Considering Surrogacy? Key Lessons from J (A Child) (Surrogacy: Adoption Order) (2025) for Intended Parents

On the 27th October 2025, the High Court issued a striking judgment which exposed how informal surrogacy arrangements can go badly wrong,and why proper legal and clinical safeguards are essential for everyone involved.

The case concerned a little boy known as J, born in February 2023. His intended parents, Mr and Mrs P very much wanted a child. They tried for a family unsuccessfully, and in 2021 they met Ms T in a Facebook group for surrogacy.

Mr and Mrs P entered into an informal surrogacy agreement with Ms T and one of the terms of their agreement was that Ms T would not have sex from the time of the agreement until pregnancy was confirmed. Mr and Mrs P paid Ms T £16,000 to cover her expenses.

There were many attempts at conception and in June 2022 Ms T told Mr and Mrs P that she was pregnant. In December 2022 Mr and Mrs P attended a 4D scan. They had doubts about J’s paternity. They asked Ms T to undertake a DNA. She provided a DNA sample, but it was insufficient. She refused to provide another sample. In the subsequent court proceedings Ms T said that she had sex without a condom with an unidentified male just after she inseminated herself with Mr T’s sperm.

Mr and Mrs P were present at J’s birth, and he went to live with them as soon as he was discharged from hospital. Mr and Mrs P applied for a Parental Order in May 2023 so that they could both be recognised as J’s legal parents. (Without a parental order Ms T would have remained J’s legal mother).  Around this time Mr P’s mother started to suspect that her son was not J’s father.  

There is strict criteria to meet for intended parents who apply for a Parental Order. They must be over 18, apply within 6 months of a child’s birth, the child must be living with them, and they must be UK domiciled.  They must also get the consent of the surrogate 6 weeks after the birth of the child.

Mr and Mrs P therefore had to provide a DNA test to show a genetic link between J and Mr P. They provided the court with a “Peace of Mind” DNA test which showed that Mr P was the biological father with 99.999% certainty. The DNA report specifically stated it was not to be used for legal purposes.

When an application for a Parental Order is made, the Court will appoint a Parental Order Reporter (POR).  A POR is a qualified social worker whose role is to investigate the surrogacy arrangements and ensure that a Parental Order is in a child’s best interests.

The POR in this case received an altered version of the Peace of Mind DNA report with the words “Peace of Mind” and “not to be used for legal purposes” removed. However, the POR realised that the report was not a valid one and recommended to the Court that the parties get a court approved professionally verified test.

That DNA test was delayed repeatedly and Mr and Mrs P tried to withdraw their application for a Parental Order in June 2024. By this time, they were sure that Mr P was not J’s father. As J  had grown his complexion had darkened and it became apparent that he was of mixed race. The Court refused to allow the withdrawal of the application. To protect J’s interests and welfare a Court guardian was appointed to represent him. Finally in July 2024 a court approved DNA test confirmed that Mr P was not J’s father.  

So how is it that the Peace of Mind test showed a positive match? It turned out that Mr P’s mother substituted her own cheek swab for J’s for that test.

Because there was no genetic link between J and Mr P the application for a Parental Order could not proceed. Mr and Mrs P applied for an adoption order instead.

At the adoption hearing the Court conducted a detailed fact‑finding exercise into how J was conceived, why the DNA report was doctored, and who attempted to mislead the court.

The Court found as follows:

Ms T had unprotected sex and she had refused to identify J’s biological father.

She placed her self interest above the needs of J by withholding information about J’s father that was crucial to his identity.

Mr and Mrs P knew there was a paternity risk before J was born but they still wrongly pursued a parental order.

They knowingly submitted a doctored DNA report, although they were motivated by fear of losing the child they had raised since birth. They were terrified of losing a child to whom they were strongly attached and who was strongly attached to them.

Mr P’s mother deliberately provided her own DNA sample in place of J’s.

Despite all the adults’ misconduct, the Court focused on J’s welfare and went on to approve the adoption order for the following reasons:

J had lived with the intended parents from birth and saw them as his parents.

The surrogate had never taken on a parental role.

The biological father was unknown and unidentifiable.

The Court concluded that the adoption was the only order capable of giving J long-term safety and emotional security. The Court also found that the adults’ deception if left unchallenged could have caused serious long‑term harm to J’s sense of identity.

Key lessons can we take for intended parents and practitioners in surrogacy?

The judgment sends a clear message:

Independent surrogacy arrangements are high-risk, especially without clinical or legal oversight.

“Peace of Mind” DNA tests are not suitable for court use and can be easily misused.

Dishonesty prolongs litigation and harms children,the court will not reward attempts to manipulate the process.

The judge warned that the outcome in this case did not represent a precedent that “the ends justify the means.” Instead, it reflects the Court’s focus on what this child needed for long‑term security.

The High Court granted adoption because it was in J’s lifelong best interests, not because any of the adults behaved appropriately. The judge warned that when surrogacy arrangements are informal, unregulated, or clouded by dishonesty, the consequences can be devastating, not only for the adults, but most importantly for the child at the centre of it all.

Contact us

If you need any more advice and guidance on any of the above, do get in touch with Saika Alam. Saika is a well-respected family and divorce lawyer based in St James’s, London. Known for her personal and pragmatic approach, Saika represents her clients on all aspects of their family relationships.

Find out more about our family advice here, including our wrap around services option which also offers wider support from a carefully selected network of independent professionals who work alongside us to ensure holistic care during difficult times.

You can contact Saika on [email protected] or 020 78510110.