F, Re

A parental order may be made where the statutory conditions in section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 are satisfied and the order meets the child’s lifelong welfare needs. Consent under section 54(6) must be freely given, unconditional and informed. Where the surrogate is in a civil partnership, the partner’s consent is also required if that person is treated as a legal parent under section 42. Payments to a surrogate may be authorised retrospectively where the court is satisfied that they represent reasonable expenses. Altruistic arrangements, the parties’ relationship, the circumstances of the payments and the child’s welfare are relevant to those assessments.

The applicants, a married couple, applied for a parental order concerning a child conceived through home insemination in Germany. The child was genetically related to the second applicant and carried by the first respondent, who was in a German civil partnership with the second respondent. Both respondents had signed consent forms and participated in a remote meeting with the parental order reporter. Payments of £12,454 had been made to cover loss of earnings and medical expenses, together with private midwifery services.

The respondents did not attend or participate in the hearing. The issues were whether the statutory criteria were satisfied and whether making the parental order met the child’s lifelong welfare needs.

1. Parental order made. The court was satisfied that the statutory criteria under section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 were met. The child had been artificially conceived using the gametes of one applicant, the applicants were married, the application was made within six months, the child lived with them, the relevant domicile requirement was satisfied, and both applicants were over 18.
2. Consent. Section 54(6) required the surrogate and any other person who was a parent but not an applicant to consent freely, unconditionally and with full understanding of what was involved. The respondents had signed the prescribed consent forms more than six weeks after the birth, and their account to the parental order reporter demonstrated a clear understanding of the proposed transfer of legal parenthood. Their consent was therefore valid.
3. The second respondent’s consent was required because the respondents were in a German civil partnership. Section 42 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 treated the other civil partner as a parent unless lack of consent to the insemination was shown. That provision applied whether the insemination occurred in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
4. Payments. The court had to determine whether the sums paid to the surrogate exceeded reasonable expenses. The payment of £12,454 for loss of earnings and medical expenses, together with private midwifery services, was reasonably incurred. The payments required no retrospective authorisation under section 54(8).
5. Welfare and outcome. The child was healthy, thriving and securely cared for by the applicants, who were already recognised by him as his parents. Making the order met his lifelong welfare needs. A parental order was accordingly made in respect of the child.