{"id":236007,"date":"2024-07-29T13:57:30","date_gmt":"2024-07-29T13:57:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/?p=236007"},"modified":"2024-07-29T13:57:30","modified_gmt":"2024-07-29T13:57:30","slug":"woman-loses-appeal-over-childs-birth-certificate-after-ex-wife-had-sex-with-donor-court-of-appeal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/woman-loses-appeal-over-childs-birth-certificate-after-ex-wife-had-sex-with-donor-court-of-appeal\/","title":{"rendered":"Woman loses appeal over child\u2019s birth certificate after ex-wife had sex with donor | Court of appeal"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

A woman has lost a court of appeal challenge over her name being removed from a child\u2019s birth certificate after her ex-wife admitted she secretly had sex with their sperm donor.<\/p>\n

The \u201cunprecedented\u201d and \u201cunusual\u201d case<\/a> centred on the question of who were the legal parents of a girl, now aged six.<\/p>\n

The child, referred to as X, was born amid an \u201cinformal conception arrangement\u201d between two women and a man they met through an online advert, judges were told.<\/p>\n

The couple, referred to as P and Q, met the man, F, for the first time in a pub in late 2016, hoping to find a sperm donor to impregnate P.<\/p>\n

The women \u201cformed a favourable impression of him\u201d and the three of them then signed a sperm donor agreement, agreeing to use artificial insemination.<\/p>\n

When two artificial attempts failed, the court heard how P contacted F for support and the pair had sex. P had been \u201cvery upset and depressed\u201d about the lack of success and arranged to meet him at her parents\u2019 house while they were abroad. She found him \u201cfriendly and sympathetic\u201d and initiated the intercourse, a court was told.<\/p>\n

P and F had sex three times at her parents\u2019 house, unknown to Q, with the third time coinciding with a third artificial insemination attempt. Judges said it was \u201cimpossible to know which method of insemination led to [the child\u2019s] conception\u201d.<\/p>\n

P and Q later divorced and, amid disagreement over the care of the child, P revealed the truth about her encounter with their donor, and secured a court declaration earlier this year that F was the child\u2019s legal parent.<\/p>\n

In her ruling in April, Mrs Justice Knowles said the case was \u201ca cautionary tale about the consequences for a child and for a same-sex couple of both deceit as to how that child came to be conceived and the unreliability of informal arrangements for artificial insemination\u201d. She added: \u201cThe fallout from this couple\u2019s separation has been devastating for each of them and for their named sperm donor.\u201d<\/p>\n

She concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, while Q had not consented to sex between P and F, the method of the child\u2019s conception was \u201cunclear\u201d.<\/p>\n

This meant Q could not be considered a parent under a law that grants it to the wives or civil partners of women who give birth via artificial insemination.<\/p>\n

Q, who faced the \u201cpainful situation\u201d of being replaced on the child\u2019s birth certificate, appealed against the decision at a hearing in London this month.<\/p>\n

In a written judgment on Friday, Lord Justice Jackson, who heard the case alongside Lady Justice Davies and Lord Justice Arnold, said the challenge should be dismissed.<\/p>\n

Lawyers for Q argued it was for P to show that the child was not conceived as a result of artificial insemination.<\/p>\n

They told judges the previous ruling undermined the law \u201cby encouraging anyone seeking to exclude a wife or former partner from parenthood to raise questions regarding the conception of the child and place an almost impossible burden of proving artificial insemination on the non-genetic parent\u201d.<\/p>\n

skip past newsletter promotion<\/a><\/p>\n