Examiners’ reports 2016

Examiners’ reports 2016

LA3019 Family law – Zone B

Introduction
Overall, there were some very good answers in this exam. Strong answers were
able to demonstrate not only knowledge of the law but also to apply it to the specific
question. For essay questions, this means identifying the issue the question is
raising and addressing it directly. For example, many candidates read Q8 as raising
the issue of parental responsibility rather than reading the question carefully to see
that it was about legal parenthood, which of course may or may not confer parental
responsibility. Essay questions are directed towards a particular problem or
controversy and you must read them carefully to identify what they are asking. It is
important to be able to demonstrate knowledge of the law but we are also interested
in your critical assessment of it. Essay questions usually raise or identify
controversial issues and allow you to demonstrate your understanding of the
controversy.
For problem questions, while most candidates picked up on the issues to be
addressed, many answers lacked detail of analysis. Here is where you have the
chance to demonstrate your skills of legal analysis and good answers apply the law
to the facts of the case, identifying where there might be uncertainties. Problem
questions usually do not have clear answers; that is why they appear on exams!
Remember also that when you are asked to advise someone, you come to some
sort of conclusion about your advice to them, based on the weight of the authority.
Further, there were examples of candidates missing or misunderstanding the
significance of crucial factual information in problem questions. It is good policy to
assume that if a fact is specified in a problem question, it is there for a reason.
For both essays and problem questions, you must use relevant authorities to
support your arguments. Remember, in a common law system, there will be cases
or legislation on most issues covered and knowledge of this authority is important.

Comments on specific questions

Question 1
Comment on whether, in your view, the following clauses of the No Fault
Divorce Bill 2015, currently before the UK Parliament, adequately address the
concerns of those who feel the law of divorce and dissolution of civil
partnerships must be reformed.
After section 1 [of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973] (Divorce on breakdown
of marriage), insert—

1
 1A Divorce on breakdown of marriage: joint petition
(1) The court receiving a joint petition to divorce from both parties to a
marriage shall grant a decree of divorce subject to subsection[s] (2) …
(2) Before granting a decree of divorce in response to a joint petition it
shall be the duty of the court to satisfy itself only that an individual
statement from each party that the marriage has broken down
irretrievably, signed freely and independently, is affixed to the joint
petition.
General remarks
This question raises issues addressed in 4.4 of the subject guide. The question of
divorce reform is always simmering as it is felt the current law encourages hostility,
requires fault but is confusing in that there is only one ground, irretrievable
breakdown. Reference to the Law Commission’s report and how well the proposed
amendment dealt with its concerns might have been one way to structure an
answer to this question. Does divorce by consent make sense in the modern world?
If so, should it, as proposed in the question, be one available ground or the only
ground?
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to
use
The MCA 1973 ground and facts; cases such as Buffery and Cleary on interpreting
them; the Law Commission Report 1988; the now repealed parts of the Family Law
Act 1996 on ideas and attempts at reform over the years; statements by the Law
Society on the ease with which divorce can be obtained, even using fault-based
facts.
Common errors
Simply writing general ideas about no fault divorce without referring directly to the
current law and its problems or advantages. While some discussion of the value of
no fault divorce generally was important, does including no fault as one possible
ground only go far enough or is it more confusing?
A good answer to this question would…
adopt a ‘social’ perspective and think about what modern marriage is and its value
to society. In this light, should the state require fault of some sort, or should the
parties be free to exit their marriage by consent? These questions would be
addressed in the context of the criticisms of the current law and the answer would
come to a conclusion about whether the proposed reform addresses those
concerns.
Poor answers to this question…
(See above comments under ‘common errors’.)
Question 2
How does the court balance human rights and welfare considerations when it
is asked to dispense with a parent’s consent to the placement of a child for
adoption?
General remarks
Material for this question comes from 12.4 of the study guide.
The first thing this question is looking for is knowledge of the law on consent to
adoption placements and the court’s jurisdiction to dispense with that consent.
When can the court dispense with consent? In what circumstances has it done so?
Why are human rights issues raised at all? Which human rights issues are raised?
Why is a balance necessary between welfare and human rights?

