Case L (Human Fertilisation And Embryology Act 2008)

Where statutory consent requirements for legal parenthood following assisted reproduction have not been satisfied, the court should generally declare the resulting legal position, even where the parties intended a different arrangement and the birth register is inaccurate. The child’s interests ordinarily favour ascertainment of the truth about parentage and legal clarity. Where a declaration of non-parentage conflicts with the birth registration, the appropriate route is ordinarily declaration under Family Law Act 1986 section 55A, followed by re-registration under section 14A of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953. Correction under section 29(3) is inappropriate where it would leave the original parental details visible and qualified only by a marginal note.

X and Y were former partners who jointly undertook fertility treatment using donor sperm. X gave birth to C2. Both women intended Y to be C2’s legal parent and believed that the necessary forms had been completed. The clinic later discovered that no Form PP signed by Y could be found, and there was no other evidence satisfying the statutory consent requirements.

Y’s details appeared as a parent on C2’s birth certificate. The parties later agreed that neither should be the legal parent of the other’s biological child and Y did not oppose X’s application. The central issues were whether Y was legally C2’s parent and, if not, whether the birth registration should be corrected under section 29(3) or re-registered following a declaration under section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986.

1. Legal parentage. Y had never given written consent in the form required by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. In particular, no Form PP had been signed. Applying the principles previously set out in In re A [2015] EWHC 2602 (Fam), X was therefore entitled to a declaration that Y was not C2’s parent.
2. Child’s interests and truth. The child’s interests were best served by clarity and ascertainment of the truth about parentage. Leaving Y named on the birth certificate, when she was not legally C2’s parent, would create ambiguity and possible future confusion. The declaration concerned legal parentage and did not negate the continuing parent-child relationship in practical or emotional terms.
3. Registration remedy. Section 29(3) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 was not the appropriate route. It would leave the original register and birth certificate intact, including Y’s details, while adding only a marginal note. The proper route was a declaration under section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986, triggering re-registration under section 14A of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953.
4. Party status and final order. Where a child’s parentage is challenged, the child must be joined and represented. A declaration of non-parentage was made in the terms sought. The clinic agreed to pay the costs.

First-instance decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.