Judge pans Harley Street IVF clinic over ‘forgery’ baby
Father vindicated despite losing £1m damages claim after ex-partner secretly used embryos to give birth
A HIGH Court judge has criticised a Harley Street IVF clinic for “troubling and illogical” procedures that let a woman have a secret baby after forging the father’s signature.
Although ruling that the father had lost his claim for £1million damages against IVF Hammersmith Ltd, Mr Justice Jay said his judgment was a “complete personal and moral vindication” for the wealthy businessman.
The father, who is in his 50s and cannot be named, was told by text on Valentine’s Day 2011 by his ex-girlfriend that she was pregnant from embryos they had frozen together three years earlier.
Mr Justice Jay said the female teacher resorted to “desperate and dishonest” means by forging her ex-boyfriend’s signature in 2010 to be able to have a sibling for the son they had in 2008.
The father, who split up with the mother nearly a year before learning of her second pregnancy, was seeking up to £1million to pay for his now six-yearold daughter’s private education, nanny care, skiing holidays and wedding.
While the judge found the clinic had breached its duty to ensure both parents had given consent for the embryo to be placed in the mother’s womb, it was not found negligent. The judge added: “Although he has lost this case,
‘We have been clear that we have always adhered to the highest industry standards and obligations’
my judgment must be seen as a complete personal and moral vindication for him. The same, of course, cannot be said for her.”
Yesterday the father, an architect and designer, claimed the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) treated his concerns about a “loophole” in the way both parents’ signatures were obtained at the clinic “frivolously”.
He said: “It is time to re-evaluate our approach to the governance of private IVF services and demand the replacement of an ineffective regulator – one with systemic failures and repeatedly castigated in the courts – with one fit enough to effectively protect the public.” The HFEA refused to comment.
Concluding that the father was the victim of a “legal wrong”, the judge said he was “completely satisfied” he had no intention of having another child with the teacher after they split in mid-2010.
“In October 2010 she well knew that, which explains why she resorted to desperate, dishonest measures,” he said. He added it was “illogical” that if both partners were present then their signatures should be witnessed, but if one partner was not there a signed form would suffice as proof of consent.
Jude Fleming, of IVF Hammersmith, which denied liability, said “We have been clear throughout that we have always adhered to the highest industry standards and met all statutory and regulatory obligations as set out by the HFEA. We regularly review our processes and we have since reinforced our procedures to go above and beyond the industry standard and ensure such a case could not occur again.”