Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
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