J v C & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 551 (15 May 2006)

J v C & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 551 (15 May 2006)

Mr. J is not, and never was, E's parent within the meaning of the Children Act 1989 or the Family Law Reform Act 1987, because at the time of artificial insemination he was legally female and thus could not be 'the other party to the marriage' as required by the statute. The statutory framework requires the parties to be respectively male and female for parentage to be attributed in cases of artificial insemination. Gender recognition obtained subsequently does not retrospectively alter this legal status. The appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 551
Parties
Appellant: J; 1st Respondent: C; 2nd Respondent: E (A child)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court (family Division) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Parentage, Artificial Insemination by Donor (aid), Void Marriage, Gender Recognition, Children Act 1989, Family Law Reform Act 1987, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, European Convention on Human Rights
Family Law Human Rights Law Parentage Artificial Insemination by Donor (aid) Void Marriage Gender Recognition Children Act 1989 Family Law Reform Act 1987 +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J

Appellant

C

1st Respondent

E (A child)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court (family Division) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr. J is a 'parent' of E within the meaning of s 10(4)(a) of the Children Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether Mr. J requires leave to apply for orders under s 8 of the Children Act 1989
  3. 3 Whether the Family Law Reform Act 1987 or the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 applies to the determination of parentage in this case

Ratio Decidendi

Mr. J is not, and never was, E's parent within the meaning of the Children Act 1989 or the Family Law Reform Act 1987, because at the time of artificial insemination he was legally female and thus could not be 'the other party to the marriage' as required by the statute. The statutory framework requires the parties to be respectively male and female for parentage to be attributed in cases of artificial insemination. Gender recognition obtained subsequently does not retrospectively alter this legal status. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that Mr. J is not a 'parent' of E within the meaning of s 10(4)(a) of the Children Act 1989 is upheld
  • Mr. J requires leave to apply for orders under s 8 of the Children Act 1989 in relation to E