Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles

SURROGACY: Re A and B (Parental Order: Domicile) [2013] EWHC 426 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:01 PM
Slug : SURROGACY-re-a-and-b-parental-order-domicile-2013-ewhc-426-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 13, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 101827

(Family Division, Theis J, 14 February 2013)

The male applicants applied for a parental order pursuant to s 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 following a surrogacy arrangement with an Indian surrogate mother arranged through a surrogacy clinic in India. One of the applicants was the biological father of the child and an anonymous donor egg was used. Since birth the child had lived with the men in the UK. The surrogate mother played no part in proceedings.

The men met and lived together in the USA, and had entered into a domestic partnership in the State of California. They moved to the UK together 4 years previously mainly due to the legality of civil partnerships and their wish to raise a family in a society that was tolerant to same-sex relationships. They now had entitlement to remain in the UK permanently, they rented a property and ran a business together. They paid tax and National Insurance contributions in this jurisdiction.

The main issue was one of domicile. On the evidence it was clear that the applicants had discharged the burden of proving the abandonment of their domicile of origin and the acquisition of the domicile of choice. They had both demonstrated by their actions, together with the motivation and rationale behind their respective decisions, that neither of them had any intention of ever returning to live in their country of birth. They had made their home and their lives here, both intended to remain here indefinitely.

The parental order reporter and the health visitor were positive about the applicants' care of the child and had no concerns. The welfare of the child demanded life-long security and stability and that was best met by a parental order securing his legal relationship with the applicants.

The judge granted the application and made a parental order.


Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from