
‘Self-centred' UK couple criticised over foreign surrogacy that left siblings stateless
Would-be parents seeking out commercial foreign surrogacies are being warned the government may fight their bids for adoption, rendering the infants both permanently stateless and legally parentless.
A High Court case revealed a 'self-centred' older UK couple - their identities concealed by the court - whose unlawful arrangement with a clinic in Cyprus saw two siblings born to Ukrainian women. The children were then left in limbo for four years before the judge granted adoption as their only option.
An application for a parental order following a conventional surrogacy may only be made if the gametes of the applicant were used to bring about the creation of the embryo. But in this case, the women in their sixties had used donors for the eggs and sperm.
Furthermore, the order can't be made if the surrogate has been paid, other than for expenses 'reasonably incurred', but the fee paid for the arrangement was around £120,000.
Lawyers acting for the Home Office warned the government may oppose on 'policy grounds' future attempts to adopt children born through overseas, commercial surrogacy arrangements before being brought to the UK.
Andrew McFarlane, president of the court's family division, said the decision should put would-be parents 'on notice that the courts in England and Wales may refuse to grant an adoption order ... with the result that the child that they have caused to be born may be permanently stateless and legally parent-less'.
'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,' Mr Justice McFarlane said.
It is the latest case of a judge criticising aspiring parents who have become embroiled in clandestine and costly ordeals, particularly involving countries that ban arrangements with same-sex couples.
In the most recent case, the court heard the women, who were beyond child-bearing years, had connected with a foreign surrogacy clinic which they had understood was based in southern Cyprus.
It was only after the arrangements had been significantly advanced they came to realise the clinic was in fact operating in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, where surrogacy is unlawful and where the placement of children with same-sex couples is also not permitted.
The women refused to take part in a false story that one of them was the natural mother of the children, who were neither afforded Ukrainian nor Northern Cypriot nationality, resulting - among other factors - in the children being denied entry with the women into the UK until a court allowed them to under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The judge said: '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.'
Mr Justice McFarlane also made reference to the age of the two women, who will be in their seventies and eighties when the children are in their teens.
'The motives of the two applicants in wanting to become parents of babies in their late sixties would seem to have been entirely self-centred, with no thought as to the long-term welfare of the resulting children,' 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.'
In summarising the submission of lawyers for the Home Office, the judge said the government will consider in future cases whether to oppose an adoption order on policy grounds.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NBC News
34 minutes ago
- NBC News
Trump speech at Fort Bragg prompts new questions, concerns about politicization of military
WASHINGTON — Defense Department officials say troops who cheered and jeered Tuesday at President Donald Trump's political statements at a rally at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, did not violate military regulations, but a former military legal officer said they did just that. During the speech, uniformed soldiers yelled in support of Trump's political statements and booed former President Joe Biden and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. 'Do you think this crowd would have showed up for Biden? I don't think so,' Trump said to boos about Biden. Trump made other comments about Newsom and about Karen Bass, the mayor of Los Angeles, where protests against the administration's crackdown on immigrants have been taking place and where Trump has ordered thousands of National Guard members and active-duty Marines deployed in response. Other Trump comments about the 'fake news media,' transgender people, protesters in California and flag-burning also drew boos from the uniformed military members in attendance. Trump is known for his rallies at which he goes after and pokes fun at political enemies and other issues, but typically he makes those remarks at political events, not on U.S. military bases. Such overt political activity on a base is the prerogative of the commander in chief. But military leaders would typically frown upon troops' reacting the way they did as inconsistent with military good order and discipline, and, according to one expert, it is a violation of military regulations found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ. Presidents of both parties often use troops as political props and put them and their commanders in difficult positions by doing so, but Trump's speech took that to a new level, said Geoffrey DeWeese, a retired judge advocate general who is now an attorney with Mark S. Zaid PC. (Zaid has represented whistleblowers on both sides of the aisle, including one who filed a complaint about Trump's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in 2019 that led to Trump's impeachment, and he was one of the people whose security clearances Trump revoked this year.) 'It's a sad tradition to use the military as a backdrop for political purposes,' DeWeese said. 'To actively attack another president or a sitting governor and incite the crowd to boo, that's a step in a dangerous direction, that really says we want to politicize the military, that sends a bad message.' DeWeese said there were likely to have been violations of the UCMJ. 'I would be cringing if I was a senior officer and it happened under my watch,' he said. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said repeatedly that he wants to take politics out of the military by removing diversity, equity and inclusion programs and banning service by transgender service members. Kori Schake, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who worked at the State Department and the National Security Council under former President George W. Bush and at the Pentagon under former President George H.W. Bush, said in an email that commanders at Fort Bragg should have done a better job preparing troops there. 'It's terrible,' she wrote. 'It's predictably bad behavior by the President to try and score political points in a military setting, and it's a command failure by leaders at Ft Bragg not to prepare soldiers for that bad behavior and counsel them not to participate.' The Pentagon said in a statement that there had been no violation of the UCMJ and suggested the media was against policies that Trump has championed. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell also alleged in a statement that the media 'cheered on the Biden administration' and its policies regarding the Defense Department 'when they forced drag queen performances on military bases, promoted service members on the basis of race and sex in violation of federal law, and fired troops who refused an experimental vaccine.' 'Believe me, no one needs to be encouraged to boo the media,' Parnell said. 'Look no further than this query, which is nothing more than a disgraceful attempt to ruin the lives of young soldiers.' On Wednesday, Army officials at Fort Bragg addressed the sale of some MAGA merchandise at the event, which was planned in cooperation with a nonpartisan organization, American 250. 'The Army remains committed to its core values and apolitical service to the nation,' Col. Mary Ricks, a spokeswoman for the Army's 18th Airborne Corps at Bragg, said in a statement. 'The Army does not endorse political merchandise or the views it represents. The vendor's presence is under review to determine how it was permitted and to prevent similar circumstances in the future.' The Army's own new field manual, published recently, says the apolitical nature of being a U.S. soldier is what contributes to the public trust. The Army 'as an institution must be nonpartisan and appear so, too,' says the new field manual, 'The Army: A Primer to Our Profession of Arms.' 'Being nonpartisan means not favoring any specific political party or group. Nonpartisanship assures the public that our Army will always serve the Constitution and our people loyally and responsively.' U.S. troops can participate in political functions, just not while on duty or in uniform, the book says. 'As a private citizen you are encouraged to participate in our democratic process, but as a soldier you must be mindful of how your actions may affect the reputation and perceived trustworthiness of our Army as an institution,' it says.


