Family Law Hub

Re L (A Minor) [2010] EWHC 3146 (Fam)

Judgment, published: 26/08/2010

Items referring to this

  • Judgment, 10/03/2013, free
  • Application for a parental order under s.54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 Case note, 15/04/2013, free
  • A final hearing in respect of an application for a parental order under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA 2008) concerning two children born pursuant to a surrogacy arrangement between the applicants and the respondent, the gestational surrogate. Parental orders made. Judgment, 02/08/2013, free
  • Surrogacy case where the same sex couple was seeking a PR order after the 6 month time limit following the birth of the children had passed and where the Indian surrogate mother could not be located (there was also uncertainty about her marital status). The PR order was made. Judgment, 16/02/2015, free
  • Despite the concerns raised (including reservations by Cafcass about the relationship of the applicants and whether it was, in fact, an enduring family relationship as required by s 54(2)(c) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 and concerns by the court about the status and legality of the agreement entered into in Thailand) the court made parental orders in respect of both children. Judgment, 19/07/2016, free
  • Application by a same sex couple for parental orders in respect of twins born to a surrogate mother in the USA. At the end of the judgment, the judge emphasises the need for parental orders to be made promptly in respect of children born as a result of international surrogacy agreements. Judgment, 28/05/2013, free
  • The continuation of the wardship and the grant of care and control in respect of the child to the applicant was granted in circumstances where the applicant was the biological but not legal parent of the child and where she could not apply for a parental order because she did not satisfy the criteria set out in s54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. Judgment, 23/08/2017, free
  • Judgment, 26/08/2012, free
  • Surrogacy case in which the court had to decide if significant sums paid to the surrogate mother, which were made after the US surrogacy agent drafted an agreement, were disproportionate to reasonable expenses. Although it was conceded that payments other than for expenses reasonably incurred was unlawful in the state in which the surrogate lived, the judge ruled that the biological parents acted in good faith and were not aware of any difficulties until the issue was raised by their lawyers in this jurisdiction. The judge therefore authorised the payments under s 54 (8) and granted parental orders in favour of the biological parents. Judgment, 21/11/2013, free
  • A case providing another cautionary tale of the difficulties that can be encountered in entering into foreign surrogacy arrangements. The main questions here, when considering an application for a parental order, were whether consent had been given by the surrogate mother and whether the court should authorise payments totalling almost $28,000 to the surrogate agency. Judgment, 01/05/2014, free

Published: 26/08/2010


Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.


The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item