The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (Case M)
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judge | Sir James Munby |
Judgment Date | 30 June 2016 |
Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 1572 (Fam) |
Date | 30 June 2016 |
Court | Family Division |
Docket Number | Case number omitted |
[2016] EWHC 1572 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Sir James Munby PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION
Case number omitted
Miss Deirdre Fottrell QC (instructed by Goodman Ray) for the applicant
Ms Rose Grogan (instructed by Weightmans) for Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust
Hearing date: 22 June 2016
Sir James Munby PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION
This judgment was handed down in open court
Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division:
In In re A and others (Legal Parenthood: Written Consents) [2015] EWHC 2602 (Fam), [2016] 1 WLR 1325, and then again in Re the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 ( CaseG) [2016] EWHC 729 (Fam), Re the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 ( CaseI) [2016] EWHC 791 (Fam), Re the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 ( CaseN) [2016] EWHC 1329 (Fam) and Re the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 ( CaseJ) [2016] EWHC 1330 (Fam), I have had to consider a number of cases which raised issues very similar to those which confront me here.
Background
In my judgment in In re A, I set out (paras 6–8) the lamentable background to all this litigation. I referred to the significant number of cases in which the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority ("the HFEA") had identified "anomalies". I have now given final judgment in eleven cases (Cases A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J and N). This is Case M. Three further cases (Cases K, L and O) are currently awaiting final hearing. There are at least five others (Cases P, Q, R, S and T) pending. There are probably others, for the HFEA has identified no fewer than 90 cases where there are "anomalies".
There is no need for me to rehearse again the statutory framework and the legal principles which I dealt with in my judgment in In re A. None of it was challenged before me in any of the other cases. None of it has been challenged before me in this case. I shall therefore take as read, and apply here, my analyses of the statutory scheme under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 ( In re A, paras 14–25), of the various consent forms which are in use ( In re A, paras 26–31), of the previous authorities ( In re A, paras 32–43) and of the three general issues of principle which I addressed ( In re A, paras 44–63).
The facts
For the reasons which I explained in In re A, para 66, I propose to be extremely sparing in what I say of the facts and the evidence in this case.
The applicant, who I will refer to as X, is a man who was at all material times in a relationship with the first respondent, a woman who I will refer to as Y. Following IUI treatment provided by a clinic at Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust, which is and was regulated by the HFEA, Y gave birth to their child. X seeks a declaration pursuant to section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986 that he is, in accordance with section 36 of the 2008 Act, the legal parent of the child. Although they have recently separated, Y is wholeheartedly supportive of X's application.
The clinic, the HFEA, the Secretary of State for Health and the Attorney General have all been notified of the proceedings. With the exception of the clinic, which has been joined, none has sought either to be joined or to attend the hearing. The clinic's position, entirely supportive of X's application, is set out in various witness statements and in the position statement prepared by Ms Rose Grogan, who appeared before me on its behalf. Although in some of the previous cases I have dealt with there has been a report of the child's guardian, I decided that in this case, given the nature of the issues (see below) and given that the principles are now well established, there was no need either to join the child or to appoint a guardian.
As always, I have been greatly assisted in my task by the submissions I have had, both written and oral, from Miss Deirdre Fottrell QC, who appeared for X.
I had written evidence from X and Y. X was present throughout the hearing, which took place on 22 June 2016. Y was at home looking after their children. Neither was required, and neither asked, to give oral evidence.
Just as in each of the cases I had to consider in In re A and in CaseG, CaseI, CaseJ and CaseN so in this case, having regard to the evidence before me I find as a fact that:
i) The treatment which led to the birth of the child was embarked upon and carried through jointly and with full knowledge by both the woman (that is, Y) and her partner (X).
ii) From the outset of that treatment, it was the intention of both Y and X that X would be a legal parent of the child. Each was aware that this was a matter which, legally, required the signing by each of them of consent forms. Each of them believed that they had signed the relevant forms as legally required and, more generally, had done whatever was needed to ensure that they would both be parents.
iii) From the moment when the pregnancy was confirmed, both Y and X believed that X was the other parent of the child. That remained their belief when the child was born.
iv) Y and X, believing that they were entitled to, and acting in complete good faith, registered the birth of their child, as they believed the child to be, showing both of them on the birth certificates as the child's parents, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Re L (A Child) (Non-parentage)
...and Embryology Act 2008 ( CaseJ) [2016] EWHC 1330 (Fam), and Re the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 ( CaseM) [2016] EWHC 1572 (Fam). Other judges have also dealt with similar cases: see the judgments of Pauffley J in F v M and the Herts and Essex Fertility Centre [2015] EWHC 3......
-
Re O (Human Fertilisation)
...Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 ( CaseJ) [2016] EWHC 1330 (Fam), Re the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 ( CaseM) [2016] EWHC 1572 (Fam), and Re the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 ( CaseL) [2016] EWHC 2266(Fam). Other judges have also dealt with similar case......
-
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (cases AD, AE, AF, AG and AH) (No 2)
...Re HFEA 2008 (Case N) [2016] EWHC 1329 (Fam) 8.6.2016 Re HFEA 2008 (Case J) [2016] EWHC 1330 (Fam) 30.6.2016 Re HFEA 2008 (Case M) [2016] EWHC 1572 (Fam) 12.9.2016 Re HFEA 2008 (Case L) [2016] EWHC 2266 (Fam) 13.9.2016 Re HFEA 2008 (Case O) [2016] EWHC 2273 (Fam) 30.9.2016 Re HFEA 2008 (Cas......
-
B v B and Another
...to which s.37(1) applies. This issue, which arose before Cobb J and Theis J, was resolved by the President in In the matter of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 ( CasesA, B, C, D, E, F, G and H) [2015] EWHC 2602 (Fam). I respectfully agree with his conclusions, summarised at ......