‘Striking ineptitude’ at fertility clinic at centre of parentage case

A fertility clinic had been criticised for “striking ineptitude” by a High Court judge.

Mrs Justice Pauffley has complained about “administrative incompetence” at the Herts and Essex Fertility Centre, which is based in Cheshunt, Hertfordshire.

The judge had been asked to make a “declaration of parentage” at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London – and has made criticisms in a ruling on the case.

She said forms signed by the child’s mother and father had been “mislaid or lost”.

And she said the child’s parents had been “left completely on their own”.

The clinic’s medical director had apologised, said the judge.

In September a more senior judge had complained about “administrative incompetence” at fertility clinics.

Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division of the High Court – and the most senior family court judge in England and Wales, said a regulator’s audit had revealed “anomalies” in records at nearly one in two licensed fertility clinics.

“It is both alarming and shocking that, once more, a court is confronted with an instance of such striking ineptitude from an organisation which is subject to statutory regulation and monitored by a statutory regulator namely the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority,” said Mrs Justice Pauffley, in a written ruling.

“Forms have … been mislaid or lost.”

She added: “The parents were (and are) the individuals in most need of advice and assistance; they are entitled to and should have been treated with respect and proper concern. In this instance, mother and father were left completely on their own without assistance of any kind.”

In September, Sir James had explained how the creation, storage and implantation of embryos was controlled by ”complex” legislation – the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.

Provisions dealt with the question of who, legally, were the parents of a child.

He said there were ”fundamental prerequisites” to the ”acquisition of parenthood” by the partner of a woman receiving treatment.

Written consent had to be given in writing before treatment – by the woman and her partner, and the woman and her partner had to be given ”adequate information” and offered counselling.

Sir James said another family court judge had analysed a case two years earlier in which ”lamentable shortcomings” had been revealed at one clinic.

He said records checks at all licensed clinics had been organised in the wake of that case.

Results had shown that forms were ”absent” from clinics’ records, forms had been completed or dated after treatment had started and forms had been incorrectly completed.

Mrs Justice Pauffley said there had initially been a dispute between the parents over whether the man should be declared the father of the child.

Both had subsequently agreed that he should and the judge said she had formally made a declaration.

She had heard legal argument from barristers Deirdre Fottrell QC and Lucy Sprinz for the father, Martha Cover for the mother, and Andrew Powell for the clinic.

Jeremy Ford appeared on behalf of Cafcass – a Government-funded social work organisation which represents the interests of children.

Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2016, All Rights Reserved.