Intended parents of child born through surrogacy submitted misleading DNA test

A UK couple submitted a DNA test result which falsely showed a genetic link between the intended father and the child in their application for a parental order.

The child, J, has lived with Mr and Mrs P – the intended parents – since birth, and Mr P was listed as the father on the birth certificate. In the months following birth, J's complexion became darker and J appeared to be mixed race, while the intended parents and the surrogate were white. The couple submitted a DNA test in their court application for a parental order, showing a genetic link between the intended father and child, but later admitted that this was based on false samples.

'This judgment should be read as a cautionary tale of what can go wrong when strangers who meet through social media to bring a child into this world through surrogacy and when one or more of the parties take risks around the circumstances of conception,' Ms Justice Henke said in her judgment.

The intended parents entered into a surrogacy agreement with surrogate, Ms T, who they met online. Ms T agreed that she would inseminate herself with Mr P's sperm, and abstain from sexual intercourse between the time of the agreement and confirmation of a pregnancy. Ms T told the intended parents that she was pregnant in June 2022, following eight unsuccessful attempts.

After J's complexion became darker, Mr P's mother raised questions about J's paternity, but the couple said they initially attributed the child's skin colour to Mr P's olive complexion.

In their parental order application, Mr and Mrs P submitted a DNA test report from a non-court-approved provider, which omitted the wording 'This Report can NOT be used for legal purposes'. The court noted that all other requirements for a parental order were met under section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, but that a court-approved DNA test must be undertaken to establish a genetic link.

The couple applied to withdraw their application, stating that they no longer believed Mr P to be J's biological father. They filed a statement in July 2024, stating '[The surrogate, Ms T] confirmed she had a sexual relationship with a man during the period in which we were trying to conceive. Ms T explained this was around the time of our last home inseminations, in June 2022. Ms T has never told us who this man is.'

A court-approved DNA test confirmed that Mr P was not J's biological father, and the couple filed an adoption application in 2025. During the court proceedings, they admitted that the original DNA test result was based on false samples, as J's paternal grandmother made a 'spur of the moment' decision to submit a sample from herself rather than the child, due to her concerns about J's paternity.

Ms Justice Henke granted the adoption order, acknowledging that the couple's actions were motivated by their fear of losing J. She said: 'I find that it is in J's best interests that their place in Mr and Mrs P's family is solidified and made permanent by an adoption order... No other order will provide the stability and permanency J's welfare requires.'