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 because it was clearly in the best interests of the child to do so. As to the making of an order under the Regulations as to the acquisition of British nationality under the Regulations, the practice has been first to give notice to the Home Office of the application. It need not always be the practice in these applications, because by necessity the Border Agency would normally have had some involvement already.
 EWHC 921 (Fam),  Fam Law 695,  2 FLR 646
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 54, Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Parental Orders) Regulations 2010
England and Wales
Cited – In 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 – Re W (A Minor) (Adoption: Non-Patrial) CA 1986
W was born in China to Chinese parents. His aunt came to Britain and acquired citizenship. He came to live with her while studying, and she applied to adopt him. The judge refused saying that the primary intention was to obtain citizenship.
Cited – In re L (A Minor) (Commercial Surrogacy) FD 8-Dec-2010
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 . .
Cited – A v P (Surrogacy: Parental Order: Death of Applicant) FD 8-Jul-2011
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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.439589