header-logo header-logo

Biological fathers seek contact

07 February 2013
Issue: 7547 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Groundbreaking case for men who father children with lesbian couples

Men who father children with a lesbian couple in a civil partnership can apply for contact rights, the High Court has held.

Since 2008, the biological father has had no legal status where the biological mother is in a civil partnership at the time of conception. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 put civil partners on an equal footing with married couples, giving the civil partner automatic parental rights.

In the first case of its kind last week, however, Mr Justice Baker dismissed arguments that a biological father should be refused permission to apply for an order for contact.

The case, Re G and Re Z [2013] EWHC 134 (Fam), involved a gay couple in a civil partnership and two lesbian couples in civil partnerships. They were all good friends and agreed to have children together. One of the men was the biological father of two children belonging to one lesbian couple, while his partner was the biological father of the child of the other lesbian couple.

The men claimed they had regular contact with the children until their friendship with the mothers broke down, although the extent of this contact was disputed. No formal or written agreement was ever made.

Delivering his judgment, Baker J said the fact the mothers in both cases chose friends to be known fathers was a relevant factor.

Mark Harper, partner at Withers, who acted pro bono for the father in Re G, said: “These cases recognise the importance of the biological link children have with their fathers.

“Despite fathers in these situations not being recognised as parents as a matter of law, if the facts justify it, they can apply to the court for their children to have contact with them. Any men or lesbian couples in these situations need a clear understanding of the complexity of the law and should enter into agreements before starting out on having a child.

“The judgment confirms that if a lesbian couple do not want their children to have a relationship with the father then it is best to seek IVF from a licensed clinic to have anonymous sperm donation, rather than a known father.”

Issue: 7547 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll