Recent developments in Hong Kong parental orders for children born overseas through surrogacy

Author: Rendy

‍

Hong Kong law draws a deliberate distinction between the regulation of surrogacy arrangements and the recognition of parentage after a child has been born. That distinction is now well illustrated by a line of recent decisions of the Court of First Instance, including A and Another v E [2023] HKCFI 3143, CS and Another v SW [2024] HKCFI 2326, and HSC and Another v T XXX [2026] HKCFI 770. These authorities are particularly relevant to Hong Kong families seeking legal recognition of parenthood where a child was born outside Hong Kong, including in Mainland China, through a surrogacy arrangement.

The message from the Court is clear. Hong Kong does not permit the promotion of commercial surrogacy, and the Court will not be seen to encourage or legitimise such arrangements. In many cases, the practical need for a parental order arises after the child has come to Hong Kong, when legal parentage and status must be established for purposes such as identity documents, residence, schooling, and other dealings with public authorities. In that context, section 12 of the Parent and Child Ordinance, Cap. 429 provides the principal mechanism by which a husband and wife may apply to the Hong Kong Court for a parental order recognising the child as theirs in law.

‍

The statutory framework in Hong Kong

Hong Kong prohibits commercial surrogacy arrangements. That prohibition is important and has been repeatedly affirmed by the Court. In particular, the Court has treated the legislation as directed at preventing abuse, exploitation, and commercialisation in assisted reproduction. The recent cases also make clear that the prohibition is not confined to arrangements physically carried out in Hong Kong. Where Hong Kong connected parties enter into a commercial surrogacy arrangement abroad, the Court may still regard that conduct as contrary to Hong Kong public policy.

That said, the prohibition on commercial surrogacy does not mean that Hong Kong law has no answer where a parental order is sought in respect of a child born through such an arrangement. Section 12 of the Parent and Child Ordinance provides the statutory route by which a husband and wife may apply for a parental order so that the child is recognised in law as their child. The Court is therefore not being asked to approve surrogacy as a practice, but to determine the legal status of a child who already exists for the purposes of Hong Kong law.

‍

Why parental orders matter

The recent authorities underline a point that is sometimes misunderstood in practice. Genetic connection, foreign birth certificates, and private agreements with agencies or surrogates do not by themselves determine legal parentage in Hong Kong. In cross border cases, the legal mother under foreign law may remain the woman who gave birth, and the intended mother may have no recognised maternal status at all. The foreign documentation may assist factually, but it is not conclusive of status for Hong Kong purposes.

That point was particularly evident in HSC and Another v T XXX, where expert evidence on PRC law established that the surrogate remained the legal mother of the child she bore, while the wife was regarded only as a stepmother. The Hong Kong Court nevertheless proceeded to consider whether a parental order should be made under section 12. The judgment shows why a parental order matters. It is not merely administrative. It confers legal parentage in Hong Kong, aligns the law with the child's actual family life, and may have major implications for identity, inheritance, decision making, and dealings with public authorities.

‍

The statutory conditions under section 12

The jurisdiction to grant a parental order is statutory and structured. The applicants must be a husband and wife. The child must have been carried by a woman other than the wife as a result of embryo transfer, insemination, or related treatment. The gametes of the husband or the wife, or both, must have been used to create the embryo. At the time of the application and of the making of the order, the child's home must be with the applicants or one of them. At least one applicant must be domiciled in Hong Kong, habitually resident in Hong Kong for the preceding year, or have a substantial connection with Hong Kong. Both applicants must also be over 18.

Two requirements tend to require closer scrutiny. First, the Court must be satisfied that the woman who carried the child, and any other person whose consent is legally required, has freely, unconditionally, and with full understanding agreed to the making of the order. Any consent given by the surrogate less than six weeks after birth is ineffective. Secondly, the Court must be satisfied that no money or other benefit, other than expenses reasonably incurred, has been given or received in connection with the arrangement, unless authorised or retrospectively approved by the Court.

Section 12 also provides that the application should be made within six months of birth. The recent authorities confirm, however, that the Court has power to extend time. In practice, delay is often a feature of these cases, particularly where families only discover the need for a parental order when difficulties arise in relation to immigration status, identity documents, divorce, or schooling.

