The High Court allowed two appeals concerning an infant born in India through a surrogacy arrangement, declaring Z.P. to be her father, appointing him as her guardian and dispensing with the need for the gestational mother’s consent to issue a passport while the child is a minor.
In a judgment delivered on 15 December 2011, Mr Justice Abbott set aside a Circuit Court order that had refused relief in both proceedings. The appeals had sought guardianship and orders to enable the child to obtain an Irish passport.
The court heard that the child was conceived through in-vitro fertilisation using Z.P.’s sperm and an anonymous donor egg, under a February 2010 gestational surrogacy agreement involving T.F. in New Delhi. The child was born in September 2010. Her birth certificate named Z.P. and P.Z. as her father and mother. The judgment uses initials to identify the parties.
Evidence before the High Court included genetic test results indicating a 99.999% probability that Z.P. was the child’s biological father, subject to a sibling caveat. The judge accepted Z.P.’s evidence that no brother or other family member could be the father, and concluded the caveat did not apply. The court also found that the child had habitually lived with Z.P. and P.Z., who cared for her daily, and that T.F.’s role had been that of gestational mother. T.F. had been notified of the proceedings and, through her solicitors, consented to the proposed orders.
The judgment records that the Passport Office had advised Z.P. to obtain a declaration of parentage and an order allowing a passport without the surrogate parent’s consent. It had said it could not proceed with the application until citizenship and guardianship issues were dealt with. The court described obtaining an Irish passport as urgent and in the child’s best interests.
In the first appeal, the High Court made a declaration under Part VI of the Status of Children Act 1987 that Z.P. was the child’s father. It allowed the appeal and set aside the Circuit Court’s June 6, 2011 order. The judgment gave Z.P. liberty to apply to the Circuit Court for a declaration in like form, citing the need for formal statutory and regulatory procedures. The court also lifted the in-camera restriction to allow the order’s terms to be notified to relevant authorities. It made no order as to costs and adjourned for written reasons.
In the second appeal, the court appointed Z.P. guardian under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964. It ordered that custody continue under the existing care arrangements, with P.Z. to be notified of any proposed change, and dispensed with T.F.’s consent for a passport while the child is a minor. The judgment granted liberty to apply in the Circuit Court. It does not state that a passport was issued.