Feminist Legal Studies

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 201–225 | Cite as

“No Father Required”? The Welfare Assessment in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008

  • Julie McCandless
  • Sally SheldonEmail author


Of all the changes to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 that were introduced in 2008 by legislation of the same name, foremost to excite media attention and popular controversy was the amendment of the so-called welfare clause. This clause forms part of the licensing conditions which must be met by any clinic before offering those treatment services covered by the legislation. The 2008 Act deleted the statutory requirement that clinicians consider the need for a father of any potential child before offering a woman treatment, substituting for it a requirement that clinicians must henceforth consider the child’s need for “supportive parenting”. In this paper, we first briefly recall the history of the introduction of s 13(5) in the 1990 Act, before going on to track discussion of its amendment through the lengthy reform process that preceded the introduction of the 2008 Act. We then discuss the meaning of the phrase “supportive parenting” with reference to guidance regarding its interpretation offered by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. While the changes to s 13(5) have been represented as suggesting a major change in the law, we suggest that the reworded section does not represent a significant break from the previous law as it had been interpreted in practice. This raises the question of why it was that an amendment that is likely to make very little difference to clinical practice tended to excite such attention (and with such polarising force). To this end, we locate debates regarding s 13(5) within a broader context of popular anxieties regarding the use of reproductive technologies and, specifically, what they mean for the position of men within the family.


Fatherhood Human fertilisation and embryology Reproductive technologies Sexual family Supportive parenting Welfare of the child 



We are grateful to the Socio-Legal Studies Association for funding the costs of the interviews that this article draws upon, to our interviewees for taking the time to share their insights into the reform process with us, and to the two anonymous reviewers from Feminist Legal Studies for their comments.


