to ask opinions on this IVF court case?

[iogo]

I've had a quick look but can't see another thread, apologies if there is one.

I've just read this story on the BBC about a man losing his court case for damages against an IVF clinic where his ex wife forged his signature to undergo a second round of IVF after they'd split, resulting in a daughter.

I feel so desperately sorry for that child and the man involved. I can't quite wrap my head around what his ex wife did. I can understand the court not forcing the clinic to pay damages such as school fees, future wedding etc. I can understand the father not wanting to pay for the upkeep of the child and I'm not sure it's fair to make him. But then how unfair would it be to pay maintenance and school fees for one child but not the full sibling (I mention school fees as it's mentioned in the article so I'm presuming the older sibling goes to private school and the ex wife was in a position to be able to afford priveate IVF as the NHS is not mentioned)

BBC link www.bbc.com/news/health-41525215

heads

He did NOT consent to the ivf.

Actually he did, this was a frozen embryo. He had also given permission for the embryos to be stored.

Why would you store an embryo if you did not want it to be implanted?

Actually he did, this was a frozen embryo.
He had also given permission for the embryos to be stored.
Why would you store an embryo if you did not want it to be implanted?
He needed to consent AT EACH STAGE.
He consented for the embryos to be made and stored when thry were in a relationship.
He did NOT consent to them being implanted.

Why is this so difficult for some people to understand?
The same way someone might have unprotected sex in their marriage when TTC but if they split up and montha later had a fling it would be wrong for the man not to wear a condom/weong for the woman to claim she is on hormonal contaception.
The same way it wouls be bat shit crazy for a woman to try and deliberately trap a man into giving her a baby.

I feel for the daughter in all this. She has to know that her dad never consented to her being brought into this world (but it sounds like he is doing right by her) and her mother is a manipulative individual who comits fraud.

I am absolutely not defending her, I'm simply saying that this is a fundamental problem with the logistics of the IVF process - everything she has been through to produce those embryos (and lets face it, it's the woman who has the horrific time in this process) is wasted if the relationship ends, and since freezing unfertilised eggs really isn't viable there's no real alternative to this scenario at present. I'm not saying it was right for her to do it.

i think dad should not have to pay. I can understand why mother did it but she should not expect dad to pay anything or be involved with the child. bit bloody tough though when their is already a consented child in the mix too.

feel very sorry for dad.

Actually he did, this was a frozen embryo. He had also given permission for the embryos to be stored.

What a ridiculous statement and completely ignorant of the law. Permission for embryos to be collected, fertilised and stored does not equal consent to implant them to create a child. He did not have that consent.

Why would you store an embryo if you did not want it to be implanted?

I personally have 14 embryos in storage. I may never have them implanted. We haven't decided yet whether we will have a fourth child or if circumstances will allow. It's looking unlikely but we haven't entirely decided so we still pay every year. Some people (including us) keep their embryos because they would like to donate them to someone else at some point. Some even keep them on the off chance a 'saviour sibling' is ever needed. Storage terms last for a year and a lot can change in a year so consent to replace can change. People can be undecided.There are lots of reasons.

That doesn't mean that by storing the embryos anybody gives their partner the right to reproduce with them without their explicit permission.

The law is explicit too. Consent is needed for both parents for each step including replacement.

^this. The fact that he didn't consent to use if the embryo is not in doubt. The court case was about whether the clinic should be liable for the child's costs. The fact that the father didn't consent to use the embryo was never in dispute @sassh. Consent to storing it while in a relationship with the mother is not consent to use it when the relationship ends. Neither the clinic nor the mother nor anybody else is saying he consented to using the embryo. He did not and nobody disputes that.
@sassh do you now understand that he never consented to using the embryo?

Why would you consent to storing an embryo if you don't want to use it is a question asked here.
Because deciding what to do with that embryo is a sensitive and tricky subject eg should it be destroyed, should it be donated. The parents had not yet agreed what should happen to it when the mother forged the consent to use it. People often leave them in storage for years while they work out what to do

He does have a legal liability to maintain his daughter. That is the entire point, that is why he sued the clinic.

He has chosen to maintain his daughter voluntarily. In law, as he did not consent to the embryo being implanted he is not legally the father unless he wants to be and the mother agrees that he should be legally recognised as the father. He therefore has no legal liability for maintenance unless he and the mother agree that he should be the legal father of the child. This is set out clearly in the sections of the HEFA to which I have referred previously. His claim includes things like "the cost of private education, a gap year, university abroad, a generous wedding, refurbishing a bedroom, the cost of litigating with R, etc." (R is the mother), none of which have anything to do with any legal liability for maintenance (and some of which, apparently, goes against the mother's wishes). The claim is predicated on him making the same level of provision for his daughter as for his other children, not on any legal liability for him to do so. The judgement suggests that the mother has not asked him for maintenance for his daughter and has specifically said that she doesn't want any, so, even if he is recognised as the legal father of his daughter, he still has no liability for maintenance. He did not sue the clinic due to any legal liability to maintain his daughter. He sued them based on his intent to make the same level of provision for her as for his other children.

One wonders how you can have such strong opinions without having understood the most basic facts of the case.

Putting aside the fact that I haven't got strong opinions on this case, one wonders how you can have such strong opinions when you clearly do not understand the relevant law or the most basic facts of the case as set out in the judgement.

This is a three way case. The father has sued the clinic re consent and the clinic have sued the mother for her forgery and fraudulent behaviour. Unfortunately it's unlikely that she will have the means to pay any compensation or court costs without severely impacting on her children.

It's clear from the Judgement that the Judge had great sympathy with the claimant ( father) but could not find negligence in the clinic's consenting process.

