Human Fertilisation And Embryology Act 2008 (Case AM), Re

Where prospective parents jointly undertake fertility treatment intending both to become legal parents, a statutory consent requirement may be satisfied by a signature on the relevant page of the consent form. An unsigned declaration elsewhere on the form is immaterial where the required consent box has been ticked and the page has been signed. A page dealing with other elements of the treatment process does not affect consent to parenthood. Once legal parenthood is established, the court may make a parental responsibility order under section 4 of the Children Act 1989 to remedy the practical consequences of an erroneous birth registration.

X sought a declaration under section 55 of the Family Law Act 1986 that she was the legal parent of twins born following treatment undertaken jointly with Y. X and Y were not married or civil partners at the relevant time. The Form WP was correctly completed. In the Form PP, the consent box was ticked and the second page was signed by X, but the declaration in section 5 was unsigned. X also sought parental responsibility orders because she had not been recorded as a parent on the children’s birth certificates. Y supported the application.

1. Declaration of parentage. The application was straightforward and raised no new point of principle. The evidence established that X and Y jointly undertook the treatment, intended X to be a legal parent, believed that the necessary forms had been properly completed, and gave fully informed consent.

2. The error in the Form PP did not invalidate the consent. The consent box in section 3 had been ticked, and X’s signature at the foot of the second page was sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement. The absence of a signature on the declaration in section 5 was irrelevant. The court applied the approach in Re the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (Cases P, Q, R, S, T, U, W and X) [2016] EWHC 2273 (Fam), Re the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (Cases Y, Z, AA, AB and AC) [2017] EWHC 784 (Fam), and Re the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (Cases AD, AE, AF, AG and AH) [2017] EWHC 1026 (Fam).

3. The third page of Form PP concerned consent to other elements of the treatment process. Its completion or non-completion was therefore immaterial to consent to parenthood.

4. X was accordingly declared to be the legal parent of both children. Because the Registrar had erroneously registered only Y, X lacked parental responsibility despite being a legal parent. The court therefore made parental responsibility orders under section 4 of the Children Act 1989, with Y’s agreement.

5. The clinic agreed to pay X’s reasonable costs.

First-instance decision. No appeal or earlier procedural decision is stated in the judgment.