  1. Barlow, Anne, Simon Duncan, Grace James, and Alison Park. 2005. Cohabitation, marriage and the law: Social change and legal reform in the 21st century. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Blackstock, Colin. 2004. No need for fathers in IVF treatment says fertility chief. The Guardian, January 21.Google Scholar
  3. Blyth, Eric. 1995. The United Kingdom’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and the welfare of the child: A critique. The International Journal of Children’s Rights 3: 417–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blyth, Eric, and Chris Cameron. 1998. The welfare of the child: An emerging issue in assisted reproduction. Human Reproduction 13: 2339–2355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brazier, Margaret. 1999. Regulating the reproduction business. Medical Law Review 7: 166–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brewaeys, Anne, Ingrid Ponjaert, Eylard van Hall, and Susan Golombok. 1997. Donor insemination: Child development and family functioning in lesbian mother families. Human Reproduction 12: 1349–1359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collier, Richard. 2006. Feminist legal studies and the subject(s) of men: Questions of text, terrain and context in the politics of family law. In Feminist perspectives on family law, ed. Alison Diduck, and Katherine O’Donovan, 235–250. Abingdon: Cavendish.Google Scholar
  8. Collier, Richard, and Sally Sheldon. 2007. Fathers’ rights activism and law reform in comparative perspective. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Collier, Richard, and Sally Sheldon. 2008. Fragmenting fatherhood: A socio-legal study. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Cook, Emily. 2009. The end of men? Scientists create sperm in the lab out of stem cells. Daily Mirror, 8 July.Google Scholar
  11. Cooper, Davina, and Didi Herman. 1991. Getting ‘the family right’: Legislating heterosexuality in Britain, 1986–1991. Canadian Journal of Family Law 10: 41–78.Google Scholar
  12. Cutas, Daniela. 2007. Postmenopausal motherhood: Immoral? Illegal? A case study. Bioethics 21: 458–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis, Gwynn, Nicholas Wikely, Richard Young, Jacqueline Barron, and Julie Bedward. 1998. Child support in action. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Department of Health. 2005. Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act: A public consultation. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  15. Department of Health. 2006. Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act: Proposals for revised legislation (Cm 6989). London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  16. Department of Health. 2009. Primary care trust survey: Position of IVF in England. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  17. Diduck, Alison, and Felicity Kagagnas. 2006. Family law, gender and the state, 2nd ed. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Donnelly, Laura. 2007. Fathers ‘no longer needed for IVF’. The Telegraph, 9 September.Google Scholar
  19. Douglas, Gillian. 1992. Access to assisted reproduction: Legal and other criteria for eligibility. London: Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar
  20. Douglas, Gillian. 1993. Assisted reproduction and the welfare of the child. Current Legal Problems 5: 53–74.Google Scholar
  21. Fineman, Martha. 1995. The neutered mother, the sexual family and other twentieth century tragedies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Golombok, Susan, Anne Brewaeys, M.T. Giavazzi, Diana Guerra, Fiona MacCallum, and John Rust. 2002. The European study of assisted reproduction families: The transition to adolescence. Human Reproduction 17: 830–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Golombok, Susan, Beth Perry, Amanda Burston, Clare Murray, Julie Mooney-Somers, Madeleine Stevens, and Jean Golding. 2003. Children with lesbian parents: A community study. Developmental Psychology 39: 20–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hansard Society. 2004. Online consultation on human reproductive technologies and the law, commissioned by the Science and Technology Committee (summary report). London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  25. Harding, Rosie. 2010. Regulating sexuality: Legal consciousness in lesbian and gay lives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Harris, Evan. 2010. The demise of HFEA—Don’t lament—or celebrate—too soon, it may never happen. Bionews 569, 2 August.Google Scholar
  27. Henderson, Mark, Francis Elliot, Ruth Gledhill, and Sam Coates. 2008. Women win right to children without fathers. The Times, 20 May.Google Scholar
  28. Hinsliff, Gaby. 2004. Gay couples to get new rights to fertility treatment. The Observer, 15 August.Google Scholar
  29. Hinsliff, Gaby. 2005. Blunkett blasted for ‘intrusion’ in Kimberly Quinn paternity battle. The Observer, 6 March.Google Scholar
  30. HM Government. 2007. Government response to the report from the Joint Committee on the Human Tissues and Embryos (Draft) Bill (Cm 7209). London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  31. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. 2005. Human reproductive technologies and the law (Fifth report of session 2004–2005, HC papers 7-I and 7-II). London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  32. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 1991. Code of practice, 1st ed. London: HFEA.Google Scholar
  33. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 2003. Code of practice, 6th ed. London: HFEA.Google Scholar
  34. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 2005. Tomorrow’s children: A consultation on guidance to licensed fertility clinics on taking into account the welfare of children to be born of assisted conception treatment. London: HFEA.Google Scholar
  35. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 2007. Code of practice, 7th ed. London: HFEA.Google Scholar
  36. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 2009a. Code of practice, 8th ed. London: HFEA.Google Scholar
