prepare their sons and daughters for the ordinances of the gospel: They are to teach them to respect and honor the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Most importantly, parents are to instill within their children a desire for eternal life and to earnestly seek that goal above all else. They set out in their joint statement at paragraphs and at paragraphstheir background to their "journey to become parents".
They have been together since April and plan to marry in August Before meeting the 2nd applicant the 1st applicant had tried to become a father through surrogacy as a single parent; at present the legislation does not provide for parental orders to be made in the case of any application by a single person.
The HFEA does not define what an "enduring relationship" is and it was submitted on their behalf that the Court would wish to consider the nature of the applicants' relationship having regard to the specific facts of this case as set out in their joint statement and in the POR's assessment of the couple; that is the approach which I intend to take.
It mirrors the approach taken in previous cases where parental orders have been made of which more below and the nature and structure of any family relationship must be one which is in, the greatest part, based on the facts of each specific case and family. The families in which children live and are brought up are increasingly diverse and often more fluid than in the past; the enactment of the HFEA came about in recognition of this change.
I have been referred to the Parliamentary debates which took place at the time. Counsel for the applicants made reference to the notes to the Family Court Practice at page which set out, in relation to the definition under the Adoption and Children Act ACAthat "To establish that a couple are 'living as partners in an enduring family relationship', there must first be an unambiguous intention to create and maintain family life and, second, a factual matrix consistent with that intention.
Both matters are a question of fact and degree in each case. Sir James Munby, President, considered the definition of "couple" pursuant to section 54 1 in Re Z  EWFC 73 ; in his judgment he said at  that the HFEA had brought the definition of "couple" in line with the definition of "couple" in section 4 of the Adoption and Children Act ACA ; he said that since the Marriage Same Sex Couples Act came into force on 13th March the definition in both Acts now extends to married couples of the same sex.
The ACA defined "couple" at s. There is limited reported case-law relating to the definition of an "enduring family relationship" under the HFEAand I accept the submission that it is helpful to consider other situations in which the Court has considered it to be clearly in the welfare interests of the children concerned to make parental orders against factual backgrounds to the status of the relationship of the applicants for the parental order which could be said to be more complicated than the relationship of the applicants in this case; the only real concern which can legitimately be raised in respect of their relationship, on the evidence before me, is the longevity or otherwise of their relationship which is presented by the word "enduring".
As the President observed in Re Z No 1approving the decision in A v P  2 FLR 14, the Court had previously made a parental order where one of the original applicants for the parental order was dead at the time the parental order was made on the basis that family life had been established on the facts of that case; in this case the applicants continue to live together, as a couple, and the children have, as a matter of fact, known no other family.
In Re X  1 FLRthe President made a parental order although the applicants had been separated for twelve months and the child had been living in two separate homes throughout; holding that s. Death of Applicant  2 FLR There is no doubt, in my judgment, that there is family life within the meaning of Art 8 of the European Convention as between the commissioning parents and X. Although in this case it was submitted, on behalf of the applicants, that no "reading down" of the statute was required pursuant to s.
In the case of Re Z No 1 direct reference was made to the debates in Hansard on the subject of why the legislation HFEA requires any application for parental order following a surrogacy arrangement to be made by a couple and not by a single applicant.
In response to an amendment tabled by the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon Hansard, colto permit the making of a parental order in favour of one person, Dawn Primarolo, Minister of State, Department of Health, cols said; "Surrogacy is a complex area.
I shall start by responding to the hon. As far as surrogacy is concerned, the mother who gives birth is the mother. Parental orders, like adoption orders, transfer parenthood after birth. In my view, there is a difference, and I will seek to explain why before asking him not to press the amendments. Under the Act, it is possible to make parental orders transferring parenthood only to married couples. The Bill extends the provisions to include civil partners and couples who are not in a civil partnership or married, but who are living as partners in an enduring relationship.
