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

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