The court is concerned with an application for a parental order made by Mr and Mrs X in relation to their son, Y who was born in 1998 following a surrogacy arrangement in the United States. Y is a respondent to the application, as is the surrogate, Mrs Z, who carried Y, and her husband, … Continue reading X v Z (Parental Order Adult): FC 5 Apr 2022
The children had been born in India to a surrogate mother. The biological father and his civil partner sought a parental order. The mother could not be found to give her consent. She had been provided anonymously through a clinic. Held: The request was granted, and a retrospective authorisation given for the making of payments … Continue reading D and L (Minors Surrogacy), Re: FD 28 Sep 2012
Application for parental order by one person. Sir James Munby P [2016] EWHC 1191 (Fam), ZC15P00214 Bailii, Judiciary Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 54 Family Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564509
The court was asked whether, in the light of the 1998 Act, section 54(1) of the 2008 Act should be read down so as to allow parental orders to be made in favour of just one person. Held: It could not. Sir James Munby P FD [2015] EWFC 73 Bailii Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act … Continue reading Re Z (A Child : Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act : Parental Order): FC 7 Sep 2015
The court gave reasons for making a parental order under the 2008 Act in favour of the applicants where a child had been born under surrogacy arrangements which were lawful in the Ukraine where he was born, but would have been unlawful here because of payments going beyond reasonable expenses. Held: The order was made … Continue reading Re IJ (A Child) (Foreign Surrogacy Agreement Parental Order): FD 19 Apr 2011
Application for a parental order in relation to a child C born in 2012 under section 54 of the 2008 Act 2008. A parental order had been made, and the judge now gave his reasons. C was conceived through IVF treatment in Moscow, with the First Applicant’s sperm and eggs from an anonymous Russian donor. … Continue reading Re C (A Child), AB v DE: FD 15 May 2013
Extension of Time for Parental Order The court considered the making of a parental order in respect of a child through surrogacy procedures outside the time limits imposed by the 2008 Act. The child had been born under Indian surrogacy laws. The commissioning parents (now the applicants) had separated for a short time. Held: The … Continue reading In re X (A Child) (Surrogacy: Time Limit): FD 3 Oct 2014
M applied for a parental order under the 2008 Act. The child had been born through a surrogacy arrangement in India, which was lawful there, but would have been unlawful here. The clinic could not guarantee a biological relationship with the child. The father had since died of liver cancer. The court considered whether the … Continue reading A v P (Surrogacy: Parental Order: Death of Applicant): FD 8 Jul 2011
An application had been made for parental orders under section 57. The children X and Y had been born in India under surrogacy arrangements involving payments which were lawful in India, but which went beyond what could be paid.
Held: The . .
Application for a parental order under the 2008 Act following a surrogacy arrangement in California, USA using IVF. . .
References: [2015] EWFC 73 Links: Bailii Coram: Sir James Munby P FD The court was asked whether, in the light of the 1998 Act, section 54(1) of the 2008 Act should be read down so as to allow parental orders to be made in favour of just one person. Held: It could not. Statutes: Human … Continue reading Re Z (A Child : Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act : Parental Order); FC 7 Sep 2015
Citations: [2017] EWHC 1154 (Fam) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Children Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.594563
Proceedings concerned with one child A who is 3 years of age. His biological mother is M, the First Applicant, and his biological father is F, the Second Applicant. A was born as a result of a surrogacy agreement in which his mother’s and father’s gametes were used. The surrogate mother is SM, the First … Continue reading A (A Child : Surrogacy: S54 Criteria): FD 18 Jun 2020
Citations: [2017] EWHC 50 (Fam) Links: Bailii Statutes: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 20085 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Children, Health Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573754
The required Form PP was not on the clinic’s file. Theis J set out four issues which accordingly arose: (1) Did X sign the Form PP so that it complied with section 37(1) of the 2008 Act? (2) If X did, was the Form PP subsequently mislaid by the clinic? (3) Was the treatment ‘provided … Continue reading X v Y v St Bartholomew’s Hospital Centre for Reproductive Medicine (Assisted Reproduction: Parent): FC 13 Feb 2015
The claimant sought a declaration that the administration of an abortifacient drug was not ‘any treatment for the termination of pregnancy’ for the purposes of section 1 of the 1967 Act, allowing the piloting and possible adoption of early medical abortions in part self-administered. Held: The request was refused. Parliament had passed the Act aware … Continue reading British Pregnancy Advisory Service v Secretary of State for Health: Admn 14 Feb 2011
The applicant sought a declaration of parenthood. She and her same sex partner had been asked to signthe wrong forms when undergoing fertility treatment. Held: The court was able to rely upon the euitable doctrine of recification were there had, as here, been a clear mistake. In this cas a wholesale transposition of the content … Continue reading G, Re (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008): FD 6 Apr 2016
International surrogacy arrangement – application for a parental order. . .
The child had been born in Illinois as a result of a commercial surrogacy arrangement which would have been unlawful here. The parents applied for a parental order under the 2008 Act.
Held: The order was made, but in doing so he court had to . .
The court had to consider a permanent placement of a child with a view to adoption in oposition to the natural parents’ wishes.
Held: Particular weight should be attached to the best interests of the child, which may override those of the . .
References: [2015] EWFC 13 Links: Bailii Coram: Theis J Ratio The required Form PP was not on the clinic’s file. Theis J set out four issues which accordingly arose: (1) Did X sign the Form PP so that it complied with section 37(1) of the 2008 Act? (2) If X did, was the Form PP … Continue reading X v Y v St Bartholomew’s Hospital Centre for Reproductive Medicine (Assisted Reproduction: Parent); FC 13 Feb 2015
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
