In re X and Y (Parental Order: Retrospective Authorisation of Payments): FD 6 Dec 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 orders were granted. ‘Mr and Ms A are entirely genuine, the terms of the section are met, the payments are not in my judgment disproportionate, and it is plainly in the interests of these two children that they should be brought up by Mr and Mrs A as their parents. ‘
Sir Nicholas Wall P
[2011] EWHC 3147 (Fam)
Bailii
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 54
England and Wales
Citing:
ApprovedIn re X and Y (Foreign Surrogacy) FD 9-Dec-2008
The court considered the approval required for an order under the 2002 Act.
Held: Welfare considerations were important but not paramount: ‘Given the permanent nature of the order under s.30, it seems reasonable that the court should adopt the . .

Cited by:
CitedD and L (Minors Surrogacy), Re FD 28-Sep-2012
D_LFD2012
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 April 2021; Ref: scu.449964