Surrogacy and Parental Orders: Who Is the Child’s Legal Parent?
Surrogacy is an arrangement in which a person carries and gives birth to a child for another person or couple, known as the intended parent or intended parents.
Surrogacy is legal in the UK, although only altruistic arrangements are permitted and certain commercial activities are restricted. However, an agreement made between intended parents and a surrogate is not legally enforceable under the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985.
A surrogacy agreement can still be useful for recording the parties’ intentions and expectations. However, neither the surrogate nor the intended parents can ask the court simply to enforce its terms.
If a dispute arises, the family court will consider the individual circumstances of the case. Any decision concerning the child will be based on the child’s welfare as the court’s paramount consideration, rather than solely on what was agreed between the parties.
There are two main types of surrogacy:
- Traditional surrogacy: the surrogate’s own egg is used, meaning she is genetically related to the child.
- Gestational surrogacy: an embryo is created using an egg from an intended parent or donor. The surrogate carries the pregnancy but has no genetic relationship with the child.
This distinction is important—but genetics alone does not determine legal parenthood.
Under the law of England and Wales, the person who gives birth is treated as the child’s legal mother at birth, even in gestational surrogacy where she has no genetic connection to the child. By contrast, an intended mother whose egg was used may be the child’s genetic mother but will not automatically be recognised as the legal mother.
This raises an important question: if a child has a genetic mother and a different legal mother, who has parental responsibility?
Who Has Parental Responsibility at Birth?
At birth, the surrogate is automatically the child’s legal mother and has parental responsibility. Depending on the circumstances, her spouse or civil partner may also be treated as the child’s second legal parent.
The intended parent or parents may therefore not immediately have the legal authority to make important decisions about the child’s medical care, education or travel, even if they have cared for the child since birth.
To transfer legal parenthood and parental responsibility, the intended parent or parents will usually need to apply for a Parental Order.
Applying for a Parental Order
A Parental Order transfers legal parenthood from the surrogate and, where applicable, her spouse or civil partner to the intended parent or parents. It also gives the intended parent or parents parental responsibility and permanently brings the surrogate’s legal parenthood to an end.
Certain legal requirements must be satisfied. These generally include:
- at least one applicant, or the sole applicant, being genetically related to the child;
- the child living with the applicant or applicants;
- the application usually being made within six months of the child’s birth;
- the relevant UK domicile requirements being satisfied; and
- the surrogate and any other legal parent freely consenting to the order, subject to limited exceptions.
The surrogate’s consent cannot be treated as valid if it is given less than six weeks after the child’s birth. The court’s paramount consideration when deciding whether to make the order is the child’s lifelong welfare.
What About International Surrogacy?
International surrogacy arrangements can be particularly complex because the law differs considerably between countries.
Intended parents may be named as the child’s parents on an overseas birth certificate or recognised as legal parents under the law of the country where the child was born. However, this does not necessarily mean that both intended parents will automatically be recognised as the child’s legal parents under UK law.
A UK Parental Order may still be required. Separate questions can also arise concerning:
- the child’s nationality and immigration status;
- applications for a British passport or other travel documents;
- bringing the child back to the UK;
- recognition of an overseas birth certificate or court order; and
- payments made to the surrogate or an overseas agency.
The UK Government confirms that overseas recognition of the intended parents does not automatically determine legal parenthood in the UK. Intended parents considering international surrogacy should therefore obtain advice at an early stage, ideally before entering into an arrangement or travelling for the child’s birth.
How Can We Help?
Surrogacy arrangements can raise important questions about legal parenthood, parental responsibility and the steps required after a child is born.
Chan Neill Solicitors’ Family Law team can advise intended parents on Parental Order applications and help them understand the legal issues arising from domestic and international surrogacy arrangements.
If you are considering surrogacy, have already welcomed a child through surrogacy or require advice about applying for a Parental Order, please contact our Family Law team to discuss your circumstances.
Understanding Your Conveyancing Documents - What is Reserve Fund?
When buying a leasehold property, purchasers will usually be advised to consider the annual service charge. However, part of that service charge may be collected and set aside for future expenditure rather than spent on the building’s immediate running costs.
This money is commonly referred to as a “reserve fund” or “sinking fund”. Understanding how the fund operates, how much it contains and what it may be used for can help buyers assess the likely future costs of owning a leasehold property.
What Is a Reserve Fund or Sinking Fund?
A reserve fund, sometimes called a sinking fund, is money collected from leaseholders through the service charge and set aside for future major works. The terms are often used interchangeably, but the lease should be checked to confirm how contributions may be collected and spent.
What Can the Fund Be Used For?
Reserve funds are generally used for major or non-routine works that may only be required every few years. Depending on the building and the terms of the lease, the fund may be used for:
- roof repairs or replacement;
- internal or external redecoration;
- structural repairs;
- replacement of communal carpets;
- lift repairs or replacement;
- replacement of communal boilers or heating systems; and
- other major works affecting the building or estate.
