X (Foreign Surrogacy: Child's Name), Re

A parental order may be made where the statutory conditions are satisfied, including the child’s home being with the applicants, valid consent, and authorised payments. In assessing payments, the court considers proportionality, good faith and whether the applicants sought to defraud the authorities. The child’s lifelong welfare is paramount. A specific order changing the child’s name is unnecessary: the applicants may nominate a new name, which may be recorded through the parental-order registration process.

CH and NM, civil partners, applied for a parental order concerning X, born in Nepal following a foreign surrogacy arrangement. The surrogate mother and her husband consented. The application raised issues concerning the statutory requirements under section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, authorisation of payments, X’s welfare, and whether a separate order was required to change his name to that chosen by the applicants.

1. Parental order. The statutory conditions in section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 were satisfied. The child had been carried following IVF using CH’s gametes and an anonymous donor egg. The applicants were civil partners, applied within six months, were over 18 and were domiciled in the jurisdiction. X’s home was with them at the time of the application and order. The court applied the approach in Re Z (Foreign Surrogacy: Allocation of Work; Guidance on Parental order Reports) [2015] EWFC 90 concerning the child’s home.
2. Consent and payments. The surrogate mother and her husband had freely and with full understanding consented more than six weeks after X’s birth. The payment to the surrogate was within the range previously authorised in D and L (Minors Surrogacy) [2012] EWHC 2631 (Fam). The court considered whether the payment was disproportionate to reasonable expenses, whether the applicants acted in good faith, and whether they had attempted to defraud the authorities. The payment was authorised.
3. Welfare. X’s lifelong welfare needs were the paramount consideration under section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The evidence showed that a parental order was required to provide lifelong security and accurately reflect his identity and family relationships.
4. Name. No separate specific order was required to change X’s name. The statutory and procedural framework permitted the applicants to nominate a new name, which could be recorded in the parental-order registration and new birth certificate. Rule 13.15 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 required the application to identify the child by reference to the birth registration, but did not prevent the later registration of a new name.
5. Order. A parental order was made in the name requested by the applicants.