What can happen if intended parents split up after surrogacy

In July 2025 Mrs Justice Theis handed down a Family Court judgment in a child contact dispute following the breakdown of the relationship of the intended parents during the course of a surrogacy arrangement in  C v D [2025] EWFC 196 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2025/196.html The case concerned twins X and Y, aged 4, conceived via surrogacy using D's gametes and donor eggs, with D as genetic father and sole legal parent under a parental order dated 18/04/2023. C applied for a child arrangements order and parental responsibility; D opposed both applications, seeking dismissal and no future contact.

Parties' Relationship and Surrogacy Background

C and D were in a same-sex relationship from 2013, cohabiting from 2017. They jointly embarked on surrogacy in early 2019, jointly instructed a Californian attorney, signed an egg donor agreement, and underwent counselling evidencing a joint wish to have a child. Embryos were found non-viable in August 2019. From late 2019, D proceeded unilaterally with surrogacy, including signing a new egg donor agreement on 20/11/2019, but failed to clearly communicate this change to C. In November 2021, D informed C of the twin pregnancy; C then became closely involved around the birth and early care.

Post‑Birth Care and Living Arrangements

C travelled to the US shortly after birth, shared day-to-day care including skin-to-skin, bathing, and night routines, and helped with return travel and medical appointments. From February 2022 to May 2023, D and the children lived at C's country property during renovations; professionals observed both adults as capable caregivers, and the Parental Order Reporter (POR) later described C as the children's psychological parent.

D applied for and obtained a sole parental order on 18/04/2023; the court found both parties gave the POR an incomplete account of their prior joint surrogacy history. After an argument in May 2023, C continued caring for the children at times, including overnights and visits, until a March 2024 incident after which D stopped contact.

Proceedings and Professional Evidence

C issued his application in June 2024; interim supervised contact occurred, moving to fortnightly sessions with an independent social worker supporting the sessions. A separate ISW was appointed to prepare a S7 report under the Children Act. In the report dated 06/05/2025 the ISW noted that both adults are capable, D meets the children's needs to a high standard, and C has shown high commitment but his recommendations depended on factual findings of disputed facts. If C's account were accepted, the ISW recommended PR for C and a build-up to shared care; otherwise, regular unsupervised contact at least monthly without PR.

Factual Findings

The court found there was a joint surrogacy plan in early 2019, but from November 2019 D pursued surrogacy alone and did not effectively communicate this change to C but C's belief in a continuing joint arrangement lacked solid foundation. From November 2021, C's involvement far exceeded that of a friend and was akin to a co-parent role, which D permitted without setting boundaries. The court did not accept D's claim that the relationship ended in November 2019; the parties' entwined relationship continued until at least May 2023, diminishing by March 2024. The court found no pattern of harmful behaviour; it did not accept D's allegation that C threatened use of a knife in March 2024.

Welfare Analysis

C was integral to the children's early life and identity, and the children enjoy current contact; an eight-month break was managed and should not dictate outcomes. Continuing contact supports the children's emotional, psychological, and identity needs by recognising C's historical role.

Orders and Outcome

The court rejected D's case for no contact and ordered monthly direct contact, building to a full unsupervised day. The parties were  encouraged to use mediation to agree practical arrangements and any developments. The court refused to grant parental responsibility to C, finding shared PR would risk conflict without any clear welfare benefit and would not reflect the surrogacy history.