Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles

FACT-FINDING HEARING: A Council v M and Others (No 1: Fact Finding) [2012] EWHC 4241 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:05 PM
Slug : fact-finding-hearing-a-council-v-m-and-others-no-1-fact-finding-2012-ewhc-4241-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 1, 2013, 02:54 AM
Article ID : 102349

(Family Division, Peter Jackson J, 8 March 2012)

The local authority applied for care orders in respect of four children who at the time of the application were aged 17, 16, 7 and one. The youngest child was the son of the eldest child, who was now 18, and therefore no orders in respect of her were now sought.

The oldest two children were adopted from abroad by both parents and the 7-year-old was adopted by the mother from a different country after the parents separated. Following the separation the mother excluded the father from the children's lives and moved without informing the father of their new address.

The mother raised the children in isolation from wider family and friends. They were educated at home and had no contact with the mother or father's family. Referrals were made to social services on several occasions due to the mother's treatment of the children and their isolation.

The mother sought to adopt a fourth child but was unable to do so. The oldest child, then aged 13, claimed she was asked by the mother to become pregnant by artificial insemination with semen purchased over the internet. Seven consignments of semen were purchased over the following 2 years and the girl suffered a miscarriage at 14. At 16 she gave birth to a son and hospital staff made a referral to social services as well as the police after she revealed what had happened to her to a trusted neighbour. All of the children were placed in foster care.

During proceedings DNA testing confirmed that the baby was conceived using anonymous donor sperm. A fact-finding hearing was convened to determine the allegations made against the mother.

The evidence of the oldest child was preferred to that of the mother which was inconsistent and unreliable. The judge found that the child became pregnant as a result of duress following an AI programme planned when she was just 13 and culminating in her pregnancy aged 16. The child inseminated herself in her bedroom on seven occasions and when the mother was clear she wanted a girl she made the child engage in painful practices to increase her chances of conceiving a girl.

The threshold had plainly been crossed. 


Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from