Thread by @SurrogConcern

We have to inform you of one of the worst international commercial surrogacy cases we have come across, involving two female commissioning parents (aged 60+ and 70+) who reside in the UK.

Judgement in full below, which we strongly urge you to read.
judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl…

Two women in their 60s and 70s went to Northern Cyprus, where surrogacy is illegal, four years ago and had embryos implanted in to two Ukrainian surrogate mothers.

They paid £120,000 to the agency.

Neither child is genetically related to either female commissioning parent.

The judge, Sir Andrew McFarlane, made this public to “offer advice for those who may...unwisely seek to follow the path taken by the two applicants in this case by engaging in an unlawful, commercial, foreign surrogacy arrangement”-acknowledging case will be a matter of interest.

The babies were born over four years ago & had no legal citizenship status in N Cyprus. Rightly, the women couldn't obtain UK parental orders for the babies as they are not genetically related to them. The children have been stateless for years, living with the women in N Cyprus.

The two children were born on the same day, by c-section, undertaken apparently without medical need. The children were conceived with anon donor eggs and anon donor sperm.

The women applied to Home Office to bring children here, without paper work from surrogacy agency confirming arrangement: to their credit, Home Office, with knowledge of DHSC, objected and fought an application by the women to bring them here and obtain legal parentage for them.

The Home Office lost on appeal and had no grounds to stop the children being brought here or stop an adoption for the two from being approved.

In fairness to the Court, judge seems deeply unimpressed with the arrangement and condemned it in depth. He allowed the adoption as being in the children’s best interests to be legally recognized as full siblings to each other but slammed the “parents” for their thoughtlessness.

“During the hearing, I expressed, in strong terms, my concern about the whole project that these two adults had embarked upon. I described the wisdom, in terms of the welfare of any children created by such an endeavour, as being highly questionable." Judge A McFarlane.

"I suspected, although I obviously did not know, that if they had their time again, Ms W and Ms X, knowing what they now knew, would not embark upon this particular course in order to bring children into their family.” Judge Sir A McFarlane.

“I was struck by paragraph 39 of the Guardian’s report, in which this is said: 'The applicants had not given any consideration of the impact on the children of having parents who are so much older and all the attendant age-related health issues which follow.'" Judge A McFarlane.

"The report goes on to stress that one of the applicants will be in her 80’s when the children are in their early teens and the other will be in her mid-70’s." Judge A McFarlane.

The surrogate mothers, assumed to have returned to Ukraine, could not be located to consent to the adoption order, so their consent was dispensed with.

The surrogacy agency had become defensive and uncommunicative.

Judge said “present case, should not be taken as any precedent that, in any future case on similar facts, an adoption order will be made.”

We hope that is so, and that in future children will be taken in to care of local authority. Law must be clear: trafficking isn't accepted.

“This judgment, & clear indication that the govt may, in future, oppose making of adoption orders, should put would-be parents who are contemplating entering into a commercial foreign surrogacy arrangement on notice that courts in Eng/ Wales may refuse to grant an adoption order”

“Put bluntly, anyone seeking to achieve the introduction of a child into their family by following in the footsteps of these applicants should think again.” Rt Hon Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division.

We urge you to read the judgement in full.

We were heartened to see this from DHSC included in judgement “DHSC notes that the conduct of this case was not consistent with guidance issued by HMG & strongly discourages approach taken in this case and would strongly discourage others from considering this course of action.”

We were pleased to see Home Office stating future such applications may also be opposed by Govt for adoption in such circumstances, and that Home Office has significant concerns on grounds of public policy that the court in the present case was placed in an impossible position.

We want to see a ban on surrogacy in all forms: Government could start by making international surrogacy for UK residents a criminal offence, as Italy has done.

We will see more and more of these horrific cases, if they do not do so. (ENDS).