Scottish Sun
3 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Six members of Russian spy ring to have ‘too lenient' jail sentences reviewed
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) SIX members of a Russian spy ring are to have their jail sentences reviewed for being too lenient, we can reveal. The Bulgarians — who lived and worked in the UK — plotted sex stings, and targeted Russian dissidents and journalists critical of President Vladimir Putin's war effort against Ukraine. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 7 Russian Spy Vanya Gaberova was sentenced to eight years in jail Credit: Reuters 7 The operations was run out of a Great Yarmouth guesthouse Credit: PA The ring included lab worker Katrin Ivanova, 33, and beauty shop owner Vanya Gaberova, 30 — dubbed 'killer sexy brunettes' by cell leaders. Ivanova got nine years and eight months and Gaberova eight years. They were both found guilty in March of breaching the Official Secrets Act by conspiring to provide information useful to an enemy between August 2020 and February 2023. Ivanova also got a concurrent sentence of 15 months for forged ID documents. read more on russia BRAND OF EVIL Ukrainian PoW released in swap left with 'Glory to Russia' burned on his body All six got a total of more than 50 years last month. The Attorney General's Office has been asked to consider the sentences under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme. The ULS scheme allows anyone to ask for a Crown Court sentence to be assessed by the Attorney General's office if they think it is too lenient. Law officers have 28 days from sentencing to make a decision. 7 Katrin Ivanova was sentenced to nine years and eight months Credit: Central News 7 Orlin Roussev ran the spy ring Credit: PA 7 Ivan Iliev Stoyanov was convicted of carrying out surveillance for Putin 7 Tihomir Ivanov Ivanchev was also jailed for his part in the spy ring Credit: PA 7 Biser Dzhambazov was convicted as part of the ring Credit: PA Unlock even more award-winning articles as The Sun launches brand new membership programme - Sun Club.


The Sun
5 hours ago
- The Sun
Rachel Reeves' massive spending review only points to more tax rises and pain for voters in the future
Pay later… WHAT a difference a year makes. Last July, Rachel Reeves was busy talking down the economy and slashing winter fuel payments for pensioners to fill a budget 'black hole'. Yesterday, she insisted the country's foundations had now been miraculously fixed by Labour. So much so that she could go on a massive spending splurge, including £113BILLION on capital projects and more money for an unreformed NHS. Defence gets a long overdue uplift — albeit to less than the level demanded by Nato. Creaking local transport networks will be improved (no doubt to counter the threat of Reform in the Red Wall). Some £39billion will go on more affordable homes. But there was also plenty of political smoke and mirrors. The Home Office — while getting a wedge of cash to shore up our porous borders — was starved of sufficient funds for policing. Council tax rises beckon. Most worryingly it's far from clear how the Chancellor is planning to pay the massive overall bill. Not least because the economy is — in reality — in a far worse condition than last year. Le copout THE Government says it will end free hotels for illegal migrants by 2029. Even in the unlikely event that target is met, it means taxpayers forking out billions on hotel freebies for another FOUR years. After that, many young, male illegal immigrants will probably be moved to unsuitable rented accommodation with families living next door. We don't doubt Home Secretary Yvette Cooper wants to stop the boats. But with friends like the French police — who needs enemies? Just yesterday they were shrugging on the beach as boatloads of migrants set sail for Dover. Soft Rock AFTER the grubby deal to give away the Chagos Islands, Labour has now begun the sellout of Gibraltar. In one more stunning failure of negotiation, Foreign Secretary David Lammy has limply agreed to effectively hand over control of its borders. Yet another unnecessary concession to Europe which allows Spanish workers free movement to Gibraltar. Spain has long coveted the outcrop and will be cock-a-hoop at this self-inflicted weakening of British sovereignty.