Relevant background
5Turning briefly to the background to this matter. Both applicants have known each other since about 1999/2000 when they met in Kiev, they both attended university there. They remained friends and met again more recently in December 2017, when Mr W, who by then had moved to London, was on holiday back in Georgia. 6Both of the applicants were born in Georgia and until about 2000 lived there. In 2001, Mr W came to this jurisdiction and has been largely based here since then. Ms X worked and was based in Georgia until more recently, although spent two summers in the United Kingdom in 2002 and 2003. 7Mr W initially came here to do his degree, that was followed by his Master's and since about 2004/2005, has been working in the banking sector. Ms X has been working in marketing and currently works for a United States company with a marketing role, although obviously has been undertaking that role remotely more recently.8They renewed their friendship and their relationship in December 2017. They both describe having a strong desire to have a child together, even though their relationship was not an intimate one. They decided in those circumstances to look at surrogacy and made an appointment with the international patient coordinator at the Agency based in Georgia. This was done jointly, as the evidence demonstrates, and they signed an agreement with that agency, including a power of attorney, enabling that agency to sign documents on behalf of the applicants. 9Ms X stated that the address in London which was put on that form, was part of their joint intention for the child born as a result of any surrogacy arrangement, to be brought up in the United Kingdom. 10Both applicants state that whilst they were aware that surrogacy was not available to single people in Georgia, they answered each question they were given honestly, and were not asked if their relationship was a sexual or an intimate one at all. They therefore say that they dealt with the position transparently with the surrogacy agency in relation to fulfilling their joint wish to be able to have a child together.11The applicants jointly chose the egg donor and the surrogate. Mr W described meeting the surrogate mother in February 2020, just before Z's birth. He understood she had been a surrogate before, and was fully aware of the documents which would be necessary for her to sign to support the application for a parental order that was anticipated would be made here. The applicants were kept updated during the pregnancy by the pregnancy coordinator who was allocated by the agency, and in their joint statements the applicants described their joy when they first met Z following his birth.12Following Z's discharge from the clinic in Tbilisi after his birth, the applicants and Z stayed in Mr W's apartment in Tbilisi. They had the support of Mr W's mother, but limited other visitors because by that time the global health pandemic was beginning to affect all countries, and there was caution in relation to the number of visitors. 13Mr W had to return back to London in March 2020, due to his work commitments and the complexities raised by the travel restrictions that were likely to be brought in place. Z remained in Tbilisi in Georgia, being cared for by Ms X and Mr W's mother. It took about three months for Z's birth certificate to be produced in September 2020 because of the difficulties caused by the restrictions and the health pandemic. This enabled the passport application to be able to be made to Her Majesty's Passport Office on 15 October 2020, for the reasons caused by the global pandemic there were delays in processing that application. Z's passport was not received until February 2021. He came to this jurisdiction on 22 April 2021, to the accommodation where the applicants live with him and that is where he has remained.14The difficulties in travelling between the jurisdictions was affected by the Covid restrictions. Mr W in fact returned to Georgia in September 2020, at the time when the birth certificate was available. Both Mr W and Ms X came to this jurisdiction on 23 November 2020 to prepare the flat in London for Z's arrival, not anticipating the further delays that would be encountered, not only by the passport delays, but also by the further restrictions as a result of the worsening position with the pandemic. 15The first hearing in this case took place in January 2021 and as it was adjourned until April 2021, Ms X went back to Georgia to be able to resume the care of Z, who had been looked after by Mr W's mother during the period between November 2020 and January 2021. Ms X remained caring for him until Mr W went out to Georgia and they were all able to come back to this jurisdiction in April 2021.16The C51 application for a parental order was initially made by Mr W as a single applicant on 13 August 2020. It was resubmitted as a joint application on 13 January 2021. The matter was first listed before me on 28 January 2021, when Z was joined as a party to the proceedings. Directions were made for a hearing on 27 April 2021, which was adjourned to a hearing today with directions for further evidence to be filed.17The court now has three joint statements signed by the applicants dated 18 January 2021, 5 March 2021 and 8 June 2021, as well as two detailed reports from the parental order reporters. Initially Ms Roddy's report dated 18 January 2021 set out her concerns then in relation to the circumstances and the further evidence that was required. Subsequently, the parental order reporter role was taken on by Ms Doyle, and she became the Children's Guardian when Z was joined as a party. Her report is dated 29 June 2021.18Both Ms Roddy and Ms Doyle have had extensive contact with the applicants. Ms Roddy on 20 November 2020, 6 and 13 January 2021 and Ms Doyle on 12 March 2021. All of those were by way of remote communication save that Ms Doyle was able to arrange a home visit to the family home in London on 28 May 2021. 19In addition, the court has a letter dated 15 April 2021 in relation to Ms X's immigration position. Essentially, Ms X is here under a time-limited visa. Whilst this application is governed and driven by Z's welfare needs that letter makes clear is that if this court does make a parental order it may enhance the likelihood of Ms X being able to secure her immigration position here by way of an application for leave to remain. I make it clear this court is only and primarily concerned with Z's welfare needs. What, if any, outcome there is to any application which is made in relation to Ms X's immigration position will be entirely a matter for the relevant Secretary of State.