InternationalRead Next
Abortion Pill
Life awardee Catherine Herring describes the irony behind her fight for babies
Bridget Sielicki
·Spotlight Articles
Couple gets custody despite illegal surrogacy contract requiring 'refund' if a girl
A British couple has been granted parentage rights of a baby born to a surrogate in China, despite the contract being illegal, and the couple having demanded a partial refund if the baby was a girl.
A gay British couple identified in court documents as D and C paid a woman in China to serve as a surrogate, despite it being illegal there.
The baby was created using D's sperm and a donor egg.
The contract called for re-implantation genetic testing to ensure the baby was a boy, and stipulated the couple would receive a partial refund if it was a girl.
Currently, the couple lives outside of the United Kingdom, but applied for parentage rights of the boy, who is now a toddler.
Justice MacDonald, a senior judge specializing in family law, granted the request.
The Times reported about the controversial surrogacy contract, in which two men identified as "D" and "C" used an intermediary known as "F" to procure a surrogate from a rural village in China. "D" was born in China but is now a British citizen; "C" is not. Both live outside of the UK for work, but plan to move back permanently in the future, and sought parentage rights over "G," the toddler born through the surrogacy contract.
An embryo was created using a donor egg and D's sperm, and an intermediary known as "F" put them in touch with "K," who would serve as their surrogate. That surrogate lived in a remote Chinese village where “surrogacy was unheard of." Surrogacy is currently illegal in China.
The couple used pre-implantation genetic testing to ensure the embryo implanted was male, insinuating that multiple embryos were created. The contract included a clause in which the couple said they would “prioritise the transplant of ‘male’ embryos first."
If the surrogate still gave birth to a girl, the couple was to receive a partial refund.
"K" was moved away from her home by the intermediary to avoid being discovered as a surrogate; she had little contact with "D" and "C," who only met her shortly before "G" was born, and then once more afterwards.
“There was a further complication in that K has only had daughters and her first husband divorced her when she did not give birth to a son,” D said. “She has since had another daughter with another partner, and we know that she was worried about her family knowing that she had been a surrogate, especially when she gave birth to a son for us.”
The intermediary, "F," was paid £93,000 (over $124,000), with the surrogate only receiving a one-time payment after the delivery of roughly £25,000 (about US$33,000).
After "G" was born, "D" and "C" spent two months in China with him before returning to the country where they are currently living. In July of 2025, they filed for parentage rights with British courts.
The request was granted by Justice MacDonald, a senior judge who specializes in family law. In the judgment, which was handed down in September, MacDonald criticized "D" and "C"'s actions, but felt granting them parentage rights was in G's best interests.
"D" claimed they were unaware that surrogacy is illegal in China, but MacDonald still criticized the couple:
They have not demonstrated the necessary diligence prior to undertaking a surrogacy arrangement in China and the legal implications both within this jurisdiction and China. The circumstances of the surrogacy arrangement in China meant that the surrogate had no protection and was at serious risk of exploitation.
G was also vulnerable due to him being born via an illegal arrangement and there being no legal security as legal parentage cannot be obtained via a surrogacy agreement, and in the event that the surrogate had sought legal rights for G, she would be recognised as G’s legal mother under Chinese law.
He further added:
Due to there being no laws or regulations in China regarding surrogacy, K has no protection, and she continues to be at risk of exploitation. Whilst we do not know the details of K’s personal circumstances, it is highly likely that there is an imbalance of power within her relationship with the surrogate facilitator, but also with the applicants.
The parentage order was still ultimately granted because MacDonald said it gave "permanency, stability and security" to "G," who had already bonded with "D" and "C." MacDonald also threatened that this case should not be seen as precedent for future surrogacy contracts:
Finally, I wish to make plain, as other Judges of the Division have before me, that this decision is not a licence to engage in unlawful commercial surrogacy arrangements abroad. Whilst on the facts of this case the court has felt able to grant an order in this case notwithstanding the significant difficulties outlined in this judgment, that does not mean it will do so in every future case.
... Would-be parents who are contemplating entering into a commercial foreign surrogacy arrangement should be in no doubt that court will not make a parental order simply because the court is presented with an apparent fait accompli based on the fact that the subject child is already in the care of the intended parents.
Helen Gibson, founder of Surrogacy Concern, slammed MacDonald's judgment in a statement to The Times, saying, “The men pursued commercial surrogacy and sex selection of embryos despite both being illegal here, and pursued surrogacy in China where the practice is banned, paying over £90,000 and having minimal contact with the surrogate mother.”
