Welfare
45The welfare evidence in this case is clear. It has been considered over a period of time, and in my judgment, all points one way. As Ms Doyle notes in paragraphs 28 and 29 of her report as follows, "On the evidence that I have reviewed and following further inquiries, it is evidenced that Z's home has been established in England with Mr W and Ms X. They have both shown a commitment to him since birth, and there is no information before me to question this. The parenting arrangement they have come to is likely to be tested. Not only should the parents move on to establish their own romantic relationships and, perhaps, further children, but Z will also have questions about the way in which he was created, conceived and the nature of the relationship between his parents. The unit that they have created for Z is a family relationship which is enduring, and the intended parents are committed to providing Z with honest and age-appropriate explanation about his creation, which is the best way to ensure that he feels safe, secure and develops a positive sense of who he is."46Having considered the HFEA 2008 criteria and the welfare checklist, I recognise that Mr W and Ms X commissioned the surrogacy with the purpose of becoming joint parents. I have identified no safeguarding concerns and assess that conferring joint parental responsibility and the extinguishing of the parental rights of the surrogate is in line with Z's short and long-term welfare interests. Z's welfare was carefully considered by Ms Roddy in the initial parental order report, and I do not depart from her analysis.47I am satisfied on the evidence Z's life-long welfare needs can only be met by this court making a parental order. That order will secure, in a lifelong way, Z’s legal parental relationship with both of these applicants, which I am satisfied will meet his welfare needs. __________