2
 Examiners’ reports 2016

Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to
use
Parental consent to adoption placement is in s.52 ACA 2002. The court can
dispense with it where the welfare of the child demands it. Recent cases have said
that the welfare consideration should, however, be subject to a human rights-based
proportionality test. (Re B [2013] UKSC.) Placement against parents’ wishes,
removing a child from parents permanently, should be made only where nothing
else will do. Students should also discuss Re B-S [2013] EWCA and cases
following it such as Re C [2013] EWCA and CM v Blackburn and Darwen BC [2014]
EWCA and assess how the welfare test works with the human rights-based
proportionality test.
Common errors
Many candidates failed to focus on the question of consent to placement and when
it can be dispensed with, and wrote generally about adoption. Many mentioned the
Re B case but displayed lack of detail on how the court exercises its judgment.
A good answer to this question would…
be structured clearly to show knowledge of the law, understanding of why it raises
difficult issues and how the courts have tried to resolve the issues. A clear outline
and structure helps in questions like this where there are two concerns (here,
human rights and child welfare) that must be balanced.
Poor answers to this question…
displayed a lack of focus on the question and took it to mean: ‘tell me everything
you know about adoption’.
Student extract
Writing for a unanimous court in Re B-S Munby P examined the case law,
including the ECHR jurisprudence and Re B and noted the consistent
emphasis of the point that severance of family ties inherent in an adoption is
a draconian step and one that requires the highest level of evidence. He
noted also the principle in both the CA 1989 and the ACA 2002 that the
courts are to adopt the least interventionist approach when dealing with the
upbringing of children. …
Since CM v Blackburn 2014 the CA has considered this again. Here the
mother appealed against the making of a placement order …. [and then a
good discussion of the facts of the case and the mother’s argument] … The
Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. At para 33 it commented: Neither the
decision of the Supreme Court in Re B nor that of this court in Re B-S has
created a new test or new presumption. ….
The court must undertake a welfare analysis of each of the realistic options
for the child having regard to all options when coming to a decision.
Comments on extract
This is an extract from an answer that clearly demonstrates knowledge of the recent
case law and the interaction between the HRA and the child’s welfare in adoption
cases. It does not deal squarely with dispensation of parental consent, however,
and so does not achieve top marks.
Question 3
‘If the government wishes to promote the family as the foundation for social
stability and the care of children, then surely it should be more concerned
with the substance and function of a relationship rather than its form. The law
should ensure that people have a real choice in the type of intimate

3
relationships they are able to enter into and that they will be treated equally
by the law whatever their choice.’
Discuss.
General remarks
This question invites discussion first of what the presumed value is to society of
‘stable families’; i.e. what functions do they perform? How do we define a ‘stable
family’? There is room here for discussion of material from many parts of the
syllabus, including cohabitation, civil partnership, single parent families, etc. It
raises the form versus function debate. The second part of the question addresses
issues such as why does the form of a relationship still confer different
rights/obligations? Why is marriage privileged? What is the remaining purpose of
civil partnerships for same-sex couples only? Why not allow all the choice? What, if
any, recognition/protection should be offered for cohabitants? We were looking for
insightful discussion of these ideas about family forms and functions.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to
use
The differences between the rights and obligations conferred by marriage/civil
partnership and marriage/cohabitation: MCA financial relief provisions; CA
fatherhood provisions; and material from 3.2 of the subject guide on cohabitation
versus marriage.
Common errors
Many answers were simply too broad and ‘waffly’. This question does invite a socio-
legal discussion but it requires focus and a clear structure. When answering a broad
question like this, it sometime helps to mention the different issues it raises and
then say, for example, that the answer will focus on one of them. Questions like this
require a good outline and strong focus in their structure.
A good answer to this question would…
adopt a focus. For example, focus on the issue of choice and how permitting choice
in family formation does not harm stability would address questions of marriage
versus cohabitation or marriage versus civil partnership for only some couples. Or,
it could adopt a focus on form versus function and the effect of each on stability of
families. Either approach would do but this question required a clearly structured
answer.
Poor answers to this question…
tried to raise too many issues and did not quite get to grips with any of them; did not
refer to any law or other literature.
Question 4
Bob is four-years-old. He attends nursery school each weekday morning. One
of his nursery carers has expressed concern about unexplained serious
bruises on his body. His parents, Colin and Angie, both work full-time outside
the home and so employ a child-minder, Demi, who brings her own three-
year-old, Eldon, to their home each day when she cares for Bob.
The local authority is concerned about both Bob and Eldon. Although Eldon
shows no physical signs of harm, the Local Authority wishes to speak with
him and have him assessed but Demi refuses to make him available for
assessment. Colin and Angie deny harming Bob, refuse to have him seen by
a doctor and say they will sack Demi.
Advise the local authority.

