England and Wales Case Law

J (A child) (Surrogacy: Adoption Order), Re

The court found that, despite the applicants' and paternal grandmother's deceit regarding DNA evidence and attempts to mislead the court, it was in J's lifelong best interests for an adoption order to be made in favour of Mr and Mrs P. The lies and procedural delays caused harm to J but did not outweigh the stability, permanency, and psychological parent-child relationship established. The non-notification direction regarding J's paternal family was upheld as there was no information to identify or notify them. Ms T's consent to adoption was freely and consistently given. The court emphasized…

Source excerpt

• Adoption order
• Surrogacy agreement
• Dna evidence
• Parental order
• Non-notification direction
• Consent to adoption

Read case analysis

J (A Child) (Surrogacy: Adoption Order)

J (A Child) (Surrogacy: Adoption Order) [2025] EWHC 2960 (Fam) (27 October 2025)

The court granted an adoption order for a child born through surrogacy, made a non-parentage declaration, and dispensed with notification to unknown paternal relatives.

• Adoption order
• Surrogacy agreement
• Parental order
• Dna evidence
• Non-parentage declaration
• Notification of biological relatives

Read case analysis

H (Anonymous Surrogacy), Re

The court was satisfied on the balance of probability that the applicants entered into a surrogacy arrangement, the surrogate mother cannot be found, and all statutory requirements are met; therefore, a parental order should be made in the best interests of the child.

Source excerpt

• Parental order
• International surrogacy
• Consent of surrogate
• Statutory requirements
• Child welfare

Read case analysis

RP, Re

The court found that the applicants had taken all reasonable and proportionate steps to locate the surrogate, who is incapable of being found. The court was not satisfied that the consent was freely given and with full understanding, but dispensed with the requirement for consent under s54(7). The court authorised payments made and found that making the parental order meets the child's lifelong welfare needs.

Source excerpt

• Parental order
• Consent in surrogacy
• Payments in surrogacy
• Welfare of child

Read case analysis

Re X (No 2 Surrogacy and Child Arrangements)

The court may make a parental order where the application was jointly made, even if one applicant disengages, provided statutory criteria are met. The child’s home requirement is satisfied by a wide and purposive interpretation, considering the child’s established relationship and ongoing contact with both parents. The six-month time limit is not fatal given the circumstances and Article 8 rights. X’s welfare requires a parental order, confirmation she lives with her father, suspension of contact with the mother due to emotional harm, and severe restriction of the mother’s parental responsibi…

Source excerpt

• Parental order
• Child arrangements
• Parental responsibility
• Domestic abuse
• Emotional harm
• Identity rights

Read case analysis

R & Anor v A (by her litigation friend, The Official Solicitor) & Anor

The Family Court granted a parental order to Mr and Mrs R for a baby born through surrogacy, finding the surrogate lacked capacity to agree after a serious medical injury.

• Parental order
• Surrogacy
• Consent incapacity
• Child welfare
• Parental-order
• Consent-incapacity

Read case analysis

XW (Parental Order: Death of An Applicant), Re

The statutory criteria for a parental order under s.54 HFEA 2008 are satisfied. The purposive and convention-compliant interpretation allows the order to be made despite the death of one applicant, ensuring XW's welfare, identity, and family life are protected. The surrogate's consent is valid, payments were lawful, and the domicile and home requirements are met.

Source excerpt

• Parental order
• Surrogacy
• Death of applicant
• Domicile
• Consent
• Child welfare

Read case analysis

A v B & Ors (Wardship; Parental Order; s10(9) Leave Application)

A's applications for wardship and a parental order lacked legal foundation and merit, as she could not meet the statutory criteria under HFEA 2008, and no exceptional circumstances justified invoking the inherent jurisdiction. Her application for leave under s10(9) CA 1989 was refused as her connection to Y was insufficient, the application was unrealistic, and granting leave would risk harm through further litigation. The issues are better addressed through mediation and therapy.

Source excerpt

• Wardship
• Parental order
• Children act 1989 s10(9) leave application
• Surrogacy
• Parental responsibility

Read case analysis

X & Anor v W & Anor

The Family Court granted a declaration of parentage and a parental order after a foreign surrogacy arrangement, despite the intended father’s death before birth.

• Parental order
• Declaration of parentage
• Surrogacy arrangements
• Death of intended parent
• Consent of surrogate
• Domicile and habitual residence

Read case analysis

X (Foreign Surrogacy; Death of Intended Parent), Re

X (Foreign Surrogacy; Death of Intended Parent), Re [2022] EWFC 34 (04 March 2022)

Family Court granted a declaration of parentage and a parental order after a surrogacy arrangement in Uganda, despite the death of one intended parent.

• Parental order
• Declaration of parentage
• Surrogacy
• Enduring family relationship
• Consent of surrogate
• Payments to surrogate

Read case analysis