CC v DD

A parental order may be made for a child born through international surrogacy where the requirements of Human Fertilisation & Embryology Act 2008, s 54 are met. The applicants need not be habitually resident or physically present in the United Kingdom. At least one applicant must be domiciled in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

A foreign adoption order does not necessarily prevent a parental order. Payments may be authorised where they are not disproportionate, the applicants act in good faith and there is no fraud. The decisive consideration is the child’s lifelong welfare.

The applicants were a British-French married couple living in France. Their child was born in the United States following a surrogacy arrangement in which the respondent surrogate also donated her egg. US orders confirmed the first applicant as legal father and enabled the second applicant to adopt the child.

The applicants applied in England for a parental order. The issues included domicile, the effect of the US adoption order, compliance with Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 83, authorisation of payments and the child’s lifelong welfare.

1. Parental order made. The requirements of Human Fertilisation & Embryology Act 2008, s 54 were satisfied and a parental order was necessary to secure the child’s lifelong welfare under Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 1.
2. Domicile. Section 54 does not require UK habitual residence or physical presence. It requires at least one applicant to be domiciled in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. The second applicant retained her English domicile of origin. Her residence in France was for a limited purpose and she intended to return to England on realistically foreseeable contingencies.
3. Foreign adoption. The US adoption did not prevent consideration of the parental-order application. There was no breach of Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 83 because neither applicant was habitually resident in the British Islands at the relevant time. Any public-policy abuse and the applicants’ good faith would be fact-sensitive.
4. Payments. The payments to the surrogate were authorised. They were not disproportionate to reasonable expenses, and the applicants had acted in good faith without seeking to defraud the authorities.
5. Welfare. A parental order was the only order capable of securing legal parenthood and equal status for both applicants in England, thereby meeting the child’s lifelong welfare needs.