4
 Examiners’ reports 2016

General remarks
This question is about local authorities’ duties to children. It is about investigatory
orders available: child assessment orders and emergency protection orders for both
children. It is also about the possibility of applying for care or supervision orders for
each, the threshold conditions and the welfare test. It requires an understanding of
what the local authority should do to ensure the children on these facts are
protected and a judgement about the likelihood of the LA obtaining any of the
orders available to them.
After outlining the possible investigatory orders, the issue re the care order is with
identification of the perpetrator of the harm suffered by Bob, but the Lancashire CC
case says that if the perpetrator is within a pool that includes a child minder the
threshold has been made out, and equally at the welfare stage, the perpetrator
does not have to be identified so long as he or she is within a pool of possible
perpetrators: Re O and N [2003]. The decision then is about what, if any, order is
appropriate, considering the welfare stage and Re B UKSC. Re Eldon, the issue of
the unknown perpetrator is more difficult: the court cannot base a finding of the
likelihood of future harm to Eldon on a possibility, i.e. that Demi is a possible
perpetrator of harm to Bob: Re S-B [2009] UKSC. But see Re J [2013] UKSC which
says that the fact that a carer is within a pool of possible perpetrators of harm to
one child may be a significant fact that together with other significant facts may be
sufficient for a finding of likelihood of significant harm to another child. What order, if
any, is appropriate for Eldon as we have no other evidence, without assessments,
of harm to him?
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to
use
Section 47 CA re duty to investigate; ss.43 and 44 re evidence-seeking,
investigations where parents do not cooperate; s.31 threshold test and cases
mentioned above in interpreting it where the perpetrator of harm is unknown.
Common errors
There seemed to be much confusion about the applicability of Part 3 CA re
voluntary services. The s.17 duty to a child in need is not raised in this question;
here we are interested in Part 4 of the CA and the s.47 duty to a child at risk of
suffering significant harm. Further, many candidates were unsure of the role of s.43
and s.44 orders and said the LA could apply for them after it obtained a care order.
Finally, a surprising number of candidates did not discuss the threshold test at all
and simply said the LA could obtain an order, without explaining how or why they
thought so on these facts.
A good answer to this question would…
demonstrate an understanding of the process the local authority must go through to
obtain an order, beginning from finding out the facts/assessing the children (s.43 or
s.44) and then analysing whether, on the facts the assessments disclosed, the
threshold test could be made out. If so, a good answer would form a judgement
about what, if any, order is appropriate.
Poor answers to this question…
did not discuss the threshold test at all (surprisingly) and assumed on these facts
that the LA could simply ‘make’ any order it wished. Local authorities do not make
orders. Only the courts make orders.

5
Question 5
Read the following scenarios and advise Jean and Kelly as to the remedies
available to each of them.
a) Jean is 22-years-old and has been married to Mike for two years.
When they married both Jean and Mike attended University, but
immediately after the marriage Mike insisted that Jean give up her
studies in order to focus upon starting a family. Jean reluctantly
agreed. Since then, Mike has become very jealous, distrustful,
overbearing and controlling in his behaviour towards Jean. He has
prevented her from obtaining employment or from engaging in
social activities outside the matrimonial home unless he
accompanies her. He monitors her telephone calls and computer
use and has installed CCTV cameras outside the house – ‘for
security’ he says. He meanwhile has continued with his course of
study and maintained a social life outside the home.
b) Kelly is 18-years-old. She has a three-month-old baby, Laura, by
Nick, to whom she is not married. Kelly and Nick spent three
months living together in a council flat and Kelly is now living there
with Andy, who is her new boyfriend, and baby Laura. Kelly is
frightened of Nick, who follows her about in the streets and who
says that she only got the flat because of baby Laura and so he is
as much entitled to live in it as she is. Nick has threatened Kelly
saying, ‘The next time I see you in the street I’m going to follow
you home and get into the flat. If you or Andy try and stop me you’ll
be sorry.’
General remarks
This question asked about possible remedies for domestic violence. It required
knowledge of possible criminal and civil remedies across a range of statutes and
case law. The facts did not present straightforward routes to follow, however, and
candidates needed to be clear about why they were advising each of these women
in the way they did.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to
use
Coercive control under the Serious Crime Act 2015; The Protection from
Harassment Act 1997; The Family Law Act 1996 ss.33, 42; and perhaps divorce
under the MCA 1973. Relevant cases include B v B; Dolan v Corby; Grubb v Grubb
and Re L [2012].
Common errors
While divorce might be appropriate advice for Jean in part (a), it was not wise to
spend too much time running through the various possible facts she might rely on.
Too often a disproportionate amount of time was taken on divorce for this part, with
too little time being taken on whether an occupation order might serve her better.
A good answer to this question would…
ask if there a possible criminal charge of coercive control and ask further if Jean
would want this, what would it mean for her? See the possibility of an occupation
order s.33 FLA but, given there is no actual violence, recognise that she might have
to rely on the court’s s.33(6) discretion rather than the s.33(7) balance of harm test.
Dolan v Corby; Re L. Discussion of s.33 factors. Finally, a brief discussion of
divorce would add to this answer.
For part (b), a good answer would note that a non-molestation order is available for
Kelly, she is an associated person. Some discussion of the case law on s.42.

