A High Court judge has criticized the legality of a surrogacy arrangement involving a single man and a surrogate mother from Kyrgyzstan, describing aspects of the case as bordering on illegality. The judgment, issued as part of a parental order granted in February, focused on a man identified as Mr A, a Serbian-born individual who acquired British citizenship in 2010 and sought to become a father through surrogacy in 2022.

Mr A explored several jurisdictions considered accessible to single men before ultimately selecting Northern Cyprus, citing cost efficiency and relative political and social stability. He engaged Dogus IVF, a fertility clinic in Northern Cyprus, to create embryos using his sperm and a donated egg. The clinic referred him to Full-Success Medical Consulting, an agency located in the same building, which helped secure an egg donor and a surrogate to carry the child.

According to court documents, Mr A was informed by the agency that the child’s birth could occur in any country since the surrogacy was conducted under Cypriot law. In February 2023, he was matched with a surrogate identified as Ms X, an unmarried mother of two from Kyrgyzstan who was residing in Dubai at the time. Ms X became pregnant two months later, following which Mr A was advised that she would return to Kyrgyzstan to complete the pregnancy. He paid approximately £8,500 for the arrangement.

While the agency initially intended for Ms X to give birth in Moldova, deemed a “suitable jurisdiction,” pregnancy complications necessitated delivery in Kyrgyzstan in November 2023. Both the clinic and agency reassured Mr A that the surrogacy complied with Kyrgyz law. However, upon traveling to Kyrgyzstan with the newborn, referred to in court papers as Q, Mr A discovered that these assurances were inaccurate.

The incorrect understanding of legal frameworks led to nearly 18 months of challenges in securing British citizenship for the child. Mr A’s initial application for a British passport was rejected due to paperwork deficiencies but was ultimately approved in March 2025 after he enlisted immigration lawyers. Both Mr A and the child entered the United Kingdom in July 2025.

Mrs Justice Knowles, presiding over the case, granted the parental order to provide stability and legal recognition of Mr A’s parenthood. The judge emphasized that the applicant had been misled by commercial entities that failed to adequately consider legal complexities. She highlighted that assurances from the agency regarding the birthplace of the child, when detached from the surrogate’s nationality, introduced significant legal uncertainty and potentially illegitimate elements to the surrogacy process.