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
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
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....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
View all articles
Authors

PATERNITY: Re R (IVF: Paternity of Child) [2005] UKHL 33

Sep 29, 2018, 17:21 PM
Slug : re-r-ivf-paternity-of-child-2005-ukhl-33
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 12, 2005, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86081

(12 May 2005; Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe; House of Lords) [2005] 2 FLR 843, [2005] The Times May 12

The mother and her unmarried male partner sought fertility treatment involving donor sperm and the man signed a 'male partner's acknowledgement', acknowledging that he intended to become the legal father of any resulting child. By the time the treatment had resulted in a pregnancy, the couple had separated, although the mother had concealed this from the fertility centre in order to continue with the treatment. When the child was born, the man obtained a declaration of paternity, but the Court of Appeal allowed the mother's appeal. Adopting the reasoning and conclusions of the Court of Appeal, the House of Lords held that in conferring the relationship of parent and child on people who were related neither by blood nor marriage the rules must be applied very strictly. If, as in this case, the 'joint enterprise' of fertility treatment had ended by the time the successful treatment had begun, because by that stage the consenting couple had separated, the man was not the legal father of the resulting child.

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