‍

The Court's approach in the recent cases

Taken together, the recent decisions show a disciplined but pragmatic approach. The Court has not treated illegality, delay, or commerciality as irrelevant. On the contrary, it has analysed all three in detail. But the Court has also made clear that the child's welfare and lifelong legal status remain central.

In A and Another v E, the Court dealt with children born in Mainland China through a surrogacy arrangement involving agency fees, medical costs, and payments totalling RMB 750,000. The application had been made outside the six-month period. The Court extended time, approved the payments, and granted the parental order. Its reasoning was significant. It accepted that the applicants had acted in good faith, had not attempted to defraud the authorities, and had acted promptly once they understood the legal issue. The Court also considered the reality that the children were already living with the applicants as their family.

In CS and Another v SW, the factual background was more troubling. The surrogacy arrangement involved Cambodia and Thailand, and the Court found breaches of the laws and policy of Hong Kong, Cambodia, and Thailand. The Court described the case as a serious warning to commissioning parents and emphasised the need for proper legal due diligence. Even so, it extended time by 59 months, approved the relevant payments to the extent necessary, and granted parental orders because the twins had long been living with the applicants and knew no other parents. The Court was unwilling to deprive the children of legal security because of the adults' failures.

In HSC and Another v T XXX, the Court again granted parental orders in respect of children born in Mainland China, notwithstanding findings that the surrogacy arrangements were illegal under both Hong Kong law and, on the expert evidence, PRC law. The judgment is particularly important because it examined in detail the PRC law position, including the continuing legal status of the surrogate mothers and the absence of any straightforward route under PRC law for the wife to acquire the status of legal mother. The Court nevertheless concluded that parental orders were justified from the Hong Kong perspective because they were in the children's best interests and represented the best legal protection available in the circumstances.

‍

Practical implications for Mainland China cases

For Hong Kong families whose children were born through surrogacy in Mainland China, the recent cases carry particular significance. They show that a Hong Kong parental order may still be available, but they also expose the complexity of the underlying legal position. As HSC and Another v T XXX demonstrates, expert evidence on PRC law may be necessary to address parentage, custodial rights, guardianship, and the practical limits of private agreements with surrogate mothers. A Hong Kong parental order may regularise status in Hong Kong, but it may not by itself eliminate every issue arising under PRC law.

‍

Concluding remarks

The recent case law confirms that Hong Kong remains firmly opposed to commercial surrogacy as a matter of public policy. The Court will not promote such arrangements and will scrutinise closely any application arising from them, especially where foreign law has also been breached. Nevertheless, once a child has been born, the Court's analysis becomes anchored in the child's welfare, legal identity, and actual family life.

For that reason, parental orders remain available in appropriate overseas surrogacy cases, including those involving Mainland China, even where there has been delay, substantial payment, or illegality in the background arrangement. The essential point is that these are highly fact sensitive applications. Success depends on satisfying the statutory requirements, presenting full and careful evidence, addressing foreign law issues directly, and explaining candidly how the arrangement came about and why the order is needed. From the perspective of Hong Kong law, the present judicial approach is therefore strict in principle, but pragmatic in outcome where the child's lifelong interests require protection.

‍

‍

Disclaimer: Nothing herein shall be interpreted as legal advice to any person. Readers are encouraged to consult their legal representatives for independent advice. The information provided is based on overall observations and the experience of the practitioners of the firm at the time of writing. The content may change without prior notification depending on changes in the law. If there are two versions of the article in different languages, the English version will prevail in case of discrepancies.

About Us:

Rendy Ng Law Firm is a law firm based in Hong Kong, providing a full range of commercial legal services for all sectors, with particular focus on supporting professionals and businesses in the medical and veterinary, consumer goods and retail and entertainment industries to achieve sustainable success. By combining legal guidance with understanding of business practicalities, we ensure that our clients receive support tailored to their business goals and individual needs. Please feel free to reach out to our team should you have any questions about our services.

For enquiries, please contact us at:

P | +(852) 6033-3072 E | info@rknlegal.com W | www.rknlegal.com