Over the decade since Hall Brown Family Law was launched, this ‘blog has remarked on a broad variety of issues that have arisen in the thousands of cases in which we have acted on behalf of clients.

Some topics have appeared on a number of occasions, reflecting not only landmark rulings but how parliament has sought to address changes in the country’s households through legislation.

One of those recurrent themes is that of surrogacy and that, I would suggest, is for a very good reason.

In the last 10 years, the number of individuals looking to start or add to their families in this way has increased significantly.

That is perhaps most easily demonstrated by considering available statistics for Parental Orders dealt with by family courts across England and Wales.

People wishing to be considered legal parents following a surrogacy arrangement need to be granted something known as a Parental Order.

Data recently published by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) shows that there were 723 applications for Parental Orders last year – the highest such figure on record.

Furthermore, the number of Parental Orders which was actually granted (537) was also a record and 62 per cent higher than the equivalent figure in 2015.

Yet despite the increasing popularity of surrogacy during that time, there has been no change in the laws which govern the process.

The laws which govern surrogacy in the UK – the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 and certain sections of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 – have been in place for some time.

Last month, a House of Lords’ debate was told that current legisation is “outdated and unclear” and should be reformed in order to simplify surrogacy and avoid the risk of exploitation.

Baroness Deech explained that a situation which means surrogates remain a child’s legal parent at birth until a decision on whether Intended Parents should be granted a parental order – a process which can take six months – remains the cause of considerable uncertainty.

Three years ago, the Law Commission recommended a series of reforms, notably a new “pathway”, featuring robust screening and safeguards and enabling Intended Parents to assume parental responsibility from the point at which their child is born.

The new system, though, also aimed to protect surrogates by giving them the right to withdraw consent.

Published during Rishi Sunak’s term as Prime Minister, the paper and accompanying draft legislation were not taken up because, said ministers, parliamentary time did not allow it to be taken forward.

A similar position was adopted by the current Government which, last year, explained that it was unable to prioritise surrogacy reform “at this time” but would look to consider the issue in the future.

In the meantime and in the absence of the kind of clarity which Baroness Deech and others have called for, there is a risk of problems arising as more people choose to enter into surrogacy agreements overseas, sometimes extending across numerous jurisdictions.

That much is clear from a case in which I acted on behalf of a couple who secured a Parental Order having entered into an agreement with a surrogate based overseas.

The judge in that matter, Mrs Justice Theis, described it as “an important cautionary reminder of the need for those embarking on surrogacy arrangements, particularly those that cross a number of different jurisdictions, to carefully consider, in advance, the arrangements, consequences and implications”.

In her ruling, Judge Theis set out a list of 16 points which she believed couples needed to consider before entering into an overseas surrogacy agreement.

They included the relevant law in the respective countries where the surrogacy agreement is made and where the child is to be born, issues of nationality and the information given to surrogates and intended parents.

Arguably her most important comment, though, was the insistence that “intended parents to seek legal advice from a solicitor specialising in this area before embarking on any such arrangements, especially if it involves another jurisdiction”.

On the basis of my experience of dealing with such issues, it is something with which I quite agree.

Having a surrogacy agreement and Parental Order application within the same jurisdiction makes for a more straightforward process.

If that isn’t possible, however, it is in everyone’s interests – the surrogate, intended parents and, most critically of all, the child – that guidance is obtained as early as possible.

Should that not happen, it means courts possibly having to unpick events which might have happened before a child was born.

When they might have taken place in countries where regulation of surrogacy is less robust than in this country, the potential for complication becomes all the greater.

I fully understand that people may well be desperate to have a child but taking time and expert advice can prevent later difficulties in becoming formally recognised as the child’s legal parents.