A man who has paid child maintenance for twins for 16 years has won a lawsuit to stop the payments – after a judge discovered that his name was accidentally put on their birth certificates.
Mr. Justice Cobb made the decision in the London family court, despite the protests of the mother that the children would be harmed by a statement that they “had no legal father in the world.”
The children, now 16, were conceived with the help of IVF fertility treatment during a short -lived relationship between the man – only identified as 'Mr J' – and the mother of the twins.
While the mother's own eggs were used to make the twin mashos, the sperm came from a donor and there was no genetic link between them and her now ex-husband.
And while the couple was married at the time of the birth of the twins, they were not married when the babies were conceived.
The name of Mr. J, however, was introduced at the birth certificate as the father of the twins and he paid the maintenance of children of £ 240 a month for their maintenance for life.
But at that time he had “no contact with the children of any kind, since the parties, more than fifteen years ago – no visits, no cards, no letters, no photos,” the court heard.
Last month he applied to be legally removed as the father of the twins in an attempt to stop paying children's maintenance, because he is now forced to retire due to illness.
But Mr. Justice Cobb, who granted Mr. J's application, said that, according to the law, when the twins were devised, he was not legally their father and should not have been on their birth certificate in the first place.
A man who has paid child maintenance for twins for 16 years has won a lawsuit to stop the payments – after a judge discovered that his name was accidentally put on their birth certificate
The children, now 16, were conceived with the help of IVF fertility treatment during a short -lived relationship between the man – only identified as 'Mr J' – and the mother of the twins (above, stock image)
Under the Human Fertilization and Embryology ACT 1990, a man who deals with IVF treatment who has not involved his own sperm is only considered by law as the parent of a child that results when the IVF takes place in a registered British clinic.
Because the procedure took place abroad and he had no genetic bond with the babies, he had never been their legal father, the judge said.
“Mr. J has had no contact with the children of any nature whatsoever since the parties broke up more than 15 years ago – no visits, no cards, no letters, no photos,” the judge noted.
'But it is agreed during the entire period that he has maintained them financially … in the last sixteen years.
“Mr. J states that he has now withdrawn in the field of poor health and cannot continue to pay now.
“Mr. J claims that because 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 notes that his only link with them has been a financial person over the years due to his payment of maintenance.
'It is important that he told me that he had' written off 'the money that he had paid the mother for the children for the past 15 years; He has no desire to restore it. He simply wishes that liability ends at the moment.
'The mother opposes the application and claims that Mr. J had been completely involved in the assisted reproduction process and that they had started this course based on the fact that he would become the father of A and B.
Because the procedure took place abroad and he had no genetic bond with the babies, he had never been their legal father, the judge said. Mr. J has had no contact with the children of any kind, since the parties were separated more than 15 years ago (above, stock image)
“She was worried about the negative impact on B, in particular about every statement that Mr. J is not in the law, adding that she could not understand” how that explains [the children] Have no legal father in the world ever in the interest of the children, especially when [B] Feels clearly very rejected '.
'Mr. J and the mother were not married at the time of the conception of A and B.
'The conception took place differently than in a clinic that was licensed in the VK; and … the conception was achieved with the help of sperm, which was not Mr. J.
'The Human Fertilization and Embryology Act 1990 does not deal with Mr. J as father of A and B.
“The fact that Mr. J was wrongly registered as the father of the children at their birth certificate does not grant him a legal parent to him,” the judge said.
He then went off the declaration of non-parenting, despite the protests of the mother, and said: “Clarification about the legal parenthood of A and B should promote their true identity … This will, in my opinion, their benefit is during childhood and adulthood.
“In particular, the mother will no longer be necessary to obtain formal permission from Mr. J with regard to formal processes such as passport renewal.”
The judge added that both 'are clearly smart as fascinating young people. They have completed their GCSEs with good results.
'They are now in secondary education to study for A-levels. They are both aware that they were conceived by treatment with donor tertility. '
He concluded that expert reports suggested that the impact of losing Mr. J if their legal father on the children is probably … minimal. '
