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
Authors

Parental order time limits: policy – what policy?

Sep 29, 2018, 20:12 PM
parental orders, time limits, adoption, surrogacy, family law
n this article, Elizabeth Isaacs QC and Matthew Maynard, leading and junior counsel for the child in Re X and Tracy Lakin and Dympna Howells, who acted for the parents, examine the way in which Parliament considered some of the policy issues surrounding the introduction of the six month time limit and how the court approached this issue in Re X.
Slug : parental-order-time-limits-policy-what-policy
Meta Title : Parental order time limits: policy – what policy?
Meta Keywords : parental orders, time limits, adoption, surrogacy, family law
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 15, 2014, 03:54 AM
Article ID : 107989
ELIZABETH ISAACS QC, MATTHEW MAYNARD, TRACY LAKIN and DYMPNA HOWELLS, St Ives Chambers, Birmingham

The law in relation to surrogacy has been continually developing since the introduction of the Surrogacy Arrangements Act in 1985. Since the inception of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act in 1990 it has always been understood that any application for a parental order, which extinguishes parental responsibility of surrogate parents and transfers it to commissioning parents, must be made within the first six months of a child’s life. The same legal provision was transposed to s 54(3) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA 2008). However, in the recent decision of Re X (A Child) (Surrogacy: Time limit) EWHC 3135 (Fam) the President of the Family Division concluded that s 54(3) HFEA 2008 does not have the effect of preventing the court making an order merely because the application is made after the expiration of the six month period.

In this article, Elizabeth Isaacs QC and Matthew Maynard, leading and junior counsel for the child in Re X and Tracy Lakin and Dympna Howells, who acted for the parents, examine the way in which Parliament considered some of the policy issues surrounding the introduction of the six month time limit and how the court approached this issue in Re X.

The full version of this article appears in the December 2014 issue of Family Law.

Online subscribers can access the article here.

For details on how you can subscribe to Family Law or for any offers, please contact a member of our sales team: Tel 0117 918 1555, or email:sales.manager@jordanpublishing.co.uk
Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
Family_Law
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from