Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
View all articles

HFEA 2008: Re G; Re Z [2013] EWHC 134 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:41 PM
Slug : hfea-2008-re-g-re-z-2013-ewhc-134-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 6, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 101581

(Family Division, Baker J, 31 January 2013)

The two men were the biological fathers of children conceived using their sperm and born to women in civil partnership. They applied for leave to apply under s 10 of the Children Act 1989 for orders under s 8 as by virtue of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 they were not the legal fathers of the children.

In both cases the mothers claimed the arrangements from the outset were that they would be the day-to-day carers of the children and the men would not have a father-type role. The fathers claimed the opposite and that the intention was for them to have a meaningful paternal relationship with the children but had not been aware of the consequences of the HFEA 2008.

 The reforms passed by the HFEA 2008 and the policy underpinning those reforms were material considerations for the court. It was now acknowledged that alternative family forms without fathers were sufficient to meet a child's need.

 In each case it was arguable that the relationship between father and child had been allowed to develop through contact and involvement in preparations for the birth and that relationship was in some way linked to the biological relationship. Those were matters that would need to be determined by a fact-finding hearing. The potential importance of genetic and psychological parenthood was not automatically extinguished by the removal of status of legal parenthood. Social and psychological parenthood could and often did exist alongside legal parenthood.

 The most important factor was the connection each father was allowed to develop with the child. Leave would be granted for each father to apply for contact however, the application in respect of one of the fathers to apply for a residence order was refused. 


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