Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

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