Day-to-day costs, such as cleaning, gardening, buildings insurance and management fees, are normally paid from the annual service charge budget.
Does Every Leasehold Building Have a Fund?
Not every leasehold development has a reserve or sinking fund. Contributions can generally be collected only where the lease permits them, and the lease should explain how the fund may be used.
The lease may specify the annual contribution or allow the landlord or managing agent to determine a reasonable amount based on anticipated future expenditure and the amount already held. The contribution will therefore vary between developments.
Where major works are proposed, the landlord may be required to consult leaseholders under the statutory Section 20 procedure, even where some or all of the cost will be paid from the reserve fund.
What Are the Benefits of a Reserve Fund?
A properly managed reserve fund can help spread the cost of major works across a number of years.
Without a reserve fund, leaseholders may face a substantial one-off service charge demand when major repairs or replacement works are required. A reserve fund helps spread these costs over time and makes future expenditure easier to plan for.
However, the existence of a reserve fund does not guarantee that all future works will be fully covered.
For example, if major roof repairs are expected to cost £100,000 but the reserve fund contains only £60,000, the leaseholders may still be required to contribute towards the £40,000 shortfall through an additional service charge demand.
How Is the Fund Held and What Happens on Sale?
For private-sector leasehold properties, reserve fund contributions must generally be held on trust for the benefit of the leaseholders and kept separately from the landlord’s own money. The fund may only be used for purposes permitted by the lease, and any interest earned will usually be added to the fund.
Leaseholders may be entitled to request information about the fund, including contributions received, expenditure and the remaining balance.
When a leaseholder sells the property, they will not usually receive a refund of their contributions unless the lease provides otherwise. The money normally remains in the fund for the future maintenance of the building, with the incoming buyer benefiting from the existing balance.
What Should a Buyer Check?
As part of the conveyancing process, the buyer’s solicitor or conveyancer should review the lease, service charge accounts and information provided by the landlord or managing agent.
Key points include:
- whether the lease allows reserve fund contributions;
- the current balance and annual contribution;
- any recent expenditure from the fund;
- whether major works are planned;
- whether the fund is likely to cover those works; and
- whether additional payments may be required.
A low service charge is not always beneficial if little or no money is being set aside for future major works. Equally, a higher service charge may reflect responsible long-term planning.
Conclusion
Reserve and sinking funds can help spread the cost of major works and reduce the risk of unexpected service charge demands. Buyers should carefully review the lease, the amount held and any planned works before proceeding with a leasehold purchase.
Our experienced conveyancing solicitors can guide you through each stage of the transaction, explain the relevant leasehold information clearly and advise on any potential concerns. We assist clients in English, Mandarin and Cantonese.
Divorced but still financially connected? Why a Final Order may not be the end
A divorce may legally end a marriage, but it does not automatically bring the parties’ financial relationship to an end.
Unless financial arrangements are recorded in a court-approved order, a former spouse may retain the ability to make a financial claim years or even decades after the divorce was finalised. In some circumstances, unresolved financial ties may also allow a former spouse to pursue a claim against an estate after death.
The Telegraph recently reported that 105,704 divorce orders were granted in England and Wales during 2025. However, research cited in the article suggested that only around one-third of divorcing couples use the legal system to formalise a financial settlement.
Does the Final Order end financial claims?
The Final Order, formerly known as the Decree Absolute, legally ends the marriage and allows both parties to remarry or enter a new civil partnership. However, the Final Order does not, by itself, dismiss financial claims arising from the marriage. Claims concerning property, savings, pensions, income and lump‑sum payments may remain open unless they have been resolved through a financial order (often a consent order) approved and sealed by the family court.
Parties should therefore deal separately with their financial arrangements and consider applying for a financial order to record any divorce financial settlement. Where appropriate, a clean break order (usually a clean break clause within a consent order) can prevent former spouse from bringing further financial claims against the other in the future. Even where the parties have divided their property informally and consider the matter settled, a private agreement between them will not usually provide the same protection as a sealed court order.
A claim more than 20 years after divorce
The risks associated with failing to formalise a financial settlement were illustrated in Lin v Par [2025] EWFC 401.
The parties had divorced more than 20 years before the financial proceedings came before the court. A draft consent order had been prepared at the time of the divorce, and the parties had acted on the basis that their financial affairs had been resolved. However, the draft order had never been approved and sealed by the court.
The former wife was therefore able to bring a financial remedies application many years later.
Mr Justice Peel recognised that there is no statutory limitation period preventing a former spouse from making a financial remedies application. Nevertheless, a delay of more than 20 years was highly relevant when the court considered what would be fair.
The court concluded that the parties had reached an effective agreement and dismissed the former wife’s claims. An immediate clean break was ordered. The case nevertheless demonstrates that an apparently concluded financial settlement can return to court decades later where the necessary order was never finalised.
The practical lesson is clear: reaching an agreement is not necessarily the end of the process. The agreement should be properly drafted, submitted to the court and approved as a financial order.
