The mother of a test tube child has launched a legal action to end her former partner's official status as the girl's father.

Two years ago the man lost his legal right to see the girl following a court battle.

Now his former partner wants the Court of Appeal to rule that he can no longer be considered the child's father.

The man, aged 40, can have no natural children of his own for medical reasons and, even though the girl bears none of his genes, he sees her as his only chance of fatherhood.

Second attempt

Before their relationship broke down, the couple from Merseyside attended an IVF clinic and both signed forms to authorise the use of anonymous donor sperm.

The first attempts at conceiving were a failure, and the couple parted.

But a year later the women went back for a second try using embryos stored from the first treatment.

This time the IVF treatment worked, and the woman gave birth to a daughter three years ago.

By this time she was living with another man.

However, her original partner set a precedent as the first man to be confirmed by the courts as the father of an IVF and donor sperm baby because he signed the original consent form.

No contact

Despite this the courts ruled against his application for parental responsibility and immediate contact - saying he would have to wait until the girl was three years old before meeting her.

None of the parties involved can be identified to protect the child.

Andrew McFarlane QC, representing the mother at the Court of Appeal, told a panel of three judges that his client had misled the clinic when she went for the second IVF treatment.

She had told the clinic her relationship with her former partner was continuing. But, when it came to filling in a consent form, she left the "partner" box blank.

He said each individual treatment must be considered as a separate provision and the mother's second attempt was for her alone, not her former partner, who had not signed the second consent form at the clinic and knew nothing about it.

There could be no doubt about her former partner's genuine desire to have contact with the girl and play an active part in her life, said Mr McFarlane.

But he argued the decision to declare the former partner as the girl's legal father was a clear error, and had resulted from a misinterpretation of the law.

The Vice Chancellor, Sir Andrew Morritt, Lady Justice Hale and Lord Justice Dyson reserved their judgment to a later date