Ukraine occupied a popular position as a destination for surrogacy for over a decade. For many intended parents, the country offered what was perceived as an attractive combination: an affordable commercial framework, clear legal pathways, and a well-established agency network. Ukrainian law recognises intended parents as legal parents from birth, with no requirement for transfers or adoption, subject to following what is often a straightforward legal process in that country.
Although Ukraine remains legally open for surrogacy, safety concerns are pushing intended parents to seek alternatives elsewhere, and there are also suggestions that sweeping changes could be brought in to restrict the availability of surrogacy to foreign nationals, which understandably leaves some intended parents anxious about being caught in limbo, if the law changes.
The outcome of this is that intended parents find themselves stepping into less mature, and less regulated, surrogacy jurisdictions, inserting themselves into legal complexities which they often underestimate. Immigration advice before conception is essential along side advice on the legal status and procedure of surrogacy in host and home country.
Beyond Ukraine
Ukraine’s position in the surrogacy landscape rested on the legal certainty it offered. Qualifying intended parents relied on guaranteed statutory recognition, transfer of parenthood at birth, and in many cases, an easy route home.
While the country’s legal landscape remains the same for now, access and safety do not. Intended parents are increasingly looking to Mexico, Georgia, and TRNC amongst others. The United States, long seen as the king pin of surrogacy, is also wavering in popularity due to political instability, removal of ‘birthright’ citizenship rules, and diminishing reproductive rights, as well as what amount to prohibitive costs for many.
This diversification offers an illusion of choice however in reality means exchanging a known legal framework for a patchwork of under regulated systems. The principal mistake arising from this is that intended parents assume that if surrogacy is ‘legal’ in the chosen country then the arrangement itself is secure, however things are rarely this simple.
Georgia: neighbours, but different
Georgia has been a popular destination for intended parents for some considerable time, but appears to have encountered a resurgence following the war in Ukraine. The territory does, however, bring with it certain issues. New parents can find themselves facing considerable waits post birth due to difficulties with paperwork and the slow speed of the country’s judicial system.
Usefully for intended parents, parentage is recognised from birth in Georgia, however this should not obscure several potential pitfalls. Georgia is more socially conservative than the UK and is rarely seen as an option for LGBTQ parents. Opacity in contracts is also an increasing concern.
In some Georgian programmes there is heavy reliance on agencies operating across multiple jurisdictions. Medical treatment, surrogate recruitment, and legal work are often split between countries leading to enforcement difficulties and, in extreme cases, allegations of trafficking where documentation is poorly managed.
Emerging markets
Colombia and Mexico are increasingly marketed as affordable, progressive alternatives to Eastern Europe and Western Asia, especially for LGBTQ+ intended parents, however their offerings remain frequently misunderstood.
Surrogacy in Colombia is normally permitted through constitutional and judicial precedent as opposed to a comprehensive statute. This distinction can appear immaterial at first however in practice means that intended parents’ rights and the procedures they have to follow depend largely on interpretations and of course, it is a much less established path to more long-standing jurisdiction.
Mexico presents similar uncertainties. The legality of surrogacy varies by state, and assuming parentage often requires post birth litigation. Whilst recent developments within these countries suggest that there is some movement towards pre-birth legal recognition, consistent implementation of this remains elusive. Delays in being able to return home can be lengthy and of course recent unrest and reported risks to tourists have raised further obstacles to navigate.
For intended parents, countries with less regulation and established systems create major risks. The ‘exit risk’ being one. It can prove difficult to obtain passports for the child, meaning that parents have difficulty leaving the country and end up stuck there for months. Discrepancies between local and English parenthood laws, can create further complications, especially for the provision of nationality, travel documentation and immigration rights.
There is also the emerging world of ‘anonymous surrogacy’, a system which is growing in popularity in Nigeria in particular. Not only does this present clear and significant ethical, medical and public policy risks, but also flies directly against the fundamental principle of the relevant English law, which is that the surrogate must consent to the transference of parenthood unconditionally; which clearly is difficult to establish if a surrogate is anonymous.
