Children’s ‘disgust’ at decide for permitting man who shouldn’t be their father and final noticed them as newborns to be faraway from their start certificates after 15 years of kid upkeep

Twins who have been receiving child maintenance from a man who is not their legal father for 15 years have shared their ‘disgust’ over a court decision to remove him from their birth certificates – as a judge heard they lacked gratitude. 

The man, known only as ‘Mr J’, won a court battle this month to stop a monthly £240 child maintenance payment – after a judge found his name was wrongly put on their birth certificates.

Mr Justice Cobb made the decision in London‘s Family Court, despite the mother’s protests that the children would be harmed by a ruling that left them with ‘no legal father in the world’.

He took into account comments from both children, now 16, whose representative in court, Lillian Odze, said they ‘lacked reflectiveness’ and ‘neither of them showed any gratitude’.

The twins were conceived using IVF fertility treatment in Cyprus during a short-lived relationship between the man and the twins’ mother.

While the mother’s own eggs were used to create the twin embryos, the sperm came from a donor and there was no genetic link between them and her now ex-husband.

And while the pair were married at the time of the twins’ birth, they had not been married when the babies were conceived, meaning there is no legal requirement for him to be named as parent.

Speaking to Mrs Odze, child A said that he felt Mr J ‘should take some responsibility because he was our legal father’. 

He said the court should determine that ‘he is still a legal father’. 

‘He should not be able to change that,’ the teen insisted. ‘If you were a legal parent in the first place, you should remain a legal father’. 

Child A added that if the court found in favour of Mr J, ‘I would feel that he is not helping my Mum at all’. 

Child B, a girl, said she was not bothered about Mr J not wanting ‘visitation’, but continued: ‘He signed all these papers, why would he suddenly change his mind. 

‘He should continue with the money because it’s helpful.’

She also referenced the fact that Mr J had adopted the step-daughter of his current partner, asking: ‘Why would you adopt a child if you did not want us. [It] made me wonder why he wanted her and not us.’

And she said she would be ‘disgusted’ and ‘disappointed’ if Mr J was declared to not be her legal father.

Representative Mrs Odze told the judge that neither twin had a positive view of Mr J, and that they appeared ‘detached’ from the fact that he had been paying towards their upkeep. 

‘They lacked reflectiveness when I noted that neither of them expressed any gratitude towards [Mr J] for this commitment,’ she noted.

‘As their legal father, it was his duty to do so and indeed to continue to do so for merely another two years until their majority’.

The court heard that the maintenance payments went beyond funding the basic necessities and were spent on school trips and clubs for the children.

The court was also told that A and B are ‘secure in their family unit’, which includes their mother, her fiancé and their younger half-sister.

Mr J has had ‘no contact with the children of any kind since the parties separated more than fifteen years ago – no visits, no cards, no letters, no photographs’, it was said.

Last month, he applied to be legally removed as the twins’ father in a bid to stop paying child maintenance as he has now been forced to retire through illness, and says he can no longer afford to pay.

The pair had been happily married for just 18 months before separating in October 2009, before divorce proceedings followed in 2011. 

Mr Justice Cobb in allowing Mr J’s application said that, under the law at the time the twins were conceived, he was not legally their father and should not have been on their birth certificate in the first place.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, determined that a man who engaged in IVF treatment not involving his own sperm was only legally deemed to be the parent of any child that resulted if the IVF took place at a registered UK clinic.

Because the procedure took place abroad and he had no genetic link with the babies, Mr J had never had been their legal father, the judge said.

‘He has had no contact with the children of any kind since the parties separated more than 15 years ago – no visits, no cards, no letters, no photographs,’ the judge noted.

‘But throughout the whole period, it is agreed that he has maintained them financially…over the last sixteen years.

‘Mr J states that he has now retired from working on grounds of ill-health, and now cannot continue to pay.

‘Mr J contends that, as he is not the biological father of A and B, his legal status should reflect this.

‘He refers to the lack of relationship with A and B, and observes that his only link with them over the years has been a financial one through his payment of maintenance.

‘Importantly he told me that he had ‘written off’ the money which he had paid to the mother for the children over the last 15 years; he has no wish to recover it. He simply wishes the liability to end at this point.

‘The mother opposes the application, asserting that Mr J had been fully involved in the assisted reproduction process and they had embarked on this course on the basis that he would become the father to A and B.

‘She was concerned about the negative impact on B, in particular, of any declaration that Mr J is not in law her parent, adding that she could not understand ‘how declaring that [the children] have no legal father in the world is ever in the children’s best interests, especially when [B] clearly feels very rejected’.

‘Mr J and the mother were not married at the time of A and B’s conception.

‘The conception took place otherwise than in a clinic licensed in the UK; and…the conception was achieved using sperm which was not that of Mr J.

‘The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 does not treat Mr J as A and B’s father.

‘The fact that Mr J was erroneously registered as the children’s father on their birth certificates does not itself confer legal parentage on him,’ said the judge.

He went on to make the declaration of non-parentage, despite the mother’s protests, saying: ‘Clarification as to A and B’s legal parentage should promote their true identity… this will, in my judgment, be to their benefit throughout childhood and adulthood.

‘Specifically, the mother will no longer be required to obtain formal consents from Mr J in relation to formal processes such as passport renewal.’

The judge added that both, ‘are obviously bright and engaging young people. They have completed their GCSEs with good results.

‘They are now in secondary education studying for A-levels. They are both aware that they were conceived through donor fertility treatment.’

He concluded that expert reports suggested that the impact of losing Mr J as their legal father on the children ‘is likely to be… minimal.’