S (Children: Parentage and Jurisdiction), Re

S (Children: Parentage and Jurisdiction), Re

The presumption of parentage under s.42 HFEA 2008 prevails unless it is proved on the balance of probabilities that the civil partner did not consent to assisted reproduction. The judge erred by narrowing the test to 'deliberate exercise of choice' and failing to infer consent from the factual circumstances. The only proper conclusion is that it has not been shown CP did not consent; therefore, CP is to be treated as the legal parent. Jurisdiction under FLA 1986 is satisfied as the parties are parents, proceedings occurred in England and Wales, and a s.1(1)(a) order is sought; no additional factual connection is required.

Parties
Appellant: CP; Respondent: M; Intervener: Reunite
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Parentage, Jurisdiction, Assisted Reproduction, Civil Partnership, Children's Welfare
Family Law Child Law International Private Law Parentage Jurisdiction Assisted Reproduction Civil Partnership Children's Welfare

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CP

Appellant

M

Respondent

Reunite

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is CP the legal parent of the younger children under s.42 HFEA 2008?
  2. 2 Does the Family Court have jurisdiction to entertain CP’s applications under ss.2(1)(b)(i) and 2A(1) FLA 1986?

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption of parentage under s.42 HFEA 2008 prevails unless it is proved on the balance of probabilities that the civil partner did not consent to assisted reproduction. The judge erred by narrowing the test to 'deliberate exercise of choice' and failing to infer consent from the factual circumstances. The only proper conclusion is that it has not been shown CP did not consent; therefore, CP is to be treated as the legal parent. Jurisdiction under FLA 1986 is satisfied as the parties are parents, proceedings occurred in England and Wales, and a s.1(1)(a) order is sought; no additional factual connection is required.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that CP is to be treated as the legal parent of the younger children
  • Registrar General to be notified