Senior UK judge warns against unlawful surrogacy abroad

The president of the Family Division of the High Court has warned parents against considering unlawful surrogacy arrangements abroad after a 'highly unusual' case.

The applicants, Ms W and Ms X, a couple in their 60s, paid around £120,000 to have two children through surrogacy at a clinic they believed was located in southern Cyprus. The applicants were initially unable to leave Cyprus with the children, born to two different surrogates using donor eggs, as they lacked the necessary paperwork regarding the children's births and parentage. After a four-year legal battle, the Home Office granted the children leave to enter the UK, and the couple applied to adopt the children.

'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,' Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the High Court Family Division, concluded in Re Z (Unlawful Foreign Surrogacy: Adoption). He warned that children born through such arrangements could be left 'permanently State-less and legally parent-less' if courts refused to grant adoption orders.

The clinic was in fact located in the self-declared Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is not legally recognised by the UK. Surrogacy and the placement of children with same-sex couples are both unlawful in that jurisdiction. The court heard that several women from Ukraine were acting as surrogates through the clinic.

Sir Andrew released his anonymised judgment to 'draw attention' to the case and warn against unlawful surrogacy arrangements. He said: 'The account of the circumstances surrounding the birth of these two children strongly suggests that all four women at the centre of the arrangements were being exploited for commercial gain by those running this unlawful operation.'

The applicants could only lawfully become parents of the two children by applying to adopt them, as they did not meet the required conditions to apply for parental orders. Sir Andrew granted the adoption order, stating this was 'very plainly' in the children’s best interests, as it was 'absolutely clear' the children were well cared-for by the applicants.

However, Sir Andrew raised a series of considerations from the unusual facts in this case. He said: 'It was astonishing to learn, and have confirmed by their solicitor, that the applicants had not given any consideration to the impact on the children of having parents who are well over 60 years older than they are. It is likely that when they are in their early teens, these two young people will become carers for their 80-year-old adopted parents.'

Warning others against entering into similar arrangements, Sir Andrew said: 'the fact that the court felt obliged to make adoption orders in the present case, should not be taken as any precedent that, in any future case on similar facts, an adoption order will be made.'

The past, present and future of surrogacy law will be discussed at the free-to-attend online event 40 Years of the Surrogacy Arrangements Act: What Next for Surrogacy?, taking place on Wednesday 16 July 2025.

Find out more and register here.