Returning to Hong Kong after commercial surrogacy: The court's decisions in <i>FH v WB</i> , and <i>CS v SW</i>

With the evolution of medical technology, surrogacy has become a favorable alternative for couples to create a family. Yet, section 17 of the Human Reproductive Technology Ordinance (Cap 561) prohibits commercial surrogacy in Hong Kong (HK), prompting many couples to seek paid surrogacy arrangements overseas. This practice creates complexities upon their return to HK with their surrogate-born child. Two significant cases, FH v WB and CS v SW involve cross-border commercial surrogacy arrangements where commissioning parents pursued parental orders under section 12 of the Parent Child Ordinance (Cap 429) to acquire legal parenthood. Although the time limit for the application had expired and unreasonable surrogate expenses were incurred, amounting to breaches, the Court of First Instance (CFI) adopted a lenient attitude and granted a parental order in both cases, prioritizing the welfare principle. This note will first go through the HK legislation and these two decisions, then compare the CFI's reasoning and policy considerations. The CFI faces challenges in reconciling the legislation and its precedents, resulting in legal gaps that indirectly allow commercial international surrogacy arrangements. The discussion will also delve in to potential solutions to effectively regulate commercial surrogacy, such as local legislative reforms or adopting international conventions.