Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
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
Authors

PARENTAL ORDERS: Re C (Parental Orders) [2013] EWHC 2408 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:13 PM
Slug : parental-orders-re-c-parental-orders-2013-ewhc-2408-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 10, 2013, 09:36 AM
Article ID : 103497

(Family Division, Theis J, 19 July 2013)

The 7-month-old child was conceived via a surrogacy arrangement in California as a result of the married parents being unable to conceive a child naturally.

There was little issue about the s 54 criteria being satisfied: the applicants were married, the application was made within 6 months of the child's birth, at least one of the applicants was domiciled in England and Wales at the time of the birth and the child had remained in their care since birth.

Section 54(8) required the court to be satisfied that no money or other benefit other than for expenses reasonably incurred had been given or received by the applicants in consideration of the agreement. The applicants had paid a total of $51,200 to the respondents which was not for expenses reasonably incurred. In addition $15,000 was paid to the surrogacy agency and $28,195 to the fertility centre.

In these particular circumstances Theis J was satisfied that the sums paid were not disproportionate to the reasonable expenses and should be authorised by the court. They did not overbear the will of the surrogate and were not of such a level to be an affront to public policy. They were payments permitted in the jurisdiction in which they were made, and were not too dissimilar to payments made in similar cases.

A thorough report had been submitted by the parental order reporter who concluded that the child was living in a loving home where he was cherished and loved. There were no concerns for his welfare and it was in his best interests to remain in the applicants' care. The child's lifelong security and stability could only be met by the making of a parental order. 

 

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