CC v DD

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application made by the applicants in relation to a one-year-old child (Q) born via an international surrogacy arrangement. The applicants, a British-French married couple living in France, sought a parental order under UK law following the birth of Q in the United States to a US surrogate mother. The surrogacy arrangement involved legal procedures in two US states, Minnesota and Iowa. The applicants had secured legal parentage in the US through a step-parent adoption order in Minnesota. The court was tasked with considering the legal complexities arising from this international surrogacy arrangement and the application for a parental order under UK law.

The applicants have maintained significant connections to the UK, including ownership of property and domicile considerations. The respondents, the surrogate mother and her husband, have consented to the parental order. The court also considered the payments made in connection with the surrogacy and the relevance of the US adoption order to the UK parental order application.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the requirements of section 54 of the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA 2008) are satisfied to grant a parental order.
2. Whether the child's lifelong welfare needs will be secured by the making of a parental order under section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002).
3. Whether the US step-parent adoption order affects the court's jurisdiction or the necessity of granting a parental order in the UK.
4. Whether any breach of UK domestic adoption law (section 83 ACA 2002) has occurred due to the overseas adoption.
5. The impact of domicile and habitual residence on the court's jurisdiction to grant a parental order.
6. The appropriateness of authorising payments made to the surrogate and related parties under section 54(8) HFEA 2008.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' Arguments

• The applicants argue that the legal requirements under section 54 HFEA 2008 are met, including biological connection, marriage, timely application, domicile, and consent.
• They contend that the US adoption order does not preclude the UK court from making a parental order and that the adoption order does not confer full legal parentage on Mr C under UK law.
• The applicants submit that the parental order is necessary to secure Q’s lifelong welfare by conferring legal parenthood on both applicants and granting British citizenship automatically.
• They maintain that payments made to the surrogate and agency were reasonable, negotiated at arm’s length, and should be authorised by the court.
• The applicants highlight Ms C’s retention of her UK domicile despite living in France, satisfying jurisdictional requirements.

Respondents' Position

• The respondents, the surrogate mother and her husband, have consented freely and unconditionally to the parental order.
• They have actively participated in the proceedings and support the order sought by the applicants.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Re G (Surrogacy: Foreign Domicile) [2007] EWHC 2814 (Fam)	Requirement that one or both commissioning parents must be domiciled in the UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Man to obtain a parental order.	Used to confirm the necessity of domicile in the UK for jurisdiction and to determine that Ms C retained her UK domicile of origin.
Barlow Clowes International Ltd (In Liquidation) & Ors v Henwood [2008] EWCA Civ 577	Principles governing acquisition and retention of domicile of choice versus domicile of origin.	Adopted to outline the legal principles on domicile and to analyse Ms C’s domicile status.
IRC v Bullock [1976] 1 WLR 1178	Factors relevant to domicile, including intention to reside permanently and foreseeable contingencies affecting domicile status.	Applied to determine that Ms C had not acquired a domicile of choice in France due to intention to return to the UK.
Agulian and Anr v Cyganik [2006] EWCA Civ 129	Retention of domicile of origin despite long residence abroad.	Supported the conclusion that Ms C retained her UK domicile despite living in France for several years.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the statutory requirements under section 54 HFEA 2008, confirming that all criteria were met: there was a biological connection between Ms C and Q; the applicants were married; the application was made within six months of birth; Q’s home was with the applicants at the time of application and hearing; at least one applicant (Ms C) was domiciled in the UK; both applicants were over 18; the respondents consented freely and with full understanding; and the payments made to the surrogate and agency were reasonable and authorised.

The court undertook a detailed domicile analysis, concluding that Ms C retained her UK domicile of origin despite residing in France for a limited purpose related to her husband’s business. This was based on her intention to return to the UK upon certain foreseeable contingencies and her continued significant ties to the UK.

The court addressed the relevance of the US step-parent adoption order, finding no breach of UK adoption law as the applicants were not habitually resident in the UK at the time. The adoption order did not preclude the making of a parental order, which is necessary to confer legal parentage on Mr C under UK law and to secure Q’s British citizenship automatically.

In assessing welfare under section 1 ACA 2002, the court relied on a detailed welfare report concluding that Q’s welfare would be best secured by the parental order. The applicants’ relationship with Q was loving and supportive, and the parental order would provide legal certainty and lifelong security for the family unit.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED the application for a parental order in respect of Q.

The effect of this decision is to confer full legal parenthood on both applicants under UK law, including automatic British citizenship for Q. The parental order provides a legal status that reflects the family’s circumstances more accurately than the US adoption order alone. No new precedent was established beyond the careful application of existing legal principles to the complex international surrogacy context. The decision underscores the importance of domicile in establishing jurisdiction and clarifies the court’s approach to authorising payments and recognising foreign adoption orders in parental order applications.