Family Law Hub

A v R & Anor (Declaration of Parentage) [2017] EWHC 396 (Fam)

Declaration of parentage made where the wrong forms were signed after the couple's child was born following fertility treatment.

  • Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 396 (Fam)

    Case Number : MA16P02058

    IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LIVERPOOL

    Liverpool Civil and Family Court Hearing Centre

    35 Vernon Street

    Liverpool

    Merseyside

    L2 2BX

    Date: 25th January 2017

    BEFORE:

    MR JUSTICE PETER JACKSON

    BETWEEN:

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    A (Applicant)

    - and –

    R

    Central Manchester University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (Respondents)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Transcribed from the official tape recording by

    MENDIP MEDIA GROUP

    Rockeagle House, Pynes Hill, Exeter, Devon, EX2 5AZ

    Telephone : 01392 213958 Fax : 01392 215643

    Email: ttp@mendipmediagroup.com

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Mr Owen-Casey for the Applicant

    The Respondent in person

    Mr Andrew Powell for the Central Manchester University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Judgment approved by the court

    MR JUSTICE PETER JACKSON:

    1. This is an application, in effect, made by a couple, although formally one of them is the applicant and the other the first respondent, for a Declaration of Parentage under Section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986 in respect of a little girl who is now five years old.

    2. I will not identify the child or her parents but simply say that in 2009 the couple received fertility treatment at the Department of Reproductive Medicine in St Mary’s Hospital which is under the responsibility of the Central Manchester University Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, that as a result, the child, who is clearly very much loved by both her parents, was born to the first respondent who is, in law, her mother.

    3. As part of the procedures, a number of forms were signed, which it was undoubtedly intended, should establish the applicant as the intended child’s other parent. It is only because of a mere paperwork error, for which the clinic itself was responsible, that that legal consequence did not result.

    4. In order to achieve what the parents and the clinic had always intended, consent forms would be signed by each of the parents. The form to be signed by the birth mother, being the WP form, and the form to be signed by the other parent, being the PP form. In this case, it appears that both parents signed copies of the PP form and no copy of a WP form has been found.

    5. This, of course, is one of a distressing series of cases, the majority of which have been heard by the President of the Family Division, beginning with the decision in A & Others (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008) [2015] EWHC 2602 (Fam). Since that decision, there have been a number of further decisions by the President and by other judges of the division, including myself.

    6. These cases were unearthed as a result of a nationwide audit of clinics which took place following the identification of errors in earlier cases. This particular clinic unfortunately identified this case and two others as having paperwork errors of this sort. I note, with some concern, that it took as long as 20 months from the beginning of the audit to the moment at which the parents in this case were informed of the difficulties, but from that point onwards, matters have moved more quickly, until the point today when the matter is able to be put to rights.

    7. I have read detailed statements from the responsible clinicians, namely the Consultant Embryologist and the Consultant Gynaecologist in which they not only set out the results of the audit in so far as it affects this family, but also express what is obviously a sincere apology to the family for the confusion and distress that has inevitably been caused. It is not helped that in this case the young child has a number of special characteristics which also place special responsibilities on the parents.

    8. In the end, I have not the slightest hesitation in granting the Declaration of Parentage that is sought, so that both the applicant and the first respondent are fully recognised in law for what they already are, namely the parents of this young child. Indeed, I have deliberately referred to them both as the parents throughout this short judgment because that is not only what they are, but what they have always been.

    9. I record that Mr Powell, on behalf of the NHS Trust, has repeated today in court the Trust’s apology, and agreed that any reasonable costs that have been incurred in the bringing of this application will be reimbursed by the Trust.

    10. That concludes these proceedings and I wish the child and her parents all the very best for the future.


Judgment, published: 02/03/2017

Topics


Published: 02/03/2017

Copyright 

Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.

Disclaimer

The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item