H v S (Surrogacy Agreememt) [2015] EWFC 36 (30 April 2015)

H v S (Surrogacy Agreememt) [2015] EWFC 36 (30 April 2015)

The court found that S deliberately misled the Applicants regarding her intentions, that the agreement was for H and B to be the main carers with S having a subsidiary role, and that S's conduct—including attempts to exclude H and B, breaches of court orders, and use of breastfeeding to limit contact—was contrary to M's welfare. Applying the welfare checklist, the court determined that M's welfare required a change of residence to live with H and B, with defined supervised contact to S, and that B should have parental responsibility. Prohibited steps orders and restrictions on S's future applications were justified to protect M's welfare.

Citation
[2015] EWFC 36
Parties
1st Applicant / Father: H; 2nd Applicant / Father's Partner: B; 1st Respondent / Mother: S; 2nd Respondent / Child (by Guardian): M (A Child)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Children Act Private Law Proceedings / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Child arrangements order: M to live with H and B; supervised contact to S; B granted parental responsibility; prohibited steps orders made; s91(14) order restricting S's future applications without permission; orders regarding M's name, passport, and religious upbringing.
Legal Topics
Parental Responsibility, Child Arrangements Orders, Surrogacy and Assisted Conception, Prohibited Steps Orders, Change of Name, Religious Upbringing, Section 91(14) Orders
Family Law Child Law Parental Responsibility Child Arrangements Orders Surrogacy and Assisted Conception Prohibited Steps Orders Change of Name Religious Upbringing +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H

1st Applicant / Father

B

2nd Applicant / Father's Partner

S

1st Respondent / Mother

M (A Child)

2nd Respondent / Child (by Guardian)

Procedural Posture

Children Act Private Law Proceedings / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether M should live with the Applicants or the Respondent
  2. 2 Whether B should have parental responsibility for M
  3. 3 Appropriate contact arrangements between M and S

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that S deliberately misled the Applicants regarding her intentions, that the agreement was for H and B to be the main carers with S having a subsidiary role, and that S's conduct—including attempts to exclude H and B, breaches of court orders, and use of breastfeeding to limit contact—was contrary to M's welfare. Applying the welfare checklist, the court determined that M's welfare required a change of residence to live with H and B, with defined supervised contact to S, and that B should have parental responsibility. Prohibited steps orders and restrictions on S's future applications were justified to protect M's welfare.

Court Disposition

Child arrangements order: M to live with H and B; supervised contact to S; B granted parental responsibility; prohibited steps orders made; s91(14) order restricting S's future applications without permission; orders regarding M's name, passport, and religious upbringing.

Orders

  • M to live with H and B as main carers
  • Defined supervised contact for S (monthly)