6
 Examiners’ reports 2016

Further she may wish to apply for an occupation order because she is a former
cohabitant but note that she has a right to occupy. If only her name is on the lease,
Nick has no right to occupy and therefore Kelly does not need an occupation order
against him. But, if his name is still on lease then she can apply for an occupation
order s.33, probably under s.33(6). She might ask for him to be excluded also from
a defined area around the house and a power of arrest.
Poor answers to this question…
Spent far too much time on divorce in part (a) and did not address in sufficient detail
the requirements for occupation orders. The developing case law on s.33(6) is
important.
Question 6
Herb and Yumi met while studying law in London. Herb is from England and
Wendy is from Japan. On their graduation in 2000, they agreed to marry and
set up a legal practice together. One week before the wedding, and after all
Yumi’s friends and family had arrived from Japan, Herb asked Yumi to sign a
pre-nuptial agreement he had drafted. Yumi knew that Herb's family had some
money, but he never wanted to talk about it, saying it was nothing to do with
him. The agreement did not provide any detail about Herb's assets, but simply
said that neither of them would have any claim upon the other for financial
relief or property adjustment in the event they separated or divorced. The
agreement did provide that, if they had children, they would be equally
responsible for financial support of the children.
Yumi was unsure about signing the agreement but, after Herb said that his
parents demanded the agreement, she reluctantly signed it. She was also too
embarrassed to postpone the wedding in order to see her own lawyer. Herb
and Yumi worked together in their legal practice until their first child, Bella,
was born in 2004, at which time Yumi stopped work to care for her. Their
second child, Cindy, was born in 2008. Herb now earns over £600,000 per year
in his legal practice while Yumi remains at home caring for the family.
Herb has now told Yumi that he wants a divorce. He says that since she will
continue to look after their children, she can stay in their family home, worth
£2 million, until Cindy finishes school, after which the house should be sold
and the proceeds divided equally. He also agrees to contribute financially for
the children, but says that, because of the agreement they signed in 1998 and
also because Yumi is a qualified lawyer, he owes her nothing else.
Yumi now knows that years ago Herb's parents gave him the chalet in
Switzerland where Herb, she and the children used to spend their holidays
and that, in addition to income from his legal practice, he earns profit each
year from investments made in his name by his father. He also has a
substantial pension from the law firm.
Yumi seeks your advice about making a financial and property claim against
Herb.
General remarks
Problem questions like this on financial relief are sometimes difficult to answer. It is
not always clear whether one should proceed through the s.25 factors first before
then applying the fairness analysis/criteria from White, Miller/McFarlane and
Charman, or whether that overall discretionary judgment about fairness comes first,
with the s.25 factors then looked at after. For this question and on most exam
questions about ‘big money’, either approach is fine and it might be of some comfort
to know that the courts are not in agreement either about the best way to proceed.
In big money cases like this, however, it is important that candidates discuss both

