The two judgments in Re G (Declaration of Parentage: Removal of Person Identified as Mother from Birth Certificate) (No.1) [2018] EWHC 3360 (Fam) and (No.2) [2018] EWHC 3361 (Fam) concern, amongst other things, an ‘informal’ surrogacy arrangement, the fraudulent attribution of motherhood on a birth certificate, multiple declarations of parentage and the wrongful removal of a child from the UK. While this case provides another cautionary tale of the potential complications involved in international commercial surrogacy arrangements, their most noteworthy feature is that, as George (2019, pg.16) has commented, ‘Re G is the first time that there has been a reported case of a person named as the child’s mother being removed from a birth certificate on the basis of fraud’. The underlying factual circumstances are complex and were the subject of disputed and contradictory evidence from the parties. As George (2019, pg.14) describes, ‘[t]he factual matrix ... would be hard to make up, and is difficult enough even to summarise’. Indeed, with characteristic judicial understatement, Williams J observed that, ‘[t]he background to the application is most unusual’ (para. 6). With that said, this case concerned a girl called ‘Naomi’ in the judgments, who was born in October 2011; the circumstances of her birth were one part of the dispute between the parties (para. 1). In resolving this, the judgment sets out that NG and AV, who were both Bulgarian nationals, had been in a long-term cohabiting relationship which ended in December 2016 (para. 6). During the course of this relationship, the couple had undertaken an ‘informal surrogacy arrangement’ (para. 6) in Bulgaria, with another Bulgarian national, RB, which had resulted in Naomi’s birth in England. However, neither NG (the putative father) or RB (the gestational mother) were registered on the birth certificate; instead AV was registered as the mother (paras. 3 and 4). Moreover, RB had presented under the name AV during her medical appointments prior to Naomi’s birth (para. 43). The judge noted that after the birth, ‘NG and AV acted as mother and father to Naomi’ (para. 46) and that regardless of her lack of genetic or gestational connection, ‘AV has been in the role of her psychological mother since Naomi’s birth’ (para. 47). After the breakdown of NG and AV’s cohabiting relationship there were some unsuccessful attempts at negotiating contact; subsequently NG raised applications for wardship, a declaration of parentage and a child arrangements order in the High Court in October 2017 (para. 6). Almost immediately after these applications, on October 12, AV fled the jurisdiction with Naomi, travelling first to Bulgaria (para. 13) and then to Greece

中文翻译：

---

什么时候“母亲”不是“母亲”？

Re G (Declaration of Parentage: Removal of Person Identified Person from Birth Certificate) (No.1) [2018] EWHC 3360 (Fam) 和 (No.2) [2018] EWHC 3361 (Fam) 中的两项判决令人担忧，其中包括“非正式”代孕安排、出生证明上的母亲身份的欺诈性归属、多次声明亲子关系以及错误地将孩子从英国带走。虽然这个案例提供了另一个关于国际商业代孕安排所涉及的潜在并发症的警示故事，但它们最值得注意的特点是，正如 George (2019, pg.16) 评论的那样，“Re G 是第一次有报道称一个名为孩子母亲的人因欺诈而被从出生证明中删除”。潜在的事实情况复杂，是当事人有争议和相互矛盾的证据的主题。正如 George (2019, pg.14) 所描述的那样，“事实矩阵……很难弥补，甚至难以总结”。事实上，威廉姆斯法官以典型的司法轻描淡写的方式观察到，“申请的背景是最不寻常的”（第 6 段）。话虽如此，这起案件涉及判决书中的一个名叫“Naomi”的女孩，她出生于2011年10月；她的出生情况是双方争议的一部分（第1款）。在解决这个问题时，判决指出 NG 和 AV 都是保加利亚国民，他们一直处于长期同居关系，并于 2016 年 12 月结束（第 6 段）。在这段关系的过程中，这对夫妇在保加利亚与另一名保加利亚国民 RB 进行了“非正式代孕安排”（第 6 段），这导致 Naomi 在英国出生。但是，NG（假定的父亲）或 RB（孕母）都没有在出生证明上登记；相反，AV 被登记为母亲（第 3 和 4 段）。此外，RB 在 Naomi 出生之前就诊期间曾以 AV 的名义就诊（第 43 段）。法官指出，在出生后，“NG 和 AV 充当 Naomi 的母亲和父亲”（第 46 段），并且无论她缺乏遗传或妊娠联系，“自 Naomi 出生以来，AV 一直扮演着她心理母亲的角色”。出生”（第 47 段）。NG和AV的同居关系破裂后，曾有一些谈判尝试未成功；随后，NG 于 2017 年 10 月向高等法院提出监护权、亲子关系声明和儿童安排令的申请（第 6 段）。几乎在这些申请之后，10 月 12 日，AV 与 Naomi 一起逃离了司法管辖区，首先前往保加利亚（第 13 段），然后前往希腊