U v W (Attorney-General Intervening): FD 4 Mar 1997

The restriction on the freedom to provide human fertility treatment to licensees of the Authority was not a breach of the EU treaty. There is a particular need for certainty in provisions affecting the status of a child. There is a mental element inherent in the notion of ‘treatment together’ and if the respondent had believed at all material times that the treatment which was being provided in which his sperm alone was to be used, the treatment of the applicant with donor sperm would not have amounted to services provided for them together. The test is not whether the man consented either to be deemed in law to be the father of the prospective child or to become legally responsible for him. The subsection concentrates on what would be expected of unmarried couples in a stable relationship who are seeking to bring a child into being jointly as their child. The test which it adopts is whether the relevant treatment services were provided for the woman and the man together. ‘In my view what has to be demonstrated is that, in the provision of treatment services with donor sperm, the doctor was responding to a request for that form of treatment made by the woman and the man as a couple, notwithstanding the absence in the man of any physical role in such treatment.’

Wilson J
Gazette 19-Mar-1997, Times 04-Mar-1997, [1998] Fam 29, [1997] 2 FLR 282
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 28(3), Children Act 1989
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedIn 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 . .
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 . .
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.

Health, Health Professions, European

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.90038