Family Law Hub

A v P [2011] EWHC 1738 (Fam)

Judgment, published: 26/08/2011

Items referring to this

  • An unmarried couple had sought assistance from a fertility clinic which resulted in a child being born using donor sperm. Following an audit by the clinic, it was revealed that the necessary consent by the 'father' relating to parenthood prior to treatment (as required by s.37 HFEA 2008) was not on the file. He applied to the court for a declaration that he was indeed the father of the child. The declaration was granted, the judge saying that it was more likely than not that the father had signed the relevant form and it had subsequently been mislaid by the clinic. Judgment, 16/02/2015, free
  • In this surrogacy case, the commissioning parents were applying for a parental order in relation to two girls where the application had been made 17 months after the 6 month deadline had expired. The parental orders were made. Judgment, 22/07/2015, free
  • Surrogacy case where the same sex couple was seeking a PR order after the 6 month time limit following the birth of the children had passed and where the Indian surrogate mother could not be located (there was also uncertainty about her marital status). The PR order was made. Judgment, 16/02/2015, free
  • Despite the concerns raised (including reservations by Cafcass about the relationship of the applicants and whether it was, in fact, an enduring family relationship as required by s 54(2)(c) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 and concerns by the court about the status and legality of the agreement entered into in Thailand) the court made parental orders in respect of both children. Judgment, 19/07/2016, free
  • Parental order was made where the child was born in India as a result of a surrogacy arrangement. The parents had made an application for a Child Settlement Visa which was refused as there was insufficient evidence that the applicants were the child's parents. It was acknowledged that the father was the child's biological father and that he has indefinite leave to remain in the UK but, for the purposes of rule 297 of the Immigration Rules, the child's father was the husband of the surrogate. Judgment, 20/06/2016, free
  • Judgment, 26/08/2012, free
  • Parental order was granted to a married couple where the marriage was platonic. The President confirmed that a sexual relationship is not necessary for there to be a valid marriage. Judgment, 14/03/2018, free
  • Judgment from The President concerning surrogacy, parental orders, the six month time limit for application from the child's date of birth and whether the court has jurisdiction to make such an order if the application is made after the expiration of 6 months. He concludes it does. Judgment, 03/10/2014, free
  • Judgment from The President concerning surrogacy, parental orders, the six month time limit for application from the child's date of birth and whether the court has jurisdiction to make such an order if the application is made after the expiration of 6 months. Case note, 20/11/2014, members only
  • When section 54(1) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 provides that in certain circumstances the court may make a parental order on the application of "two people", is it open to the court to make such an order on the application of one person? Can section 54(1) be 'read down' in accordance with section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 so as to enable that to be done? These were the questions raised for decision here and in Munby P's judgment the answer to each question was clear: No Judgment, 08/09/2015, free

Published: 26/08/2011

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