England and Wales Case Law

Children: Parental Responsibility

M2 never had parental responsibility for RF and AF as she did not qualify under s42 HFEA due to natural conception; PR acquired by mistake is void ab initio. M2 is not granted PR for any child due to inability to accept court findings and risk of emotional harm to the children. F is granted PR for RF and AF due to demonstrated commitment and relationship. M2's contact with RF and AF must be supervised due to risk of emotional harm. FA lives with M1 and has no contact with M2. Applications for name change, baptism, foreign passports, and unrestricted travel are refused. The application to set…

Source excerpt

• Parental responsibility
• Child arrangements orders
• Declarations of parentage
• Prohibited steps orders
• Specific issue orders
• Change of name

Read case analysis

Children: Parental Responsibility, Re

M2 never had parental responsibility for RF and AF as the statutory criteria under section 42 HFEA were not met due to natural insemination; granting PR to M2 would not be in the children's best interests given her inability to accept court findings and risk of emotional harm. F is granted PR for RF and AF based on commitment and relationship. M2's contact with RF and AF must be supervised due to risk of emotional harm. FA lives with M1 and has no contact with M2. Section 91(14) order is made to restrict further applications for two years. Applications for baptism, travel, passports, and adop…

Source excerpt

• Parental responsibility
• Child arrangements
• Declarations of parentage
• Prohibited steps orders
• Special guardianship
• Adoption

Read case analysis

RN (Paternity: Unregulated Sperm Donor), Re

The High Court refused Mr Albon’s paternity declaration over one child, holding that although paternity was proved, a declaration would be manifestly contrary to public policy.

• Parentage
• Paternity
• Unregulated sperm donation
• Declarations of parentage
• Public policy
• Best interests of the child

Read case analysis

M1 v M2 & Ors (Children: Declarations of Legal Parentage)

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

• Parentage
• Declarations of parentage
• Artificial insemination
• Natural conception
• Birth registration
• Legal parenthood

Read case analysis

Children: Parental Responsibility

Children: Parental Responsibility [2025] EWFC 462 (29 August 2025)

The court determined child arrangements and parental responsibility issues after a disputed parentage case, removing M2’s PR for RF and AF and granting F PR.

• Parental responsibility
• Child arrangements orders
• Declarations of parentage
• Prohibited steps orders
• Change of surname
• Removal of parental responsibility

Read case analysis

M1 v M2 & Ors

M1 v M2 & Ors [2025] EWFC 461 (B) (29 August 2025)

The court refused M2’s bid to reopen parentage findings, removed her parental responsibility for RF and AF, granted F PR, and ordered supervised contact for M2.

• Parental responsibility
• Declarations of parentage
• Child arrangements orders
• Prohibited steps orders
• Change of name
• Contact arrangements

Read case analysis

ED v MG

ED v MG [2025] EWHC 1876 (Fam) (22 July 2025)

The High Court held that the applicant was not D’s legal parent, made a declaration of non-parentage, and ordered joint lives and contact arrangements.

• Parentage
• Parental responsibility
• Child arrangements orders
• Declarations of parentage
• Assisted reproduction
• Declarations-of-parentage

Read case analysis

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

The statutory requirements for legal parenthood under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 are satisfied by the combination of internal clinic forms and the WP and PP forms completed for the first treatment cycle, which demonstrate the applicants' clear and informed intention that both be legal parents of any child born as a result of treatment. The absence of WP and PP forms for the second cycle does not preclude a declaration of parentage, as the evidence as a whole establishes compliance with the statutory requirements.

Source excerpt

• Parentage
• Assisted reproduction
• Consent forms
• Legal parenthood
• Declarations of parentage

Read case analysis

P v Q and F (Child: Legal Parentage)

Court of Appeal held that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 did not apply because assisted reproduction was not proved, so the genetic father was the legal father.

• Legal parentage
• Assisted reproduction
• Declarations of parentage
• Burden of proof
• Legal-parentage
• Assisted-reproduction

Read case analysis

P v Q & F (Child: Legal Parentage)

P v Q & F (Child: Legal Parentage) [2024] EWCA Civ 878 (26 July 2024)

The Court of Appeal held that where conception could have been by either assisted or natural insemination, the statutory parenthood scheme was not engaged and the genetic father was the legal father.

• Legal parentage
• Assisted reproduction
• Burden of proof
• Declarations of parentage
• Same-sex marriage and parenthood
• Legal-parentage

Read case analysis