The possibility of financial claims years after divorce is not confined to unusual cases. In the widely reported case of Wyatt v Vince [2015] UKSC 14, the Supreme Court allowed a former wife to pursue a financial claim more than two decades after the divorce because no court-approved financial settlement had ever been obtained. The case remains one of the clearest reminders that, in England and Wales, a divorce Final Order does not automatically prevent future financial claims by an ex-spouse.
Can a former spouse claim against an estate?
The position may become more complicated where one of the former spouses dies. Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, a former spouse who has not remarried may potentially apply for reasonable financial provision from the deceased’s estate.
Failing to obtain an appropriate financial order may leave an estate exposed to a claim long after the divorce itself.
Whether such a claim can be made will depend on the terms of any previous financial order, any section 15 / 1975 Act bar, and the particular circumstances of the parties. A properly drafted clean break order can include the dismissal of future financial claims between former spouses and can, where appropriate, limit claims under the Inheritance Act 1975, providing greater protection for both parties and their estates.
However, a clean break will not be appropriate in every case. For example, where spousal maintenance is required on an ongoing basis, it may not be possible immediately to sever all financial ties, although a partial clean break may still be achievable in relation to capital.
What happens if someone dies before the financial case is concluded?
If a party dies before a final substantive financial remedy order has been made, the financial remedy application cannot ordinarily continue either against the deceased’s estate or for the benefit of the estate. The parties’ positions will instead depend on matters such as:
- the existing legal and beneficial ownership of property;
- whether property passes automatically by survivorship;
- the terms of the deceased’s will or the intestacy rules;
- pension or contractual death benefits; and
- whether the surviving or former spouse can bring a claim under the Inheritance Act 1975.
By contrast, where a financial remedy order has already been made, certain obligations under that order may be enforceable by or against the deceased’s estate, for example arrears of lump sums or maintenance that accrued before death.
If you are interested in protecting your position post-divorce, the Chan Neill Solicitors’ Family Law team can advise on financial settlements, consent orders, clean break provisions and unresolved financial claims following divorce.
Understanding Your Conveyancing Documents - Full, Limited and No Title Guarantee
When buying or selling property in England and Wales, clients are often asked to review or sign a number of conveyancing documents. These documents may contain legal terms that are important, but not always easy to understand.
In this article, we explain the difference between full title guarantee, limited title guarantee and no title guarantee, and why these terms matter in a property transaction.
What is Full Title Guarantee?
Full title guarantee gives the buyer the strongest level of assurance from the seller.
Where a property is sold with full title guarantee, the seller confirms that they have the legal right to sell the property and will do what they reasonably can, at their own cost, to transfer good title to the buyer.
It also implies that the property is being sold free from mortgages, financial charges and third-party rights, except for matters that have been disclosed or matters which the seller does not know about and could not reasonably be expected to know about.
If the property is leasehold, full title guarantee also gives additional assurance that the lease still exists and that the seller has complied with the lease terms.
What is Limited Title Guarantee?
Limited title guarantee offers a narrower level of protection than full title guarantee. It is commonly used where the seller has limited knowledge of the property or is acting in a representative capacity, such as an executor, personal representative, trustee, attorney, mortgagee in possession, receiver or bank.
In these cases, although the seller still confirms that they have the right to sell the property and will do what they reasonably can to transfer the title, their promises about mortgages, charges, third-party rights and other interests affecting the property are limited.
In simple terms, the seller is usually only confirming that they have not personally done anything to adversely affect the title, and that they are not aware of anything done during their period of ownership or involvement. They are not giving the same level of assurance about previous owners or historic title matters.
What is No Title Guarantee?
In some transactions, the property may be sold with no title guarantee. This is sometimes seen in repossessed property sales or sales by a mortgagee, receiver or bank.
This means the seller is not making the usual legal promises about the property’s title. For example, they may not be able to confirm whether there are unknown claims, charges, rights, boundary issues or other title problems affecting the property.
A no title guarantee sale does not necessarily mean that the property cannot be purchased. However, the buyer takes on more risk and should proceed with caution.
Before exchange of contracts, the buyer’s solicitor should carefully review the title documents, Land Registry entries, searches and any available information. If a potential issue is identified, the buyer may need to consider whether the risk is acceptable or whether indemnity insurance may be appropriate.
Conclusion
The difference between full, limited and no title guarantee can have important practical consequences in a property transaction, as it affects both the level of assurance given by the seller and the level of risk the buyer may be asked to accept. Where limited or no title guarantee is offered, buyers should seek legal advice to understand what information is available, what cannot be confirmed, and whether it is appropriate to proceed.
At Chan Neill Solicitors LLP, our Conveyancing team advises buyers and sellers on a wide range of property transactions, including matters involving limited or no title guarantee. If you are buying or selling a property and are unsure about the title guarantee being offered, please contact our team for legal advice before proceeding.
In this series, we will continue to explain key conveyancing documents and legal terms to help buyers and sellers better understand the property transaction process.