Father loses case against ivf clinic in UK

lifeandtimes

Can you someone help clarify this for me please?

http://m.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/father-loses-high-court-action-against-ivf-clinic-over-conception-of-child-by-his-expartner-after-breakup-36202842.html

"Although he has lost this case, my judgment must be seen as a complete personal and moral vindication for ARB(Father).

"The same, of course, cannot be said for R(mother)".

I think more details are needed but from the wording of it the judge says he believes that the father's should be vindicated but doesn't pass judgement that way?

What does everyone else think?

Xterminator

The father sued the clinic - not the mother of his child.

the clinic was not at fault - as the mother forged his signature.

lifeandtimes

Xterminator wrote: »

The father sued the clinic - not the mother of his child.

the clinic was not at fault - as the mother forged his signature.

I thought she may have done that but it doesn't state that in the article.

I wonder would he have grounds to absolve himself from up keep of the child in the basis or fraud and deception i.e. she forged his signature to get pregnant without his permission

brian_t

lifeandtimes wrote: »

I wonder would he have grounds to absolve himself from up keep of the child in the basis or fraud and deception

Should the child be punished for the Mothers sins.

seamus

lifeandtimes wrote: »

I wonder would he have grounds to absolve himself from up keep of the child in the basis or fraud and deception i.e. she forged his signature to get pregnant without his permission

I believe that was the intention of his action, though the Irish reporting on this hasn't been very clear.

I get the impression that he was suing the clinic for the ongoing cost of the upkeep of the child, since this was something he would be required to bear.

In the end the judge has basically ruled that the father is completely right, but that there is no basis in law to award damages.

That's my understanding, but like I say the reporting I've read is pretty shallow.

[Edit: I'm wrong, it was just a failed action for damages.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-41525215

So the clinic wasn't negligent because it adhered to all the procedures that it should have. Which is fair.

lifeandtimes

seamus wrote: »

I believe that was the intention of his action, though the Irish reporting on this hasn't been very clear.

I get the impression that he was suing the clinic for the ongoing cost of the upkeep of the child, since this was something he would be required to bear.

In the end the judge has basically ruled that the father is completely right, but that there is no basis in law to award damages.

That's my understanding, but like I say the reporting I've read is pretty shallow.

[Edit: I'm wrong, it was just a failed action for damages.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-41525215

So the clinic wasn't negligent because it adhered to all the procedures that it should have. Which is fair.

So do you think if his appeal fails he could bring the mother to court?

I have no doubt that there is upkeep required for the child but it's a very difficult one. He is technically the father but didn't give consent for this and his details were forged. He's an unwilling and unagreeable father who is right in every way here. He will bear the costs of this child for a very long time. Whatever if they had had sex and the birth was an accident but this woman literally stole his sperm and got pregnant

brian_t

lifeandtimes wrote: »

So do you think if his appeal fails he could bring the mother to court?

She is the mother of their earlier child.

Why would he want to do this.

So that she could be imprisoned - he doesn't want to look after the children.

For compensation - she probably doesn't have money.

seamus

lifeandtimes wrote: »

So do you think if his appeal fails he could bring the mother to court?

I guess, but for what? If he sues the mother for costs, and wins, then the court will have to look at the best interests of the child.

In that case you'd be robbing Peter to pay Paul and the child would be worse off than if the father just wasn't there at all. Her mother would be paying twice over to maintain her children.

The court would make no award for costs because that would disadvantage the child. It's the same here in Ireland - when it's a toss up between the best interests of a child or awarding damages, the child will always win.

He already has the moral victory, so he would gain nothing by bringing her to court.

He could of course go for full custody, but he would have to prove she was unfit. Which she probably isn't.

drkpower

seamus wrote: »

.

[Edit: I'm wrong, it was just a failed action for damages.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-41525215

So the clinic wasn't negligent because it adhered to all the procedures that it should have. Which is fair.

Not quite; ARB effectively won all aspects of his claim by but failed on public policy that you can't recover for the costs of rearing a healthy child. This is actually relatively settled law, though clearly very 'unfair' to people in the circumstances of ARB.


https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/health/ivf-legal-battle-high-court-ruling/

Despite the judge concluding that ARB did not sign the consent to thaw form at all, that his signature was forged by R, the mother, and that IVF Hammersmith owed a strict contractual obligation to ARB to obtain his written consent to the procedure, he lost his claim for damages against the clinic. The claim failed due to public policy, which stipulates that parents cannot be compensated for the birth of a healthy child. The judge, Mr Justice Jay, held that the principles underpinning two House of Lords’ decisions in NHS claims given some 15 years ago apply equally to this contractual claim for damages against IVF Hammersmith

Claw Hammer

In order to win a negligence case, you have to show damage. A child is regarded in the laws of the UK as a gift, and the parenting of a child cannot be considered as damage. The expense of raising the child must therefore be netted against the benefit of having said child.

lifeandtimes

So ultimately although he is right, he didnt agree or consent to having this child,his details were then forged,He's screwed for child costs until the child is 18?

Mod: Comment deleted. OTT


Edit: to the people who say why would he bring her to court,I don't think he would want costs but more to absolve of any financial responsibility of the child. The child may not suffer. There are many single mothers who raise kids with no support from fathers

CIARAN_BOYLE

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Edit: to the people who say why would he bring her to court,I don't think he would want costs but more to absolve of any financial responsibility of the child. The child may not suffer. There are many single mothers who raise kids with no support from fathers

If you read a few articles on the subject you will hear the father say that although he didn't want the child it is his child and he loves his child. I imagine he would choose to be there for the child financially.

I think he just saw took the clinic to court as he saw a way to earn money from the clinic to better support his child.