A mother had five children, but by different fathers. The last two under surrogacy arrangements. The first of these two was conceived after artificial insemination. During the pregnancy she told the biological father and his wife that she had miscarried. She and her husband raised that child as their own. A few years later she re-registered with the surrogacy agency and signed another surrogacy agreement. Again she became pregnant through artificial insemination, and again falsely informed the biological father and his wife that she had miscarried. Before the birth her eldest daughter telephoned the surrogacy agency to inform them of her mother’s deceptions. A few days after the fifth child was born, the biological father of that child issued residence proceedings, and within months the biological father of the fourth child applied for contact. Both fathers claimed that the mother had tricked them, with the knowledge and consent of her husband, having never had any intention of fulfilling the surrogacy agreements. The mother denied this. By the consolidated hearing, the biological father of the fourth child had reached an agreement with the mother that the child, now nearly 6 years old, would be told of her true paternity at an appropriate time in the near future and that there would subsequently be contact between father and child. The hearing therefore focused on the residence application by the father of the fifth child, with a view to adoption of the child, now 18 months old. Given the established relationship, the father of the fifth child and his wife were proposing ongoing contact with the mother and her husband. Having been very opposed to any recognition of the true paternity of either child, the mother was now apparently willing to provide contact to both biological fathers, but expert evidence suggested that she could not be relied upon to sustain such contact. It was acknowledged that the mother and husband were providing both the fourth and fifth children with a good level of care, and that both children had formed good attachments to the mother, her husband and their siblings.
Held: Coleridge J made a residence order in respect of the youngest child in favour of the father. He applied the principle that the test when choosing between two competing residential parental regimes was in which home was the child most likely to mature into a happy and balanced adult and to achieve his fullest potential as a human. The learned judge made it clear that the mother’s conduct in relation to the surrogacy was only relevant to the issue of credibility or suitability for the parental role; the case had nothing whatever to do with penalising the mother for breaking her agreement or for her prolonged deception. He found that the mother and her husband had set out to deceive both the couples with whom they had reached a surrogacy agreement because of a desperate desire to parent more children by any means. There were grave doubts as to the mother’s capacity to facilitate good-quality contact with the father, were she to be granted residence.
Judges:
Coleridge J
Citations:
[2008] 1 FLR 177
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – CW v NT and Another FD 21-Jan-2011
The mother had entered into a surrogacy arrangement to be inseminated, and give birth to the child, but then declined to transfer the child. The intended parents now sought a residence order. Payments had been made toward expenses, but no written . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.431723
