AL, Re (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008)

A composite clinic consent form may satisfy the statutory requirements for legal parenthood where it records the partner’s consent to treatment and understanding that he will become the legal parent. A separate Form WP is not indispensable where the statutory requirements are otherwise met. A Form PP alone is insufficient in the absence of Form WP. The fact that the consent form was executed before the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 came into force does not prevent it satisfying section 37.

The applicant sought a declaration under section 55 of the Family Law Act 1986 that he was the legal parent of a child born following assisted reproduction treatment undertaken jointly with the child’s mother.

No Form WP could be found, and the applicant proceeded on the basis that none had been completed. A Form PP had been completed, but was insufficient by itself. The applicant relied on an internal composite consent form, signed before the 2008 Act came into force, which recorded his consent to the treatment and his understanding that he would become the legal parent. The issue was whether that form satisfied the statutory requirements.

1. Declaration granted. The court declared that the applicant was the legal parent of the child in accordance with sections 36 and 37 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.
2. The evidence established that the treatment had been undertaken jointly and with full knowledge, that both parties intended the applicant to be a legal parent, and that they believed they had completed the necessary paperwork. The consent was fully informed, and there was no failure by the clinic in providing information or counselling.
3. In the absence of a Form WP, the existence of a Form PP was insufficient. The irregularities in the Form PP therefore did not need to be examined further.
4. The court accepted that a composite internal consent form can satisfy section 37 where it contains an appropriate partner’s consent and is signed by the relevant person. The form in this case recorded the applicant’s consent to the treatment and his understanding that he would become the legal parent. It therefore met the statutory requirements. This conclusion applied the reasoning in In re A and others (Legal Parenthood: Written Consents) [2015] EWHC 2602 (Fam), para 63(iii).
5. The fact that the form had been executed before the 2008 Act came into force was immaterial. The court applied the approach in Re Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (Case I) [2016] EWHC 791 (Fam), paras 16–19.
6. The clinic agreed to pay the applicant’s reasonable costs.