7
the three strands of fairness in the context of the facts and also those s.25 factors
that may influence the overall determination of fairness.
The first issue in this question is whether the pre-nuptial agreement is valid and if so
will it be given effect to. It required a discussion of the Radmacher case of vitiating
factors such as duress or undue influence. It also required a discussion of the
fairness of giving effect to the agreement: was there undue pressure? Lack of
details re finances? Lack of legal advice? But W is a lawyer, was she ‘sophisticated’
like Mr Granatino?
If the agreement is not fair then we needed a discussion of the MCA s.25 discretion,
clean break, Miller/McFarlane, three strands of fairness and recent cases such as
JL v SL [2015] on matrimonial versus non-matrimonial property, particularly re the
chalet and investments. Finally, there should be a judgement about a fair solution,
including the pension, housing needs, possible periodic payments as in McFarlane,
all according to the s.25 factors.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to
use
Radmacher and cases such as Z v Z, Kremen and Luckwell v Limata that have
interpreted it. On the court’s discretion, Miller/McFarlane (Hale and Nicholls) and
recent cases such as JL v SL [2015] about family versus non-family assets. Some
discussion of the discretionary exercise, the three strands of fairness, clean break
and s.25 factors. White v White, Miller v Miller, McFarlane v McFarlane, Charman v
Charman, Jones v Jones, perhaps also V v V; the MCA s.25(2); Mesher v Mesher.
There are a number of cases that could be cited to illustrate the courts’
interpretations of the various factors in s.25(2), but White, Miller/MacFarlane and
Charman are required for discussion of the fairness principle.
Common errors
Many candidates did not discuss the agreement in sufficient detail and concluded
without reference to authority that it was not valid. Many did not recognise the
difference between a valid contract and one that would not be given effect to under
the MCA discretion. Many missed certain potentially shareable assets such as the
pension.
A good answer to this question would…
first come to a reasoned conclusion about the agreement. Will it be given effect?
Here arguments about the factual similarity or otherwise to Radmacher would be
useful. Then, if the agreement is not given effect to, a good answer would identify
all the potentially shareable assets and deal with each one in turn. Is the chalet a
family asset? Why or why not? What about the investments and the profit from
them? His pension? In terms of financial support, are these facts similar to
McFarlane and therefore call for compensation? Is this a case for a clean break
order?
Poor answers to this question…
failed to identify the pool of potentially shareable assets. Failed to consider the
clean break. Did not come to a sufficiently reasoned conclusion about the
agreement but simply said it was not fair. Perhaps it was not but we need to know
why and on what authority.
Question 7
Jill has a four-year-old daughter, Freya. She is pretty sure that Freya’s father
is Egbert, with whom she had intercourse once, on the only occasion they
met. Jill did not tell Egbert about the pregnancy because, shortly after their
encounter, she became involved with Tom. Tom knew about the pregnancy

8
 Examiners’ reports 2016

but was happy at the time to be a part of Freya’s life. Tom and Jill have just
married and they share care of Freya. They are now thinking of relocating to
France where Tom has a new job opportunity.
Last month Jill received an email from Egbert who said that he had heard that
she had had his child and that he wished to meet Freya and establish a
relationship with her as her father. She also received an email from Egbert’s
parents who said they too wanted to get to know their granddaughter. Both
Egbert and his parents also wanted to ensure that Freya was raised as a
Roman Catholic as their religion was important to them. Jill and Tom are not
religious and do not wish Egbert or his family to interfere with their
upbringing of Freya. They want to move to France as soon as possible.
Advise Jill and Tom.
General remarks
This question focuses upon the Children Act 1989, parental responsibility and s.8
orders. It requires an understanding of the orders available, who is able to make
application for them, the factors the court will consider and what those orders may
determine. It deals with the rights of unmarried fathers, social fathers and
grandparents. It asks about advice to Jill and Tom but also requires consideration of
what, if anything, Egbert and his parents can do to affect their relationship with
Freya. In this sense, the question addresses a number of issues but it can be
broken down by addressing in turn the case of each of the potential applicants. In
advising J and T, we must always advise them of applications that may be made
against them, as well as those applications they themselves may make.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to
use
Tom is presumed to be F’s father (marriage) and therefore has parental
responsibility. If E wants to rebut that presumption and say that he is the father, he
must ask the court to direct tests: s.23(1) FLRA 1969. That decision is made on the
welfare test, cases say it is usually in the child’s welfare (and is possibly the child’s
right) to know the truth (see here 8.1.3 of the subject guide); Re H and A, Re H;
Mikulic; Re D child’s wishes, but Freya is only four. On the assumption or finding
that E is F’s father, E can apply for a child arrangements order for contact (CA
s.10(4)), a specific issues order re religion and prohibited steps order re stopping
relocation. Relocation cases include Payne, Re W [2011], K v K [2011], Re F [2012]
and most recently, Re F [2015] EWCA with its holistic analysis of welfare in these
cases. Contact assumptions cases are in his favour (e.g. Re O) even if indirect
contact only. On the religion issue and welfare see Re G [2012], Re T (1981).
Grandparents require leave to apply for s.8 orders (s.10 factors for leave do not
include welfare) and if given leave and their application for contact and specific
issues order will be determined by the welfare test.
Common errors
While candidates identified the issues, many did not analyse them in enough detail.
Reference to authority and support for conclusions is required.
A good answer to this question would…
address the case law on scientific tests for paternity and therefore PR and the
welfare principle; review the case law on child arrangements orders re contact,
prohibited steps orders re relocation and specific issues orders re religion. This
question lends itself to a logical structure on each issue. Strong answers will deal
first with E’s case and then with the grandparents’ case. It will mention grandparent
contact cases such as Re W (Contact: Application by Grandparent) [2001] 1 FLR
263; Re H (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 271 – grandparents have an Art 8 right to
contact if they have an already established relationship with child.