When faced with these circumstances, in Re H (Anonymous Surrogacy) [2025] EWHC 220 (Fam), the then President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, exercised the statutory power to override consent where a surrogate could not be found. However, he did with stern judicial warning that the court will be less permissive in circumstances where intended parents enter these arrangements in knowledge of the anonymity. That message was reinforced emphatically in Re B and C v D and H [2025] EWFC 366, where Mrs Justice Theis made plain that it cannot be taken for granted that a court will find that an anonymous surrogate cannot be found for this purpose, thus allowing the crucial parental order to be made.
Agencies without central regulation
The most troubling development is, perhaps, the growth of cross border networks of agencies operating in jurisdictions with minimal, or non-existent, regulation.
Unlike domestic arrangements, international surrogacy programmes often involve multiple private actors, fertility clinics, surrogate coordinators, legal consultants, and translators. There may be no central regulating force, no professional indemnity framework, and limited recourse when something goes wrong. Such arrangements also give rise to concerns about legality, along with ethical concerns.
Illustration of this arises in, for example, Re XWZ [2025] EWFC 25, in which case an unregulated agency facilitated a surrogacy arrangement which touched not less than six different jurisdictions. That included the jurisdiction of birth – Moldova - where, unbeknownst to the intended parent at the time, there were serious questions as to the legality of surrogacy at risk of criminal sanction.
The agency in Re XWZ operated primarily from Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC); a country which has emerged in the post-Ukraine climate as a central venue for agencies and clinics that will push the boundaries of ethics and law. In Re Z (Unlawful Foreign Surrogacy: Adoption) [2025] EWHC 339 (Fam) the former President of the Family Division made plain his understanding that, as that case entailed, surrogacy arrangements and the placement of children with same-sex couples were both unlawful there. There was also the concern that both the intended parents were well into their 70s and had given insufficient thought to the welfare implications on the children in question by having two parents who will enter old age early in their childhood.
The key tension here is that the court is being faced with parental order applications brought by individuals who are biological parents to the children, who are by this point typically settled in their care. However, in endorsing this, the Court is asked to effectively and tacitly endorse an arrangement that could have broken the law of another jurisdiction. That is a public policy factor which theoretically could inhibit the making of a parental order. As Sir McFarlane put it in Re Z: “Put bluntly, anyone seeking to…follow in the footsteps of these applicants should think again.”
Most recently in AB & CD [2026] EWHC 972 (Fam) the court did stress that the welfare of the children in question is paramount. This lends itself to parental orders being made notwithstanding ethical and public policy concerns. However, this is not a reprieve for bad faith actors benefiting from the ‘post-Ukraine landscape’.
The court maintains that any knowing involvement in cases that step outside of proper legal, ethical and public policy boundaries could in itself be taken as a welfare concern for the children involved. That is, the court will pay close scrutiny to whether parents prepared to bring children into the world in such circumstances could be considered to have fit judgment to meet that child’s welfare needs. Elsewhere, there is also an increase in the offering of so called ‘all-inclusive packages’ with little clarity as to who actually employs the surrogate, holds the funds, or controls the medical decision making. Such packages are marketed for their ease but may offer anything but.
For family lawyers advising intended parents, due diligence now needs to extend beyond legal permissibility to ethical governance, surrogate consent, compensation, insurance, and contingency planning. For intended parents, too, there is a clear expectation of appropriate due diligence at all stages of the surrogacy journey.
Returning to the UK: the final say
Whatever occurs abroad, the law of England and Wales ultimately governs legal parenthood upon return to home shores. In England & Wales, the surrogate and, if she is married, potentially her spouse, will still be recognised as the child’s legal parents until a parental order is granted. Not every case will be suitable for a parental order; these can only be made by satisfying the checklist of factors in s54 of the HFEA 2008, which judges are frequently willing to flex but which can only be pushed so far. This can create a profound tension, not to mention emotional distress, where the destination country’s ruling is at odds with domestic law.
Ukraine once offered relative clarity in this muddy picture, however in light of recent geopolitical developments, questions far beyond ‘where do we go now’ need to be asked. The effect of this is to place increasing pressure on intended parents to consider not only what the surrogacy process in their chosen destination will look like, but also whether they will be able to return with their child and, once here, obtain the necessary orders to align their social intention with their legal status. It also means that intended parents are increasingly being required to assess what degree of risk they are willing to tolerate.
Copyright & permissions
.jpg&w=256&q=75)