Consent is a hot topic in legal circles and it's interesting that the judge gave leave to appeal without it being requested.

Matilda the case wasn't about whether the clinic was negligent in its consent process it was whether the clinic were liable for the costs of raising the child.

Oldie2017
I do think the mother should have to pay and work full time to fund the school fees - in fact both mothers. They could have three full time wages here and share childcare for the 3 small children surely? That way you are all putting your all into the financial costs of these three children.

I don't get your point here. Are you saying the father's new wife should work full time because of the actions of the ex?

@sassh do you now understand that he never consented to using the embryo?

Having read the full judgement it is clear that the father went with the mother to at least one appointment dealing with a second implantation ie this child, he also paid for the appointment so he was, I would have thought, at that point, in favour of a second child.

MargaretTwatyer

I may have worded it badly, I should probably have said 'who would store an embryo if they had no intention ever of using or donating it?'

Neither the clinic nor the mother nor anybody else is saying he consented to using the embryo. He did not and nobody disputes that.

And I didn't say that either, I said he consented to IVF ie creating a foetus.

Matilda the case wasn't about whether the clinic was negligent in its consent process it was whether the clinic were liable for the costs of raising the child

The case was about both. The potential liability for the costs of bringing up the child arose from the clinic's failure to meet its obligations of care around the consent process. If the clinic had met its obligations around the consent process it would definitely not be liable for the costs of raising the child.

He has chosen to maintain his daughter voluntarily. In law, as he did not consent to the embryo being implanted he is not legally the father unless he wants to be and the mother agrees that he should be legally recognised as the father. He therefore has no legal liability for maintenance unless he and the mother agree that he should be the legal father of the child

This is 100% wrong, categorically.

All the mother would have to do is get a court imposed DNA test to pursue maintence from the Father, wheter you "decide" to be legal the father has no bearing on it.

This mother concieved the child in the wrong way, this little girl does not deserve to be squabled over like she's some god awful mistake.

The little girl is what is important in this whole case, she deserves love and attention form her parents.

@sassh no he didn't consent to creating a foetus only to an embryo. It doesn't develop to become a foetus until it is implanted and he never agreed to that. Nobody, not the clinic the mother nor the judge is arguing that he did agree to it. He didn't.
Obviously earlier in the process when in a relationship with the mother he agreed to create the embryo. But he never consented to the embryo being implanted, the mother faked his consent to that. A foetus cannot develop outside the woman's body.

You say he agreed to ivf and therefore a foetus. No, he agreed to ivf to create the embryo but not to the implantation. It's that process of consent that was forged. Do you see?

He says that he thought the appointments were for gynae issues. It doesn't matter anyway because attending an appointment is not giving consent.

This is 100% wrong, categorically

I suggest you try reading up on the relevant law and understanding it before making such statements. It is 100% right. Categorically.

If you won't take it from me, take a look at this flowchart from Alternative Family Law - www.alternativefamilylaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/paternity_flow_chart.pdf

To follow it down:

Did the mother conceive after sexual intercourse - No (so follow the black line)

Was the mother married to the man at the time of conception - No

Was the conception/treatment on or after 6 April 2009 - Yes (so follow the red dashed line)

Was the mother married to or in a civil partnership with a woman at the time of conception - No

Did conception occur after treatment in a UK clinic licensed through the HFEA - Yes

Were the parents treated jointly as a couple and were all procedures followed properly - No because the man's consent was not obtained prior to implanting the embryo contrary to HFEA 1990 Schedule 3 paragraph 6(2)

The child only has ONE legal parent (i.e. the mother)

As the father is not the legal parent of the child he cannot be legally liable for maintenance. The fact that a DNA test would show he is the biological father is irrelevant. He is in the same position as a sperm donor.

I don't get your point here. Are you saying the father's new wife should work full time because of the actions of the ex?

Surely you have figured out by now the Xenia’s answer to everything is woman should work more and become higher earners, it goes a bit like this

I’ve broken my legs and my heads dropped off

Well of course if you were working more and being a higher earner then they would be fixed and your head would grow back

You say he agreed to ivf and therefore a foetus. No, he agreed to ivf to create the embryo but not to the implantation. It's that process of consent that was forged. Do you see?

OK so I used the wrong word. Sorry but I don't think I need shooting for that.

He DID consent tot he IVF, which is the point I was making.

@sassh no he didn't. He consented to the first stage of ivf, the creation of the embryo. He never consented to the second stage, the implantation. Nobody except you is saying he consented to that, not even his ex wife. It's accepted by all that he did not consent to it. What part if it do that you understand?
He never consented. As found by the judge.

Well if we're going to be picky then he did consent to IVF. Because the precise meaning of IVF is 'fertilisation elsewhere'. Precisely, in a test tube.

He consented to the fertilisation. He never gave consent for the product of that fertilisation to be implanted back or become a child.

He consented to fertilisation, he consented to freezing, he consented to keeping them frozen. He never consented to reimplatation.

You don't 'consent to IVF' as a whole process. Each step needs the explicit consent of both parents. There is no assumption that because you wanted a baby together in 2015 or agreed to have your embryos preserved for another year in December 2016 that automatically means you're fine with them being implanted in October 2017. It is illegal to make that assumption.

Nobody except you is saying he consented to that, not even his ex wife. It's accepted by all that he did not consent to it. What part if it do that you understand?

I'd be a bit less rude if I were as wrong as you. He did consent to the IVF, the fertilisation and creation of an embryo. That is what IVF means.
He did not consent to the implantation, which is what comes after the IVF.

I've had ivf 4 times thanks. I'm familiar with the process rather intimately.