Whilst surrogacy is often considered part of the emerging area of “modern family law”, the reality is that forms of surrogacy – where people have chosen others to give birth on their behalf – has been taking place for millennia. However, with the rapidly advancing IVF technology, coupled with the growing trend in people prioritising advancing their own careers and achieving financial stability over having children young, it is no surprise that many cultures across the world are seeing a rising move towards surrogacy.
One issue which has been emerging in case law is the issue of anonymous surrogacy. This is the practice where the intended parents do not know the identity of the surrogate mother and only have very limited contact with her, often through an agency or a clinic.
In a recent case B and C v D and H [2025] EWFC 366 Theis J echoed the warnings in similar cases (Re H (Anonymous Surogacy) [2025] EWHC 220 and Re QR (Parental Order: Dispensing with Consent: Proportionality) [2023] EWHC 3196). To put it simply, anonymous surrogacy can lead to significant difficulties with parents resident to the UK, as UK law explicitly requires proof that the surrogate has given unconditional consent, which is not possible without knowing who she is.
In the matter of B and C v D [2025] the parents had engaged a clinic in Nigeria. A surrogacy agreement was signed in April 2023, which was signed by the surrogate who only used the initials “G.D.”. The parents never met the surrogate and her identity remained anonymous throughout the surrogacy process and the subsequent proceedings. In September 2023 the surrogate fell pregnant and in March 2024 a baby “H” is born in Nigeria. The parents collect H, bring him back to the UK where a Right of Abode certificate is granted and in June made an application for a parental order.
However, without the identity of the surrogate, no consent order could be granted. The parents were then forced into difficult and complicated proceedings at a time when they should have been enjoying previous time with newborn H. Instead, the parents had to make attempts to contact the clinic, explaining the situation. However, the surrogate insisted on remaining anonymous and threatened legal action to be able to do so.
Eventually, the parental order was granted in October 2025. In tackling the issue of consent Theis J applied the principles in Re C (Surrogacy: Consent [2023] EWCA Civ 16 and Re D and L (Surrogacy) [2012] EWHC 2631. These principles require (a) reasonable efforts to locate the surrogate (b) evidence of prior consent (which holds limited weight and (c) child’s welfare as paramount.
Despite the fact that this was a problem capable of resolution, Theis J’s judgment reiterates the warnings against anonymous surrogacy – pointing out the significant delay and unnecessary costs incurred. This case, along with others, serves as a stark reminder to would-be parents to consider potential pitfalls with anonymous surrogacy, before embarking on the process.
