Re C (A Child), AB v DE: FD 15 May 2013

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. He was carried by a married Russian surrogate mother. She and her husband were the Respondents to this application.
Held: Theis J said: ‘His welfare needs would clearly not be met by the Respondents remaining his legal parents in this jurisdiction, when they are not so recognised in their own jurisdiction and have no intention of having any future parental role in C’s life. C’s future is in the long term care of the Applicants, they are his de facto legal parents and his welfare demands their relationship is given lifelong security which can only be achieved by making a parental order.’

Theis DBE J
[2013] EWHC 2413 (Fam)
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 54
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedIn re X (A Child) (Surrogacy: Time Limit) FD 3-Oct-2014
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.514449