A man who paid child maintenance for twins for 16 years has won a court battle to stop the payments – after a judge found his name was put on their birth certificates by mistake.
Mr Justice Cobb made the decision in London’s Family Court, despite the mother’s protests that the children would be harmed by a ruling that they had ‘no legal father in the world’.
The children, now 16, were conceived using IVF fertility treatment during a short-lived relationship between the man – identified only as ‘Mr J’ – and the twins’ mother.
While the mother’s own eggs were used to create the twin embryos, the sperm came from a donor and there was no genetic link between them and her now ex-husband.
And while the pair were married at the time of the twins birth, they had not been married when the babies were conceived.
However Mr J’s name was entered on the birth certificate as the twins’ dad and he has paid child maintenance of £240 per month towards their upkeep for the whole of their lives.
But in that time he had ‘no contact with the children of any kind since the parties separated more than fifteen years ago – no visits, no cards, no letters, no photographs’, the court heard.
Last month, he applied to be legally removed as the twins’ father in a bid to stop paying child maintenance as he has now been forced to retire through illness.
But Mr Justice Cobb, allowing Mr J’s application, said that, under the law at the time the twins were conceived, he was not legally their father and should not have been on their birth certificate in the first place.
A man who paid child maintenance for twins for 16 years has won a court battle to stop the payments – after a judge found his name was put on their birth certificate by mistake
The children, now 16, were conceived using IVF fertility treatment during a short-lived relationship between the man – identified only as ‘Mr J’ – and the twins’ mother (above, stock image)
Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, a man who engaged in IVF treatment not involving his own sperm is only legally deemed the parent of any child that results if the IVF takes place at a registered UK clinic.
Because the procedure took place abroad and he had no genetic link with the babies, he never had been their legal father, the judge said.
‘Mr J has had no contact with the children of any kind since the parties separated more than 15 years ago – no visits, no cards, no letters, no photographs,’ the judge noted.
‘But throughout the whole period, it is agreed that he has maintained them financially…over the last sixteen years.
‘Mr J states that he has now retired from working on grounds of ill-health, and now cannot continue to pay.
‘Mr J contends that, as he is not the biological father of A and B, his legal status should reflect this.
‘He refers to the lack of relationship with A and B, and observes that his only link with them over the years has been a financial one through his payment of maintenance.
‘Importantly he told me that he had ‘written off’ the money which he had paid to the mother for the children over the last 15 years; he has no wish to recover it. He simply wishes the liability to end at this point.
‘The mother opposes the application, asserting that Mr J had been fully involved in the assisted reproduction process and they had embarked on this course on the basis that he would become the father to A and B.
Because the procedure took place abroad and he had no genetic link with the babies, he never had been their legal father, the judge said. Mr J has had no contact with the children of any kind since the parties separated more than 15 years ago (above, stock image)
‘She was concerned about the negative impact on B, in particular, of any declaration that Mr J is not in law her parent, adding that she could not understand ‘how declaring that [the children] have no legal father in the world is ever in the children’s best interests, especially when [B] clearly feels very rejected’.
‘Mr J and the mother were not married at the time of A and B’s conception.
‘The conception took place otherwise than in a clinic licensed in the UK; and…the conception was achieved using sperm which was not that of Mr J.
‘The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 does not treat Mr J as A and B’s father.
‘The fact that Mr J was erroneously registered as the children’s father on their birth certificates does not itself confer legal parentage on him,’ said the judge.
He went on to make the declaration of non-parentage, despite the mother’s protests, saying: ‘Clarification as to A and B’s legal parentage should promote their true identity…this will, in my judgment, be to their benefit throughout childhood and adulthood.
‘Specifically, the mother will no longer be required to obtain formal consents from Mr J in relation to formal processes such as passport renewal.’
The judge added that both, ‘are obviously bright and engaging young people. They have completed their GCSEs with good results.
‘They are now in secondary education studying for A-levels. They are both aware that they were conceived through donor fertility treatment.’
He concluded that expert reports suggested that the impact of losing Mr J as their legal father on the children ‘is likely to be…minimal.’
