The child was conceived using the man's sperm and a donor egg. But that held no sway with Britain's most senior family judge, the President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby (pictured) today in court

A single man's fight to be recognised as the sole parent of a surrogate baby boy that he paid to have born in America has been rejected by a leading High Court judge in a unique test case.

The British man, who cannot be named, paid a US agency £8,000 - and a surrogate mother more than £20,000 - in his bid to become a father.

The unnamed one-year-old boy was conceived using the man's sperm and a donor egg and he has been recognised as the child's father in the state of Minnesota.

But that held no sway with Britain's most senior family judge, the President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, today in court.

Whatever the position in America, the judge said English law emphatically recognises the surrogate mother as the child's only legal parent.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 dictates that only 'two people' - effectively a couple - can be officially recognised as the parents of a surrogate baby.

And, rejecting the man's pioneering bid for a 'parental order', Sir James said that only Parliament could change the law.

The man's barrister, Elizabeth Isaacs QC, said the 'two people' requirement offended the cardinal principles of 21st Century family law.

She argued there should be 'no discrimination against the increasingly different kinds of family which society is creating'.

STRONG VIEWS OF BRITAIN'S LEADING FAMILY JUDGE Earlier this year, Sir James Munby told his court that the job of parents is to make their children do the things they do not want to do. Giving his advice in a case in which two teenage girls refused to see their father for more than six years, Sir James said that mothers and fathers should use the 'carrot and the stick' approach to make children do the things they find boring or difficult – from going to the dentist to doing their homework, Sir James Munby said. He suggested confiscating mobiles and electronic gadgets, grounding teenagers, and 'threats falling short of brute force' as suitable methods for parents to get their way. Advertisement

The little boy's welfare was the court's primary consideration and that could not be served by leaving him effectively parentless.

Sir James analysed the issue at a family court hearing in London in July and the ruling was published today.

The man provided sperm and a 'third party donor's egg' was implanted into an American surrogate mother.

Surrogacy arrangements were made through a company in Illinois in accordance with state law.

The agency was paid about £8,000 and the surrogate mother about £22,000.

Sir James said the man obtained a ruling from a Minnesota court establishing 'sole parentage', registering him as the boy's 'father' and relieving the surrogate mother of 'any legal rights or responsibilities'.

The man then returned to Britain with the boy and applied for a parental order.

But Sir James said: 'Whatever his legal rights in Minnesota, the father does not have parental responsibility in this country'.

He added that the case 'betokened a very clear difference of policy' on either side of the Atlantic in surrogacy cases.

The little boy's welfare was the Family Division of the High Court's primary consideration and that could not be served by leaving him effectively parentless

Parliament, 'for whatever reasons', had thought it right that parental orders in such cases could only be granted to two people.

That was a 'fundamental feature' of the legislation and the courts could not go behind the will of Parliament, Sir James ruled.

THE HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY ACT 2008 The Act looks at every aspect of fertilisation and aims to ensure that the creation and use of all human embryos outside the body - whatever the process used in their creation - are subject to regulation. It prohibits the sex selection of offspring for non-medical reasons, and requires that clinics take account of 'the welfare of the child' when providing fertility treatment. Updating the previous 1990 Act allowed for the recognition of both partners in a same-sex relationship as legal parents of children conceived through the use of donated sperm, eggs or embryos, and it granted people in same sex relationships and unmarried couples the permission to apply for an order allowing for them to be treated as the parents of a child born using a surrogate. Advertisement

However, he noted that it is still open to the man to argue that the 2008 Act as it stands is 'incompatible' with his human rights.

He argues that the 'two people' dictat discriminates against single parents and violates his and the child's right to respect for their family lives.

Sir James said the boy had been made a ward of court after the man brought him back to Britain - which means a judge has authority to make decisions about his future.

But he said such a move was not a permanent solution.

He indicated that the man might be able to adopt the boy.

He added that in England and Wales the surrogate mother was treated as the boy's 'mother' - and the man did not have 'parental responsibility'.

'The principle that only two people - a couple - can apply for a parental order has been a clear and prominent feature of the legislation throughout,' his ruling stated.

'Although the concept of who are a couple for this purpose has changed down the years.

'In my judgment, this application fails.'