Adoption application — surrogacy — egg donor — welfare and best interests of child — access to information — privacy — Adoption Act 1955, ss 3, 7, 11 & 23 — Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004, ss 47, 48, 50, 58 & 65 — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, s 7AA — Ellis v R [2022] NZSC 114 — P v P [2013] NZFC 2344 — Re Chang [2023] NZFC 6916 — Re Shun [2022] NZFC 2980 — Re Bartha [2016] NZFC 7039 — Re Chapman [2022] NZFC 6260 — Re Waller [2023] NZFC 7844 — Barton-Prescott v Director-General of Social Welfare [1997] 3 NZLR 179 — Re Adoption of S [1996] NZFLR 552 (FC) — United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, art 7, 8, 9(3) & 21 — Principles for the protection of the rights of the child born through surrogacy (Verona Principles), principle 11. The applicant applied for an adoption order in respect of a child and had been granted a final adoption order. This judgment provided the reasons for that order. The child was born as the result of a commercial donor surrogacy agreement, whereby the applicant's sperm had been used to fertilise a donated egg, implanted into a surrogate. The child was born in the USA. The applicant, a citizen of New Zealand, the USA and the UK, applied for a "pre-birth order" for the child and as such was recognised as the child's legal guardian from birth. The applicant sought an adoption order through the New Zealand Family Court to secure the child's New Zealand citizenship. Concerns were raised about the lack of information potentially available to the child about her egg donor. A lawyer to assist the Court had been appointed. Where eggs or sperm are donated by a donor in New Zealand, the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act (HARTA) applied, which lists specified identity information that must be collected by providers. A child had the right to access this information from the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages on turning 18, or request access to the identity information from the Family Court at age 16. The applicant had received almost all of the specified information about the egg donor, with the exception of information relating to other children born from other eggs donated by the donor. The applicant did have additional information about the donor, beyond the specified information in the HARTA, including photographs and a psychological evaluation of the donor, and submitted he intended to share all of the identity information with the child when she was old enough to understand. Overall, the adoption was generally in accordance with the child's rights regarding identity, tikanga and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Judgment Date: 27 March 2024. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *