Louisa Ghevaert featured in The Times on 26 May 2026 discussing the rapid rise in English parents using Nigerian surrogate mothers as latest parental order figures disclosed by The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) show Nigeria is the second most popular surrogacy destination after the US.
The Times article reported that the number of parental order applicants following Nigerian surrogacy arrangements rose from 6 to 59 between 2015 and 2025 in England compared with 125 applications in 2025 following US surrogacy arrangements. It reported that previously, Georgia and Ukraine were the second and third most popular international surrogacy destinations for intended parents from England with 42 and 27 parental order applications respectively in 2023.
Louisa was pleased to lead the debate on the factors driving this increase in Nigerian surrogacy and the legal implications of this saying:
“For some, they have personal connections and family in Nigeria, providing them with a ready-made support network and help with logistics.
Given limited availability of African donor eggs and surrogates in the UK, Nigeria can also offer more options for ethnically matched donor eggs and surrogates for people of African heritage. The costs of surrogacy in Nigeria are also lower than in other places, particularly the US, making it more affordable.”
“…However, both Ghevaert and other family lawyers warned “intended parents” to guard against unethical and unregulated surrogacy practices in Nigeria.”
Further Legalities: Nigerian Surrogacy
Looking ahead, it is very important for anyone embarking upon a Nigerian surrogacy arrangement to first obtain specialist legal advice. There is no international harmonisation of surrogacy law and last year (2025) the English High Court, Family Division, published two judgments highlighting complex legal difficulties encountered by British intended parents who had entered into surrogacy arrangements in Nigeria with anonymous surrogates. In the first case, Re H (anonymous surrogacy) (2025), the then President of the Family Division Sir Andrew McFarlane set out the legal and practical problems this caused. The intended parents knew nothing about their surrogate’s identity and were unable to provide suitable written evidence of her informed unconditional consent to the grant of a parental order in respect of a little girl who was nearly 2 years old by the time the case reached Final Hearing. It further highlighted issues with incomplete surrogacy paperwork and undated documents from the Nigerian clinic and other Nigerian professionals. The President went on to warn that the Court must be satisfied that the legal criteria set out in section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 are met and must scrutinise parental order applications with care and that:
“With respect to Nigeria, it is to be noted that the UK has imposed special restrictions on adoptions from that country (Special Restrictions on Adoptions from Abroad (Nigeria) Order 2021). Guidance issued by the Department for Education lists the specific areas of concern relating to adoption from Nigeria as including:
• difficulties confirming the background and adoptability of children;
• unreliable documentation;
• concerns about corruption in the Nigerian adoption system;
• evidence of organised child trafficking within Nigeria; and
• concerns about weaknesses in checks completed by Nigerian authorities in relation to adoption applications from prospective adopters who are habitually resident in the United Kingdom and therefore are likely to in fact be intended to be intercountry adoptions. This includes weaknesses in pre and post adoption monitoring procedures. There is an absence of checks as to whether the adoption is intended to be an intercountry adoption in light of the habitual residence of applicants and accordingly whether prospective adopters have been assessed and approved by a UK adoption agency and issued with relevant UK authority documentation (e.g. certificate of eligibility to adopt) to proceed with an intercountry adoption from Nigeria.
Whilst there is no comparable statutory restriction on surrogacy cases originating from Nigeria, the need for care as to the reliability of documentation and the potential for the involvement of organised child traffickers underscores the need for caution in parental order applications involving a Nigerian surrogacy.”
In the second published case, B and C v D and H (2025), Mrs Justice Theis reiterated the Court’s concerns about the intended parents having entered into an Nigerian surrogacy arrangement with an anonymous surrogate and issued the following warning applicable to intended parents moving forward:
If, for example, there is evidence that the intended parents embarking on such a surrogacy arrangement were aware of these concerns but nevertheless continued with such an arrangement (where they did not meet or have means of contacting the surrogate) knowing of the risks, that may be grounds for the court to consider whether it can, in such circumstances, determine the surrogate cannot be found. The court may also need to consider whether there are wider public policy issues engaged in such a situation. The court in those circumstances may have to consider whether it can or should make a parental order.”
Regardless of personal circumstances, given the complex and rapidly evolving international surrogacy landscape, it remains vital to effectively navigate the legal and practical issues and risks associated with overseas surrogacy arrangements.
Click here to read the full article in The Times (paywall applies).
Click here to learn more about surrogacy law in England and Wales.
Click here to learn more about international surrogacy law.
