Of the conditions the court must be satisfied of before making a Parental Order, the one about money is the one families most often misunderstand — in both directions. Some believe any payment beyond receipts will sink the application. Others assume that because a US or Colombian agency invoiced a fee, the question is settled. Neither is right.
This page is what section 54(8) says, how the courts actually apply it, and what that means for how you document your arrangement. It is general information, not legal advice, and payments are the one area where a specific fact pattern can genuinely change the outcome.
What the statute says
Section 54(8) requires the court to be satisfied that:
no money or other benefit (other than for expenses reasonably incurred) has been given or received by either of the applicants for or in consideration of the making of the order, any agreement required by subsection (6), the handing over of the child to the applicants, or the making of arrangements with a view to the making of the order — unless authorised by the court.
Three things follow from that wording.
First, reasonable expenses are fine. The law expects a surrogate to be reimbursed for what the pregnancy cost her.
Second, anything beyond that is not automatically fatal — it is something the court must authorise. Section 54(8) contains its own exception.
Third, the wording is wide: it covers money or other benefit, given or received, to anyone — not just the surrogate. An agency fee, a clinic package, a gift to the surrogate's family: all potentially in scope.
What "reasonably incurred" covers
There is no statutory list. In practice the expenses courts treat as reasonable are the costs of being pregnant and giving birth that the surrogate would not otherwise have had: medical and clinic costs, maternity clothing, travel to appointments, loss of earnings, childcare while she attends appointments, additional food and supplements, insurance, and recovery time after the birth.
What the concept does not naturally cover is a payment for the service itself — a fee for carrying the child. In a UK domestic arrangement, where payments typically run to £12,000–£20,000 and are framed as expenses, the question of what that sum actually represents is the one the court is really asking.
The international reality
In most overseas destinations the surrogate is paid a fee. That is lawful there, it is how the arrangement works, and it will plainly exceed "expenses reasonably incurred". Almost every international Parental Order application therefore requires the court to authorise payments under the s.54(8) exception.
The courts have done this many hundreds of times. The framework comes from two High Court decisions.
Re X and Y (Foreign Surrogacy) [2008] set out the questions: was the sum paid disproportionate to reasonable expenses; did the applicants act in good faith and without moral taint in their dealings with the surrogate; and did they attempt to defraud the authorities? The court was concerned with payments so low they might exploit the surrogate, or so high they might overbear her free will.
Re L (A Minor) [2010] then reset the balance. Once the 2010 Regulations made the child's welfare the paramount consideration, Hedley J held that:
"it will only be in the clearest case of the abuse of public policy that the court will be able to withhold an order if otherwise welfare considerations support its making."
That is the operative principle. Where you acted in good faith, the payments were not grossly disproportionate to what was customary in that country, and nobody was deceived, the court will authorise them — because refusing an order would leave a child without legal parents, and that is the outcome the welfare test will not tolerate.
So what actually matters
Not the amount, within reason. The disclosure.
The applications that go badly at the hearing are not the ones where £30,000 was paid to a US surrogate. They are the ones where a payment was left out, or described vaguely, or where the judge finds a transfer in the exhibits that the witness statement did not mention. Courts have said repeatedly that they dislike being misled far more than they dislike generosity — and a discrepancy between what you disclosed and what the documents show is the one thing that can turn a routine authorisation into a real problem.
So:
- Itemise every payment. To the surrogate, to her family, to the agency, to the clinic, to anyone connected with the arrangement. Date, amount, recipient, purpose.
- Explain what each was for, in the witness statement, in plain terms. "Compensation to the surrogate under the agreement" is fine. "Expenses" as a single line is not.
- Distinguish the surrogate's payments from everyone else's. The court's concern is chiefly with what she received.
- Exhibit the agreement and the bank evidence. If you cannot find a receipt for something, say so and say what it was.
- Ask for authorisation expressly. Your application should say that payments beyond reasonable expenses were made and that you ask the court to authorise them under s.54(8). The judge is going to have to do it anyway; a bundle that pretends otherwise reads as evasive.
Where it genuinely gets difficult
A few patterns do move an application out of the ordinary:
- Payments that look like they bought consent — money paid at or around the time the surrogate signed, or conditional on her signing.
- Cash with no paper trail, particularly in jurisdictions where the arrangement itself is legally grey.
- Anything that suggests the authorities were misled — in the birth country, at the border, or in the application.
- Sums wildly out of line with what is customary in that country, in either direction.
If any of those describe your case, this is where a specialist surrogacy solicitor earns the fee: not to argue the amount, but to present it in a way that meets the court's real concern.
The honest summary
Reasonable expenses are expected. More than reasonable expenses is normal in international cases and the court has a well-worn route to authorising it. What the court will not forgive is finding out for itself. Disclose everything, explain everything, and the money question is usually the shortest part of the hearing.
The free two-minute check asks about your arrangement and your birth country and tells you whether your case looks straightforward. PO Navigator's e-bundle builder has a payments schedule built in, so the disclosure the court wants is assembled as you go rather than reconstructed at month five.
See also: the court bundle · what happens at the hearings · how to apply · all guides
Sources: HFEA 2008 s.54(8); Re X and Y (Foreign Surrogacy) [2008] EWHC 3030 (Fam); Re L (A Minor) [2010] EWHC 3146 (Fam); HFEA 2008 (Parental Orders) Regulations 2010. Positions stated here are as at September 2026. General information about the law of England and Wales, not legal advice.