The parties had lived together as a married couple. They had had a child together by artificial insemination. It was then revealed that Mr J was a woman. The parties split up, and Mr J applied for an order for contact with the child.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The HFEA Act required that to acquire parenthood of a child conceived by IVF treatment the party claiming should be married to the mother. That required a valid marriage which was not present in this case, and the applicant was not the father.
Section 9 of the 2004 Act ‘does not rewrite history’, the issue of a full GRC in the male gender to a person who was previously female did not retrospectively validate his prior marriage to another female (at a time when the law did not provide for same sex marriages), with the result that he did not become the father of a child born to the other female as a result of artificial insemination by donor (as would otherwise have been the case under section 27 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987, which provided that the husband of a woman who gives birth as a result of AID was to be treated for all purposes as the father of the child).
Thorpe LJ, Wall LJ, Richards LJ
 EWCA Civ 551, Times 01-Jun-2006,  Fam 1,  3 WLR 876
Family Law Reform Act 1987, Gender Recognition Act 2004, Children Act 1989 8, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 11( c)
England and Wales
See Also – S v S-T (Formerly J) CA 25-Nov-1996
The parties had gone through a form of marriage, but the purported husband was many years later revealed to be a female to male transsexual. The marriage had been annulled. There was now an application for ancillary relief.
Held: Ancillary . .
Cited – Corbett v Corbett (otherwise Ashley) FD 1-Feb-1970
There had been a purported marriage in 1963 between a man and a male to female trans-sexual.
Held: Because marriage is essentially a union between a man and a woman, the relationship depended on sex, and not on gender. The law should adopt the . .
Cited – C, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 1-Nov-2017
This case is about how the Department for Work and Pensions (the DWP), in administering our complex welfare benefits system, treats people with a reassigned gender, and specifically whether certain policies conflict (1) with the Gender Recognition . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 March 2021; Ref: scu.241681