Our thanks to David for this. Extracts:
A wealthy businessman has failed in his attempt to recover damages from a private IVF clinic, despite a court ruling that his former partner forged his signature to conceive their daughter by the procedure.
In a potentially far-reaching judgment at the high court in London on Friday, Mr Justice Jay ruled that IVF Hammersmith had failed in its obligation to ensure consent from both parties, but crucially found the clinic was not negligent and did not have to meet the costs of caring for the man’s daughter. But the man had been morally vindicated, said the judge.
Jay said the claim had failed due to public policy, which currently stipulates that parents could not be compensated for the birth of a healthy child…
He [the father] argued that IVF Hammersmith had failed to establish whether he had truly given his consent for his ex to use another embryo to become pregnant. The mother, who is in her 40s, denied forging the signature and says her former partner did give his approval.
But a six-day trial in July was told the father’s signature on the “consent to thaw” form had been forged after someone “traced” his real signature. Dr Audrey Giles, a handwriting expert, told the court she was “99% sure” the document had been falsified…
Passing judgment at the high court in London, Jay wrote: “Although he has lost this case, my judgment must be seen as a complete personal and moral vindication for [the father]. The same, of course, cannot be said for [the mother].”
Justice for Men & Boys 
Don’t hold your breath waiting for the mother to be imprisoned for fraud.
LikeLike
I think the judgement is reasonable the IVF clinic were not negligent.
Fraud by false representation occurs when:
(1) A person is in breach of this section (false representation) if he—
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation—Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35 ) 2
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
a) – definitely satisfied
b) arguably i) – gain a child and certainly ii) – the father exposed to loss/costs
This seems very clear cut and the consequences are serious so why has the mother not been prosecuted?
It seems to me in this or any other case in which serious dishonesty is proven against a parent this should be taken into account in any subsequent decision about custody as a factor for which there is a presumption that the dishonest party is not a suitable primary carer. This would mean there is some consequence for any parent who makes false allegations or other dishonest representations. The father in thsi case may not want custody but as a general deterrant it woudl be useful and I think a parent who is willing to act in this way is unlikely to be a good parent.
LikeLike
Yes things like dishonesty should be taken into account in decisions about custody, but I think we all know that they won’t be if the liar is the woman.
LikeLike
I’m safe. I been snipped. They don’t know but they keep trying. Way to go!
LikeLike
Morally vindicated, what a pile of horse excrement. The financial cost will be horrendous, the legal fees to get it this far will likely be well beyond what any average man could afford.
LikeLike
As a fraud is proven in this case . Surely the fraudster should be prosecuted ? In effect the Judge says the clinic simply were fooled by the fraud.
LikeLike