The parties were unmarried but entered into IVF treatment together. They separated, but the mother continued with treatment, not telling the IVF center of the breakdown of the first relationship, and nor of her new relationship until after the successful insemination. The father sought a declaration of paternity.
Held: The court had jurisdiction under the Act: ‘that treatment services were originally provided to the parties together. No one in this case really sought strenuously to argue to the contrary.’ The court emphasised the need for clarity and certainty on an issue which might attain practical importance only after the lapse of many years. If a male partner changed his mind about treatment services he could withdraw his acknowledgment, and a clinic, if informed of a change of circumstances, should reconsider the position. But in the absence of the partner expressly withdrawing his acknowledgment or a review by the clinic: ‘then in my judgment the original course of treatment continues as treatment services provided to both of them together and, if a child is conceived in the course of that, the man will be the father. This approach affords clarity, simplicity and certainty.’
 2 FLR 843
England and Wales
Appeal from – In re R (Parental responsibility: IVF baby) CA 19-Feb-2003
The mother and father of the child were not married, but had consented to the terms of their infertility treatment. The father donated his sperm, but the mother was only inseminated after they had separated. The mother appealed a declaration of . .
Appeal from (second level) – In Re R (Parental responsibility: IVF baby); D (A Child), Re HL 12-May-2005
The parents had received IVF treatment together, but had separated before the child was born. The mother resisted an application by the father for a declaration of paternity.
Held: The father’s appeal failed. The Act made statutory provision . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.224871