Re C (Surrogacy: Consent)

Re C (Surrogacy: Consent)

The Appellant's consent was neither free nor unconditional, being given under pressure and reliant on the promise of a child arrangements order. Section 54(6) HFEA 2008 does not permit the court to dispense with consent on welfare grounds. The parental order should not have been made and must be set aside.

Parties
Subject: C (A Child); Appellant's Counsel: Janet Bazley KC, Olivia Magennis, Melissa Elsworth; Respondents' Counsel: Aidan Vine KC, Mavis Amonoo-Acquah
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; parental order set aside.
Legal Topics
Parental Orders, Consent, Human Rights, Child Welfare
Family Law Surrogacy Parental Orders Consent Human Rights Child Welfare

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C (A Child)

Subject

Janet Bazley KC, Olivia Magennis, Melissa Elsworth

Appellant's Counsel

Aidan Vine KC, Mavis Amonoo-Acquah

Respondents' Counsel

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the surrogate's consent to the parental order was free and unconditional as required by section 54(6) HFEA 2008
  2. 2 Whether the court can dispense with the surrogate's consent on welfare grounds under the Convention
  3. 3 Appropriate order to make if consent is not valid

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant's consent was neither free nor unconditional, being given under pressure and reliant on the promise of a child arrangements order. Section 54(6) HFEA 2008 does not permit the court to dispense with consent on welfare grounds. The parental order should not have been made and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; parental order set aside.

Orders

  • Application for parental order dismissed.