A parental order is awarded by a court, subject to the report of the parental order reporter, who visits the parties concerned and prepares a report on whether the provisions of the law are met — for example, whether the woman who carried the child has freely given her unconditional consent. Dr Primarolo continued; "Surrogacy arrangements are not in themselves enforceable in law, although, when making decisions about whether or not to grant a parental order, the courts will take into account factors such as — as we would expect — where it would be in the best interests of the child to be brought up.
Fundamentals of Enduring Family Relationships
The Bill does not extend parental orders to single people. Gentleman said, the amendments seek to change that with regard to surrogacy. It is interesting to note that surrogacy has rarely featured in the scrutiny and the debates that have taken place on the review of the Act and the Bill.
Arguments for the change to access to parental orders, which the amendments seek, have surfaced only recently. That recognises the magnitude of a situation in which a person becomes pregnant with the express intention of handing the child over to someone else, and the responsibility that that places on the people who will receive the child.
There is an argument, which the Government have acknowledged in the Bill, that such a responsibility is likely to be better handled by a couple than a single man or woman. I would say to the hon. His point was that single people are able to adopt and to receive IVF, so why can they not get a parental order over surrogacy?
The difference is this: That is different, which is why there is no parallel.
- The five attributes of enduring family businesses
- This document is available in the following Practice Areas
- Re F & M (Children) (Thai Surrogacy) (Enduring family relationship)  EWHC 1594 (Fam)
IVF involves a woman becoming pregnant herself and giving birth to her child — there is not a direct parallel. Surrogacy, however, involves agreeing to hand over a child even before conception.
The Government are still of the view that the magnitude of that means that it is best dealt with by a couple. That is why we have made the arrangements that we have.
Definition of cohabitation—overview - Lexis®PSL, practical guidance fo
I am grateful to the hon. It was pointed out to this court that, following the example anticipated in the parliamentary debate the applicants went through the process of treatment and conception by the surrogate as a couple, remained a couple and throughout the respondent's pregnancy. They have shared the parenting of the children together, as a couple, and family life has been established between the children and the applicants.
In the debate which followed on from the discussion cited in Re Z No 1 Mark Simmonds MP tried to introduce a further amendment that there should be a requirement to s. Mr Simmonds then sought leave to withdraw the amendment and Parliament agreed that it is for the court to determine the factual issue of what is an 'enduring family relationship' on the facts of each case.
The amendment would insert a provision whereby couples who fall within the category in the clause but who are not married or in a civil partnership must have been in a prior relationship, and would stipulate a minimum time period for that relationship. Members may feel that it is nit-picking, but I draw their attention to the differences between various provisions of clause Subsection 2 refers to an "enduring family relationship", but subsection 11the retrospective provision, makes no reference to it.
Is that a drafting oversight, or is there a specific reason why an enduring family relationship is not relevant for those trying to obtain retrospective parental orders under the Bill that they could not obtain under the Act?
Another point that I wish to make—I hope to catch your eye if we get to a stand part debate, Mr. Hood—is that greater clarification seems to be needed of what an enduring family relationship is.
As has been said, there is absolutely no necessity for a couple, whether same-sex or different-sex, to be in an intimate relationship to get the benefit of many of the clauses that we have discussed. I am trying to establish why there is a difference between subsections of the clause, and particularly why subsection 11 does not state that an enduring relationship is a fundamental requirement for getting a parental order. The Minister of State responded: Gentleman says as closely as I am, Mr.
Hood, as we go delicately through these important issues. Most of us were listening intently. It is very important, and I want to understand exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying, although the tone of my voice made me sound as though I did not mean it. Clause 54 relates to how parenthood may be transferred by a court order when a woman has carried a child as a surrogate on behalf of a couple who cannot have children themselves.
Under the Act, parental orders transferring parenthood can only be made for married couples. As I have mentioned, the Bill extends the provision to include civil partners and couples who are not married or in a civil partnership but who live as partners in an enduring family relationship, which is what the hon.
Gentleman's questions deal with. When the Act was introduced, it included a provision allowing married couples who had had a child through surrogacy before the Act came into force to apply retrospectively for a parental order.