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Bridget Sielicki
·
International
Cassy Cooke
·
International
Angeline Tan
·
Issues
Bridget Sielicki
·
Abortion Pill
Nancy Flanders
·
Activism
Angeline Tan
·International
Cassy Cooke
·
Pop Culture
Cassy Cooke
·
International
Cassy Cooke
·
Analysis
Cassy Cooke
·
Issues
Cassy Cooke
·Couple gets custody despite illegal surrogacy contract requiring 'refund' if a girl
A British couple has been granted parentage rights of a baby born to a surrogate in China, despite the contract being illegal, and the couple having demanded a partial refund if the baby was a girl.
A gay British couple identified in court documents as D and C paid a woman in China to serve as a surrogate, despite it being illegal there.
The baby was created using D's sperm and a donor egg.
The contract called for re-implantation genetic testing to ensure the baby was a boy, and stipulated the couple would receive a partial refund if it was a girl.
Currently, the couple lives outside of the United Kingdom, but applied for parentage rights of the boy, who is now a toddler.
Justice MacDonald, a senior judge specializing in family law, granted the request.
The Times reported about the controversial surrogacy contract, in which two men identified as "D" and "C" used an intermediary known as "F" to procure a surrogate from a rural village in China. "D" was born in China but is now a British citizen; "C" is not. Both live outside of the UK for work, but plan to move back permanently in the future, and sought parentage rights over "G," the toddler born through the surrogacy contract.
An embryo was created using a donor egg and D's sperm, and an intermediary known as "F" put them in touch with "K," who would serve as their surrogate. That surrogate lived in a remote Chinese village where “surrogacy was unheard of." Surrogacy is currently illegal in China.
The couple used pre-implantation genetic testing to ensure the embryo implanted was male, insinuating that multiple embryos were created. The contract included a clause in which the couple said they would “prioritise the transplant of ‘male’ embryos first."
If the surrogate still gave birth to a girl, the couple was to receive a partial refund.
"K" was moved away from her home by the intermediary to avoid being discovered as a surrogate; she had little contact with "D" and "C," who only met her shortly before "G" was born, and then once more afterwards.
“There was a further complication in that K has only had daughters and her first husband divorced her when she did not give birth to a son,” D said. “She has since had another daughter with another partner, and we know that she was worried about her family knowing that she had been a surrogate, especially when she gave birth to a son for us.”
The intermediary, "F," was paid £93,000 (over $124,000), with the surrogate only receiving a one-time payment after the delivery of roughly £25,000 (about US$33,000).
After "G" was born, "D" and "C" spent two months in China with him before returning to the country where they are currently living. In July of 2025, they filed for parentage rights with British courts.
The request was granted by Justice MacDonald, a senior judge who specializes in family law. In the judgment, which was handed down in September, MacDonald criticized "D" and "C"'s actions, but felt granting them parentage rights was in G's best interests.
"D" claimed they were unaware that surrogacy is illegal in China, but MacDonald still criticized the couple:
They have not demonstrated the necessary diligence prior to undertaking a surrogacy arrangement in China and the legal implications both within this jurisdiction and China. The circumstances of the surrogacy arrangement in China meant that the surrogate had no protection and was at serious risk of exploitation.
G was also vulnerable due to him being born via an illegal arrangement and there being no legal security as legal parentage cannot be obtained via a surrogacy agreement, and in the event that the surrogate had sought legal rights for G, she would be recognised as G’s legal mother under Chinese law.
He further added:
Due to there being no laws or regulations in China regarding surrogacy, K has no protection, and she continues to be at risk of exploitation. Whilst we do not know the details of K’s personal circumstances, it is highly likely that there is an imbalance of power within her relationship with the surrogate facilitator, but also with the applicants.
The parentage order was still ultimately granted because MacDonald said it gave "permanency, stability and security" to "G," who had already bonded with "D" and "C." MacDonald also threatened that this case should not be seen as precedent for future surrogacy contracts:
Finally, I wish to make plain, as other Judges of the Division have before me, that this decision is not a licence to engage in unlawful commercial surrogacy arrangements abroad. Whilst on the facts of this case the court has felt able to grant an order in this case notwithstanding the significant difficulties outlined in this judgment, that does not mean it will do so in every future case.
... Would-be parents who are contemplating entering into a commercial foreign surrogacy arrangement should be in no doubt that court will not make a parental order simply because the court is presented with an apparent fait accompli based on the fact that the subject child is already in the care of the intended parents.
Helen Gibson, founder of Surrogacy Concern, slammed MacDonald's judgment in a statement to The Times, saying, “The men pursued commercial surrogacy and sex selection of embryos despite both being illegal here, and pursued surrogacy in China where the practice is banned, paying over £90,000 and having minimal contact with the surrogate mother.”
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Bridget Sielicki
·International
Cassy Cooke
·International
Angeline Tan
·Issues
Bridget Sielicki
·Abortion Pill
Nancy Flanders
·Activism
Angeline Tan
·International
Cassy Cooke
·Pop Culture
Cassy Cooke
·International
Cassy Cooke
·Analysis
Cassy Cooke
·Issues
Cassy Cooke
·