Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
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
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