The Bill mirrors that by including a similar provision for people who were not entitled to apply for a parental order before because they were not married. They must apply within six months of clause 54 coming into force. Gentleman's amendment would add that a couple applying retrospectively must have been in a relationship for a minimum of 12 months if they are not married or in a civil partnership.
Surrogacy can be a route that couples look to when they are unable to have children themselves, and I do not believe—I am sure that members of the Committee do not either—that couples would enter into it lightly.
The process of a couple deciding that they are both happy with such an arrangement is complex, and they have to find a surrogate who would be suitable to carry their child. That can take a number of years, so in most cases, the couple will have gone through the process together. In addition, when the court is considering the application, it would have to be satisfied that the couple were in an enduring family relationship for the parental order to be granted.
As part of that consideration, it is more than likely that the court will consider the length of the couple's relationship as well as their commitment to each other. The Government are prepared to continue with the arrangement whereby the family division of the High Court would take the decisions on what made for an enduring relationship that was suitable and in the best interests of the child for a parental order to be made.
There is no reference to this enduring family relationship in subsection 11to which the hon. Gentleman referred, because to make an application to the court under section 54, if the couple are not married or in a civil partnership, they must be in an enduring family relationship. Therefore, it is not necessary for it to be in the legislation in the way that the hon. I am sure that the hon.
Gentleman would agree with the principle that the family division of the High Court, with its experience, is the best place to test whether a relationship is an enduring one. That decision is better made by the courts than by Parliament seeking to put in place arbitrary time periods or definitions, however well-meaning we may want to be. The ultimate test when issuing the parental order is what is best for the child. It is clear, therefore, that parliament intended that this court is to decide whether a relationship is, or is not, an enduring family relationship.
In this case the applicants began their relationship in April when the first applicant P had already entered into a surrogacy agreement with the respondent. It is their case that their relationship was based on their shared desire and commitment to becoming parents together; but the fact that P had already entered into a surrogacy agreement and that parental orders are only available to couples raised questions, about their commitment to each other and to any children born as a result of an agreement initiated and entered into by P on his own, for the POR which were entirely understandable.
P had had a previous civil partnership from until its dissolution on 25 September and he explained to the POR during her visit to the family at home that he wanted children whilst his previous partner did not; this was something that he had in common with B. B, too, had wanted children and ended his previous relationship as his partner did not see himself as a parent. It is the evidence of the applicants that when they met in April they had discovered a shared commitment to becoming parents through surrogacy and had then fallen in love with each other.
B moved in to live with P in June and they have shared their home together since. Both applicants travelled to Thailand during the course of the respondent's pregnancy to support her and I have seen details of their joint and separate visits.
It is noteworthy that the applicants were in a relationship prior to the treatment leading to the children's conception or the creation of the embryos and that relationship then continued during the respondent's pregnancy.
When the children were born the applicants had been in a relationship for ten months and by the time they made the applications to the court for parental orders they had been together as a couple for fourteen months and living together for a year. The applicants stayed together in Thailand for three months after the birth of the children and since 22 March they have been living as a family at their home in England.
They plan to marry in August and explained to me that they have to arrange it well in advance to ensure that all the family members and friends they want to invite can travel to Scotland for the wedding.
In her report the POR assessed their relationship as follows: It was clear they had a shared knowledge of each other's background and family relationships, and I observed warmth between them. By the time of the hearing they had been in a relationship for nearly two years, had been through the treatment and conception with the respondent together and supported the respondent through pregnancy together, they have supported each other throughout her pregnancy and they have cared for F and M together as a family since the day they were born.
Parliament pointedly and specifically decided not to define an enduring family relationship in terms of its longevity as can be seen from the excerpts from Hansard above and to leave it to the High Court to test whether a couple are in an enduring family relationship.
On the facts of this case I conclude that P and B are a couple and part of a family and that theirs is an enduring family relationship. In respect of the other requirements of s54 of HFEA, the applicants have complied with s.