9
Poor answers to this question…
identified the issues but did not analyse the law. Most candidates were able to see
that E had to be identified as a father in order to get PR and therefore a claim to
make a s.8 application but many did not then show the route to him doing so: the
law that he would rely on or the welfare test he would have to meet to obtain the
result he wanted.
Student extract
Egbert may apply under s.4 CA 1989 to acquire parental responsibility as the
biological father (unmarried father no parental responsibility).
Assumed that Egbert obtain parental responsibility he may apply for a child
arrangements order to stop Jill and Tom from bringing Egbert to France. Jill
may also seek a child arrangements order to decline Egbert from taking
custody of Freya under s.8 Ca 1989.
Court before granting any order will take into consideration the child’s welfare
under s.1 CA 1989 which is the paramount consideration and the checklist
under s.1(3) CA 1989. On the facts, court is likely to grant PR to Egbert with
contact order.
Comments on extract
The principles are here, but this extract does not do enough to demonstrate a
knowledge of the authority for the conclusions it reaches. Yes, E may apply for a
PR order but how would he do that? This extract does not tell us. If E does obtain
PR, we are told he would apply for a child arrangements order to stop the child’s
move to France. Perhaps but a PSO or SPO might also be important? And note that
there is no reference to the arguments E would make applying his facts to the
authorities. Finally, yes, the welfare test is paramount but we have in this extract no
discussion of it or why it justifies the conclusion it reaches. This answer received
credit for identifying some of the issues (and it misidentified others) but because it
gave us little to no analysis, did not pass.
Question 8
Does legal parenthood always attach to biological parenthood? Should it?
General remarks
This question was about the distinction between legal parenthood and biological
parenthood, not about parental responsibility. It draws on material from 8.1 of the
subject guide. We wanted you to think about how the law allocates legal parenthood
– sometimes by intention and sometimes by biology and then to consider whether
biology should be the most important factor in that allocation.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to
use
The HFEA 2008 (e.g. ss.33, 35, 41, 42 and 54) was important here and cases such
as Leeds Teaching Hospital, Evans and those on parental orders made in
surrogacy cases (s.54), Re C and Re S (Parental Order) [2010].
Common errors
Misinterpreting this question to be about parental responsibility; not coming to a
reasoned conclusion about the whether the law treats biological connections with
children fairly or not. Is there something special about biology? Should there be?
A good answer to this question would…
outline the law where biological parenthood automatically confers legal parenthood:
biological fathers but not sperm donors in licensed clinics or donated to married or
civilly partnered women, all women who give birth. Where it does not: sperm donors

10
 Examiners’ reports 2016

as above and egg donors. Where legal parenthood is conferred outside biological
parenthood: the husband of a woman treated in a clinic, unless he did not consent;
a man who agrees to treatment of a woman to whom he is not married if the
fatherhood conditions are agreed; lesbian partner ‘other parents’; parental orders
(all HFEA 2008) and adoption orders. The issue here is legal parenthood, not PR. A
good answer would then discuss whether the biological connection should be
important in conferring legal parenthood and may refer to, for example the Re G
case where Lady Hale talks about social, psychological and biological parents and
says while biology is important, it is only a part of the overall welfare of the child.
Poor answers to this question…
(See above under ‘common errors’.)

11