header-logo header-logo

13 November 2015 / Kirstie Gibson
Issue: 7676 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Fertile ground

nlj_7676_gibson

Kirstie Gibson considers the court’s approach to the acquisition of parenthood

The recent decision of the President of the Family Division in Re Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (Cases A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H) [2015] EWHC 2602 (Fam), [2015] All ER (D) 57 (Sep) highlights the serious repercussions of non-compliance with the requirements for obtaining consent to parenthood and provides a useful reminder of the steps that fertility clinics must take.

The applicants were parents of children conceived following fertility treatment at various clinics. Each applicant had, at the time of the birth of their child, understood that they were the parent of their child. They thought they had complied with the legal requirements to acquire parenthood. Unfortunately due to the administrative incompetence of the clinics, that was not the case.

Re Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (Cases A–H) raised questions as to the extent of the regulatory powers of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) in allowing such administrative incompetence to exist in relation to, what Munby P

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll