The president of the Family Division has issued a stark warning to parents considering unlawful surrogacy abroad, urging them to ‘think again’ following a case involving a couple in their late 60s who commissioned the birth of two babies.
In the case of Re Z (Unlawful Foreign Surrogacy: Adoption), Sir Andrew McFarlane ruled on an application from Ms W and Ms X, who paid approximately £120,000 to a surrogacy clinic in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The High Court heard that surrogacy and the placement of children with same-sex couples are both unlawful in that jurisdiction. The clinic reportedly used a dozen or more Ukrainian women as surrogate mothers.
The two children, born on the same day, were carried by different surrogate mothers, with eggs donated by individuals selected to resemble the applicants’ racial characteristics. Upon returning to the UK, the only legal means for the applicants to become the children’s parents was through adoption.
While McFarlane granted the adoption order, emphasising that the children were ‘being well cared for,’ he cautioned that his ruling should not be seen as setting a precedent for future cases of a similar nature.
He further warned that courts refusing to grant adoption in similar cases could leave children ‘permanently stateless and legally parent-less.’ However, he condemned the surrogacy arrangements, stating that all four surrogate mothers had been ‘exploited for commercial gain’ by those running the unlawful operation.
McFarlane was critical of the applicants’ motivations, describing them as ‘entirely self-centred’ and lacking any thought for the long-term welfare of the children. He expressed astonishment that the couple had not considered the impact of having parents over 60 years their senior.
He acknowledged that the couple’s only sensible decision was commissioning the birth of two children, ensuring they would have each other as they grew up. Issuing a final warning, he concluded:
“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.”
Natalie Sutherland, partner and head of the Modern Families Department at Burgess Mee, said:
“This is yet another case where the court has had to ‘fix’ the legal position of children born through surrogacy. The court was placed in an impossible position and acted to safeguard the lifelong welfare interests of these children. The President of the Family Division was right to publish this anonymous judgment highlighting the perils of unlawful foreign surrogacy. Surrogacy abroad poses very significant immigration issues.
The parents concerned should have taken more care when making their decision to start a family in this way. The parents and the surrogates were all exploited for commercial gain. It is unfortunate that the bad actors were not named publicly.
The President’s admonishment in his judgment and the Home Office’s very clear warning that any future adoption applications in similar circumstances may be opposed on public policy grounds, should be taken seriously.
The next couple who conceives children through surrogacy in a country not recognised by the UK may not be so lucky. Such an outcome would be a travesty for the children concerned. It is now for the UK government now to take the Law Commissions’ surrogacy law reform proposals seriously.”
Jennifer Headon, Head of International Family Law at law firm Birketts, said:
“In his judgement in the case of Re Z (Unlawful Foreign Surrogacy: Adoption) [2025] EWHC 339 (Fam), Sir Andrew McFarlane sounds the warning claxon about some of the moral, ethical and legal challenges which can arise in international surrogacy arrangements. Any agency inducing intended parents and surrogates to embark upon such an arrangement in a jurisdiction where the practice is not recognised or even illegal presents considerable legal challenges, both from a family law perspective as well as immigration law, and also significantly increases the risk of exploitation of vulnerable individuals.
International surrogacy can be successful for all parties involved in a jurisdiction where the practice is legal, well-established and well-regulated, with proper safeguarding practices. This case highlights that it is vital for intended parents to seek legal advice in all relevant countries from the outset.”
