{"id":272005,"date":"2026-02-07T07:33:08","date_gmt":"2026-02-07T07:33:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/272005\/"},"modified":"2026-02-07T07:33:08","modified_gmt":"2026-02-07T07:33:08","slug":"man-wins-family-court-order-to-adopt-own-surrogate-son-despite-concerns-from-judge","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/272005\/","title":{"rendered":"Man wins Family Court order to adopt own surrogate son, despite concerns from judge"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"font-family:'Sohne',Arial,Sans-serif;display: flex;align-items: center;font-size: 14px;\" class=\"story-paragraph nzherald-paragraph\">First published on <a style=\"background: none !important;\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nzherald.co.nz\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"122px\" height=\"30px\" style=\"display: flex;background: none;\" alt=\"NZ Herald\" src=\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/nzherald-117bcaab72f04075ca4e3d3410ff591e0b001b26e2ec22af4bb2efaa4ad5ed42.png\"\/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>A New Zealand man will be allowed to adopt a child born to a surrogate mother overseas, despite concerns from a judge that he may have misled a fertility clinic overseas about his marital status.<\/p>\n<p>Under the current legislation, which was written in 1955, every parent of a child born by surrogacy must effectively adopt their own child, even if they have a genetic link to them.<\/p>\n<p>This legislation has meant that some New Zealanders have sought surrogacy arrangements overseas, such as in Thailand, despite the practice being illegal there.<\/p>\n<p>In a recent case before the Family Court, in which all names were suppressed, a New Zealand man paid a Georgian company to facilitate an IVF treatment for a surrogate mother who originated from Uzbekistan.<\/p>\n<p>He then had to apply to the court to adopt the baby boy as his own child.<\/p>\n<p>The presiding judge said that the court&#8217;s hand was essentially forced because if it didn&#8217;t grant the order, the child would be left stateless and in a &#8220;legal vacuum&#8221; because he had no right to remain in Georgia but also couldn&#8217;t leave.<\/p>\n<p>The judge described it as a &#8220;fait accompli&#8221;, meaning that essentially the child&#8217;s fate had already been decided and could not be changed, before the case was even filed.<\/p>\n<p>According to the facts of the recently released judgment, the man and a woman he claimed was his de facto partner signed an agreement with a reproductive agency in Georgia, which specialised in both IVF and in sourcing surrogate mothers.<\/p>\n<p>The agreement with this agency required that the pair be legally married, as per Georgian law, or had been together for at least one year and had a medical reason for the surrogacy. The agency simply accepted that because of the woman&#8217;s age, pregnancy was risky.<\/p>\n<p>The pair were arranged to be married, but no ceremony ever eventuated, and they lived together for only some weeks.<\/p>\n<p>The man said his parents suggested surrogacy, and that he&#8217;d heard about the agency from a friend.<\/p>\n<p>The surrogate is a 38-year-old woman from Uzbekistan. No information was provided on whether she normally resided in Georgia or had travelled there for the surrogacy arrangement.<\/p>\n<p>The man had only met her once when he travelled to Georgia to provide a sperm sample, and the implant was made in November 2024.<\/p>\n<p>By 2024, the man and his allegedly de facto partner had split up, but he continued with the surrogacy process alone. He told the court that he&#8217;d informed the agency in early 2025 and that they&#8217;d had no concerns about his change in relationship status.<\/p>\n<p>At this point, the surrogate was six months pregnant.<\/p>\n<p>He signed a power of attorney to enable the clinic to complete all the necessary post-birth paperwork, and the agency obtained the Georgian birth certificate for the baby, which states that he, the man, is the child&#8217;s father, while his allegedly de facto partner is listed as the mother, not the surrogate.<\/p>\n<p>&#8216;Uncomfortable facts&#8217;<\/p>\n<p>Gestational surrogacy is currently legal in Georgia, and at birth, the intended parents are automatically recognised as the legal parents, while the surrogate has no parental rights nor obligations.<\/p>\n<p>Only heterosexual married couples (or couples in a de facto relationship for at least one year) are eligible to enter a surrogacy contract.<\/p>\n<p>In June 2023, the government of Georgia announced a plan to ban commercial surrogacy for foreigners, but the legislation has not yet been passed.<\/p>\n<p>New Zealand law does not currently afford any automatic rights to the intending parents of a child born via surrogacy. At the time of birth, the child&#8217;s legal parents are the surrogate mother and partner, and a formal adoption process is required to complete the arrangement.<\/p>\n<p>The same is true if a child is born via surrogacy overseas. Even if the child shares DNA with a New Zealander, they do not automatically acquire citizenship.<\/p>\n<p>Instead, the only avenue is through the Adoption Act.<\/p>\n<p>The Improving Arrangements for Surrogacy Bill would see it more in line with the current Georgian law, but it is still before the select committee at the time of writing.<\/p>\n<p>Family Court Judge Belinda Pidwell said that on the evidence before her, she was satisfied that the man and the woman he claimed was his partner were not in a de facto relationship, and it was unclear what steps the Georgian agency took to verify their relationship status.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;There is an uncomfortable inference available that [the man&#8217;s] relationship with [the woman] existed purely for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of the surrogacy agreement,&#8221; Judge Pidwell said.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Once the pregnancy was viable, the relationship ended. Without her, [the man] would not have been eligible to enter into a surrogacy agreement in Georgia.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Judge Pidwell said that courts around the world had grappled with cases where surrogacy laws clash with children who have already been born, sometimes illegally.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The focus of the New Zealand courts, however, is to honour the child&#8217;s rights, rather than punish the parents,&#8221; Judge Pidwell said.<\/p>\n<p>In her judgment, Judge Pidwell said that there were a number of aspects of the creation of the baby in this case that caused &#8220;discomfort&#8221;, but the baby&#8217;s rights must take precedence.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Should [the baby] pay the ultimate price of losing the only parent who wants him and can satisfactorily care for him, because his father entered into an arrangement with a woman in order to gain access to the procedure in Georgia?<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The high-level concern is this: If New Zealand courts grant adoption orders conferring parentage and citizenship rights to children born of illegal surrogacy arrangements, that could be regarded as endorsing the process and upholding illegal contracts.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Judge Pidwell said that ultimately no illegality could be clearly identified, but there were instead a number of &#8220;uncomfortable facts&#8221; which, when considered together, indicated the surrogacy agency had enabled the man to create a child and overlooked or turned a blind eye to the rights of the surrogate mother.<\/p>\n<p>Ultimately, the adoption order was granted, with Judge Pidwell noting that her primary consideration was the child&#8217;s welfare, and this meant being looked after by his father, who was the only family member available to him.<\/p>\n<p>* This story originally appeared in the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nzherald.co.nz\/nz\/new-zealand-man-wins-family-court-order-to-adopt-own-surrogate-son-despite-concerns-from-judge\/LLZAGJ3VE5AX7FBSA3U2ERJ7X4\/#google_vignette\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">New Zealand Herald.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"First published on A New Zealand man will be allowed to adopt a child born to a surrogate&hellip;\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":272006,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[48,47,111,43,139,69,49,46,44,45],"class_list":{"0":"post-272005","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-new-zealand","8":"tag-audio","9":"tag-current-affairs","10":"tag-new-zealand","11":"tag-news","12":"tag-newzealand","13":"tag-nz","14":"tag-podcasts","15":"tag-public-radio","16":"tag-radio-new-zealand","17":"tag-rnz"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272005","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=272005"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272005\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/272006"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=272005"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=272005"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=272005"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}