Re JV

A parental order may be made where the statutory conditions in Human Fertilisation & Embryology Act 2008, section 54, are satisfied and the order is necessary to secure the children’s lifelong welfare under section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. Domicile of choice requires residence together with an intention to reside permanently or indefinitely. Payments under a surrogacy arrangement may be authorised where they are not disproportionate, the applicants have acted in good faith, and there has been no attempt to evade relevant legal requirements.

Two applicants applied for parental orders concerning twins born in the United States following a surrogacy arrangement. One applicant was biologically related to both children. The applicants were civil partners, had made the application within six months of the births, and the children lived with them. The court considered whether the statutory conditions concerning relationship, timing, home, domicile, age, consent and payments were satisfied, and whether parental orders served the children’s lifelong welfare.

1. The court was satisfied that the children had been carried by the surrogate and that the gametes of one applicant had been used. The applicants’ civil partnership satisfied the relationship requirement, the application was made within six months, and the children had their home with the applicants both when the application was made and when the orders were considered.
2. For domicile of choice under section 54 of the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Act 2008, residence must be combined with an intention of permanent or indefinite residence. The evidence, including the applicant’s long-term residence, purchase of property and severance of financial ties with France, established a domicile of choice in the United Kingdom.
3. The surrogate’s notarised consent was unconditional and informed. The court was therefore satisfied that the consent requirement was met.
4. Payments of approximately £19,284, principally compensation to the surrogate, were not disproportionate when compared with other American surrogacy arrangements. The applicants had acted in good faith, used lawfully operating agencies, regularised their position in the United States and promptly applied for parental orders. The payments were authorised under section 54(8).
5. Having regard to the welfare assessment and section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the children’s lifelong welfare required their legal relationship with the applicants to be secured permanently. Parental orders were made in respect of both children.

Not an appeal. The judgment determined the first-instance application.