A B and C (UK surrogacy expences) [2016] EWFC 33 (10 June 2016)

A B and C (UK surrogacy expences) [2016] EWFC 33 (10 June 2016)

The court found that the payments made to the surrogates were either for reasonable expenses or, to the extent they exceeded such expenses, were modest and not indicative of a commercial surrogacy arrangement. The applicants' initial dishonesty was addressed and did not amount to an abuse of public policy. The welfare of the children required the making of parental orders, which were granted.

Citation
[2016] EWFC 33
Parties
Applicant: F; Applicant: G; 1st Respondent: X; 2nd Respondent: Y; 3rd Respondent: Z; 5th Respondent: A (by guardian); 6th Respondent: B (by guardian); 7th Respondent: C (by guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Parental Order Application (family Court) / Judgment After Final Hearing
Outcome
Parental orders granted for all three children.
Legal Topics
Parental Orders, Surrogacy Arrangements, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, Child Welfare, Public Policy in Surrogacy
Family Law Surrogacy Law Parental Orders Surrogacy Arrangements Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 Child Welfare Public Policy in Surrogacy

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F

Applicant

G

Applicant

X

1st Respondent

Y

2nd Respondent

Z

3rd Respondent

A (by guardian)

5th Respondent

B (by guardian)

6th Respondent

C (by guardian)

7th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Parental Order Application (family Court) / Judgment After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parental orders should be granted in respect of three children born via surrogacy where applicants initially misled the court about payments to surrogates
  2. 2 Whether payments made to surrogates exceeded reasonable expenses and, if so, whether the court should authorise them under s54(8) HFEA 2008
  3. 3 Whether the welfare of the children is served by making parental orders

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the payments made to the surrogates were either for reasonable expenses or, to the extent they exceeded such expenses, were modest and not indicative of a commercial surrogacy arrangement. The applicants' initial dishonesty was addressed and did not amount to an abuse of public policy. The welfare of the children required the making of parental orders, which were granted.

Court Disposition

Parental orders granted for all three children.

Orders

  • Parental orders made in respect of A, B, and C under s54 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.