K (Declaration of Parentage: Absence of Written Consent), Re

Where fertility treatment is provided by a licensed clinic, statutory legal parenthood may be established by written and signed consent contained in alternative clinic documents, provided that the documents, read in their factual context, demonstrate informed consent to legal parenthood.

Earlier signed WP and PP forms may remain effective for later treatment cycles where the legislation imposes no time limit and the evidence shows that the parties’ continuing intention was unchanged. The court may therefore make a declaration of parentage under Family Law Act 1986 where the statutory jurisdictional and welfare requirements are met.

S applied for a declaration that she was the legal parent of K, who had been born to T following donor-sperm intrauterine insemination at a licensed fertility clinic. S and T were partners and had completed the relevant HFEA WP and PP forms for an earlier treatment cycle, but no such forms were found for the cycle resulting in K’s birth.

The application was unopposed and was determined on the papers. The issue was whether internal clinic forms, together with the earlier WP and PP forms and the surrounding evidence, satisfied the legal parenthood requirements of sections 43 and 44 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.

1. The court made a declaration under section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986 that S was K’s legal parent pursuant to section 43 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.
2. The statutory conditions were met apart from the apparent absence of the WP and PP forms for the second treatment cycle. T was K’s mother under section 33, no man was treated as his father, the treatment was provided in the United Kingdom by a licensed clinic, and S was alive when treatment occurred.
3. The internal clinic documents were in writing, had been signed before treatment, identified S and T as partners, and demonstrated their informed and continuing intention that they should both be K’s legal parents. They therefore satisfied the statutory requirements in sections 43(b) and 44.
4. The WP and PP forms completed for the first treatment cycle also remained valid for the second cycle. They had been signed before treatment and there was no statutory time limit rendering them ineffective. The surrounding evidence confirmed that the parties’ intention remained unchanged.
5. The court had jurisdiction because both applicants had been habitually resident in England and Wales for the required period. The application fell within the exception in section 55A(4), so no separate sufficient-personal-interest assessment was required. The declaration was not manifestly contrary to public policy under section 58(1).