  37. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 2009b. Consultation report: Code of practice and revised consent forms, 8th ed. London: HFEA.Google Scholar
  38. Jackson, Emily. 2002. Conception and the irrelevance of the welfare principle. Modern Law Review 65: 176–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Joint Committee 2007 House of Lords, House of Commons Joint Committee on the Human Tissue and Embryos (Draft) Bill, Vol I: Report (Session 2006–2007, HL paper 169-I, HC paper 630-II), Vol II: Evidence (Session 2006–2007, HL paper 169-II, HC paper 630-II). London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  40. Jones, Caroline. 2007. Why donor insemination requires developments in family law: The need for new definitions of parenthood. Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
  41. Kennedy, Richard, Charles Kingsland, Antony Rutherford, Mark Hamilton, and William Ledger. 2006. Implementation of the NICE guidance—Recommendations from the British Fertility Society for national criteria for NHS funding of assisted conception. Human Fertility 9: 181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Laurence, Jeremy. 2004. Fathers no longer required: Fertility chief signals an IVF revolution. The Independent, 21 January.Google Scholar
  43. Lee, Robert, and Derek Morgan. 2001. Human fertilisation and embryology: Regulating the reproductive revolution, 2nd ed. London: Blackstone.Google Scholar
  44. Lewis, Charlie, Amalia Papacosta, and Jo Warin. 2002. Cohabitation, separation and fatherhood. London: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  45. MacCallum, Fiona, and Susan Golombok. 2004. Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: A follow-up of the children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers at early adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45: 1407–1419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. MacRae, Fiona. 2009. Another blow to fatherhood: IVF mothers can name ANYONE as ‘father’ on birth certificate—and it doesn’t even have to be a man. Daily Mail, 2 March.Google Scholar
  47. McCandless, Julie. 2009. Reproducing the sexual family: Law, gender and parenthood in assisted reproduction. PhD thesis, Keele University.Google Scholar
  48. McCandless, Julie, and Sally Sheldon. 2010. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (2008): The enduring legacy of the sexual family. Modern Law Review 73: 175–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McGuinness, Sheelagh, and Amel Alghrani. 2008. Gender and parenthood: The case for realignment. Medical Law Review 16: 261–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Millns, Susan. 1995. Making “social judgements that go beyond the purely medical”: The reproductive revolution and access to fertility treatment services. In Law and body politics: Regulating the female body, ed. Jo Bridgeman, and Susan Millns, 79–104. Dartmouth: Aldershot.Google Scholar
  51. Mooney-Somers, Julie, and Susan Golombok. 2000. Children of lesbian mothers: From the 1970s to the new millennium. Sex and Marital Therapy 15: 121–126.Google Scholar
  52. O’Neill, Rebecca. 2002. Experiments in living: The fatherless family. London: Civitas.Google Scholar
  53. Perry, Beth, Amanda Burston, Madeleine Stevens, Howard Steele, Jean Golding, and Susan Golombok. 2004. Children’s play narratives: What they tell us about lesbian mother families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 74: 467–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Plomer, Aurora, Iain Smith, and Norma Martin-Clement. 1999. Rationing policies on access to in vitro fertilisation in the NHS, UK. Reproductive Health Matters 7: 60–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Raper, Vivienne. 2010. New breed of fertility watchdog on way. Bionews 568, 26 July.Google Scholar
  56. Robertson, John. 2009. Lesbian couple win legal battle to get fertility treatment on the NHS. The Scotsman, 27 February.Google Scholar
  57. Saffron, Lisa. 2002. Can fertility service providers justify discrimination against lesbians? Human Fertility 5: 42–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sheldon, Sally. 2005. Fragmenting fatherhood: The regulation of reproductive technologies. Modern Law Review 68: 523–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sheldon, Sally. 2009. From “absent object of blame” to “fathers who take responsibility”: Reforming birth registration law. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 31: 373–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Smart, Carol. 1984. The ties that bind: Law, marriage and the reproduction of patriarchal relations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  61. Smith, Leanne. 2006. Is three a crowd? Lesbian mothers’ perspectives on parental status in law. Child and Family Law Quarterly 18: 231–252.Google Scholar
  62. Stanworth, Michelle. 1987. Reproductive technologies and the deconstruction of motherhood. In Reproductive technologies: Gender, motherhood and medicine, ed. Michelle Stanworth, 10–35. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  63. Steinberg, Deborah. 1997. Bodies in glass: Genetics, eugenics, embryo ethics. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Stevens, Madeleine, Beth Perry, Amanda Burston, Jean Golding, and Susan Golombok. 2003. Openness in lesbian mother’s families regarding mother’s sexual orientation and child’s conception by donor insemination. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 21: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Templeton, Sarah Kate. 2009. Lesbian couple win fight for IVF on the NHS. The Sunday Times, 19 July.Google Scholar
  66. Wallbank, Julie. 2004. Reconstructing the HFEA: Is blood really thicker than water? Child and Family Law Quarterly 16: 387–397.Google Scholar
  67. Warnock, Mary. 1984. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Cm 9314). London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  68. Wilson, Graeme. 2005. No father required. Daily Mail, 15 August.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law DepartmentLondon School of EconomicsLondonUK
  2. 2.Kent Law School, Eliot CollegeUniversity of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations