Re B (Parentage): FD 1996

A mother applied for financial provision for her twin children under 1989 Act Sch 1. The father asked whether he was their parent within the Schedule. They had been born by artificial insemination. He accepted that he was the donor of the sperm and the biological father, but said that whilst he willingly donated the sperm, by the time the insemination took place he had parted from the mother and was at that stage not asked to consent to the actual insemination.
Held: The court considered the effect of the provisions of paragraph the 1990 Act with regard to ‘receiving treatment services together.’ On the facts the ‘father’ had gone to the hospital for the beginning of the procedure together with the mother and it was part of a plan in which they were both willing and anxious to produce a child with the father’s sperm. Although the father’s relationship with the mother had ended by the time the actual insemination was carried out, he was a willing consenting party to the treatment which they had commenced together when the sperm sample was taken and he had not subsequently withdrawn his deemed consent. The exception to the requirement for written consent applied.

Judges:

Bracewell J

Citations:

[1996] 2 FLR 15

Statutes:

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 Sch3 5(3), Children Act 1989 Sch 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAHE Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v A and Others (By Their Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor), The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority B, B QBD 26-Feb-2003
An IVF treatment centre used sperm from one couple to fertilise eggs from another. This was discovered, and the unwilling donors sought a paternity declaration.
Held: Section 28 did not confer paternity. The mistake vitiated whatever consents . .
CitedRegina v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority ex parte DB Admn 17-Oct-1996
Sperm which had been taken from a dying and unconscious man may not be used for the later insemination of his surviving wife. The Act required his written consent.
Held: Community Law does not assist the Applicant. The question had been . .
CitedIn 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.

Children, Health, Child Support

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.182940