Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
On balance of probabilities, M1 and F had sexual intercourse at relevant times and conceived RF, AF, and FA naturally. M2 failed to prove conception by artificial insemination. F is the legal parent of all three children; M2 is not the legal parent of FA.
Source excerpt
The court found on the balance of probabilities that P and F had sexual intercourse during the conception window and that Q did not consent to NI. The method of conception (AI or NI) could not be determined with certainty. Therefore, the statutory presumption of Q’s parenthood under s.42 HFEA 2008 was rebutted, and the common law position applies: F is X’s legal parent and Q is not.
Source excerpt
P v Q & Ors [2024] EWFC 85 (B) (19 April 2024)
The Family Court held that a child’s legal parentage turned on disputed conception facts, found natural insemination had occurred, and declared the biological father the legal parent, not the wife.
AY & Anor v ZX [2023] EWFC 39 (29 March 2023)
The Family Court held that a parental order can be made under s.54 HFEA 2008 even where surrogacy conception occurred by home insemination in a private arrangement.
The Family Court held that a parental order could be made despite conception by home insemination in a private surrogacy arrangement, because s.54 HFEA 2008 contains no licensed-clinic requirement.
A, B and Bourn Hall Clinic [2021] EWHC 1750 (Fam) (25 March 2021)
The High Court granted a declaration of parentage after finding missing fertility-clinic consent forms were likely signed before treatment and later mislaid.
The Family Court refused a biological father’s bid for direct contact, prioritising the child’s stability and welfare, and made a section 91(14) restriction.
X (A Child : child arrangements order) [2020] EWFC 49 (16 July 2020)
The Family Court refused a biological father’s application for direct contact with his child and made a section 91(14) order restricting further applications.
The court refused a biological father’s application for direct contact, finding it would risk the child’s welfare and stability. Indirect annual contact was ordered.
X, Re (No 2: Application for contact by the biological father) [2015] EWFC 84 (13 November 2015)
The court refused a biological father's application for direct contact with a child conceived by donor insemination, ordering only annual indirect contact.
Explore more
