On Monday 7 September 2026, a parliamentary debate was held in Westminster Hall in response to a petition that was signed by over 113,000 people. The title of the debate was “Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood” and MPs considered whether there should be a change to existing surrogacy law and if intended parents should now be considered their child’s legal parents from birth.
In the UK, a surrogate who gives birth to a child is deemed the legal mother of that child, regardless of whether they are biologically related to one another. If the surrogate is married or in a civil partnership, then that person is automatically the other legal parent at the point of birth. The child’s birth certificate is therefore initially registered with the surrogate and their spouse or civil partner (if there is one) as the legal parent/s. For intended parents to obtain exclusive legal parenthood, they must apply to the court for a parental order.
The parental order process is long and often takes several months by which point the child has grown and developed significantly and, in some cases, could even be walking and talking. The application can only be made by the intended parent(s) after the birth once there is a birth certificate and should be made within 6 months of the birth. The surrogate’s free and unconditional consent must be given (along with any spouse or civil partner) and cannot be validly given until 6 weeks after giving birth. A Parental Order Reporter, usually through CAFCASS, is appointed to investigate the circumstances of the arrangement, speak with all the individuals involved, and prepare a report for the court focusing on the child’s welfare and whether the statutory criteria are met. Comprehensive statements are provided to the court by the intended parent(s) detailing all background information about their situation and the payments made to the surrogate with evidence in support and thorough explanation where/if needed. The UK has an altruistic system, not a commercial one, meaning payments to surrogates must be limited to reasonable expenses only – the surrogate cannot be in profit but should not be out of pocket either. There will always be at least one court hearing and sometimes it may be necessary for more than one court hearing.
The petition in question was formed by Adam Frisby who, along with his partner Jamie Corbett, underwent a surrogacy arrangement with a surrogate in the US. The surrogate gave birth to their baby girl, Leven, in Connecticut nearly 2 years prior to the petition first being launched. In their words, they became dads “the moment they held Leven”. They are listed as Leven’s parents on her birth certificate in the United States, but more than six months after her birth, they were still not recognised as her legal parents at home in the UK. Their frustrations with the parental order process centres on what they perceived to be the legal pressure, time and scrutiny intended parents must face following the birth of their child as well as the practical day-to-day issues which may occur before a parental order is made such as registering their child with a GP, making medical decisions, and applying for a passport.
Out of those who spoke in the debate, the overwhelming majority were against the notion that intended parents should be recognised as the legal parents from birth. Many spoke of the important safeguards the current system affords to surrogates who must give their free and unconditional consent – “The woman who gives birth should not lose her rights before she knows how the experience of childbirth has affected her.” (Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst MP). Others talked of an economic imbalance there is likely to be between a surrogate and the intended parents prompting the question “is it ever a free choice for a surrogate to enter into a surrogacy agreement?” (Tracy Gilbert MP). The strongest views against the petition leaned into an argument against surrogacy altogether even referring to jurisdictions like France, Germany, Spain and Italy where surrogacy is banned and quoting the French President Emmanuel Macron who said surrogacy is “not compatible with the dignity of women”.
Many references were made to the 2023 Law Commission report on surrogacy reform which recommends a new pathway to legal parenthood where intended parents can be recognised as the legal parents from the birth of the child so long as appropriate screening of the intended parents takes place beforehand. In the debate, Jessica Brown-Fuller MP noted an important nuance of the 2023 proposal: “if everything was decided before the birth, the legal parents could have the rights from day one, but the biological, or surrogate, mother would have a chance to go against that in the first six weeks of the baby’s life.” Some commentators find this proposal strikes the right balance between the safeguards needed in surrogacy arrangements for all and the rights, ease and legal certainty sought after by those for the petition, whereas others find it does not go far enough either way.
In my view, the debate was won by the opponents of the petition who said the quiet part out loud – “Making a process easier for one party does not necessarily make the law better” (Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst MP). Meanwhile, the proponents of the petition did not say the other quiet part out loud – in most cases, surrogates are independent, free-minded people who should be able to carry out a kind deed of their own volition without the law making them the legal parents of children they do not see as theirs. How much any of this means in terms of actual change is yet to be seen. The Government’s response to the petition and the debate remains as it was to the 2023 Law Commission report – surrogacy can be debated when there is time to do so.
Shaili Gohil-Desai, Associate, Burgess Mee
