KB & RJ v RT (Rev 1)

The applicants satisfy all statutory criteria for a parental order under s.54 HFEA 2008, including domicile, consent, and payments. The statutory time limit is not a bar due to purposive interpretation and human rights obligations. The surrogate’s estranged husband is not the legal father as he did not consent. Retrospective authorization of payments is granted as applicants acted in good faith and the child’s welfare demands it.

Parties: Applicant: KB; Applicant: RJ; Respondent: RT; Subject: J (A child)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 07 April 2016
Procedural Posture: Parental Order Application (surrogacy) / Final Judgment
Outcome: Parental order granted in favour of the applicants.
Legal Topics: Surrogacy, Parental Orders, Immigration Clearance, Child Welfare, Statutory Interpretation

Family Law Immigration Law Surrogacy Parental Orders Immigration Clearance Child Welfare Statutory Interpretation

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Applicant

Respondent

J (A child)

Subject

Procedural Posture

Parental Order Application (surrogacy) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the criteria under s.54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 are satisfied
2 Whether the Court can or should make a parental order when the child is outside the jurisdiction of England and Wales and the parental order reporter has not seen the child in a family setting in the UK
3 Whether the surrogate’s estranged husband is to be treated as the child’s father under s.35 of the 2008 Act

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Parental order granted in favour of the applicants.

Orders

Parental order made under s.54 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 in favour of KB and RJ.
Retrospective authorization of payments to surrogate mother and clinic.