Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Kathryn Cronin (instructed by Goodman Ray) for the Applicants Tracy Lakin (instructed by Barbara Carter) for the 2nd & 3rd Respondents (By their guardian Ms Jennie Dawe) Penny Logan (of Cafcass Legal) acting as Advocate to the Court The 1st Respondent did not attend and was not represented Hearing dates: 8th July 2015 ____________________
- all this would have required was consideration of whether, at the time of the IVF implantation, Y was married (and if so if her husband consented to the implantation). The consideration should have been based on the balance of probability and not on certainty as Mr Wharton's email to the Children's Solicitor implies. Mr Wharton's explicit implication is evinced in his email which refers to his inability 'to confirm categorically which details are correct' and that the 'information does not provide the certainty we need'.
" In relation to the public policy issues, the cases in effect suggest (and I agree) that the court pose itself three questions:
In this case it was unfortunate that it was not until April 2015 that specialist advice was obtained.
i) All proceedings for parental orders will commence in the Family Court where they will remain. They should not be transferred to the High Court.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.