http://blogs.prideangel.com/post/2013/09/A-case-for-cautious-commercial-surrogacy-in-Australia.aspx

In the last 30 years, we have seen 26 public inquiries into surrogacy in Australia. In recent years all states and territories have liberalised their laws to allow for unpaid surrogacy to occur with the assistance of licensed fertility providers, and to provide for intended parents to acquire legal status. But our system is still not working. In 2010-11 there were just 16 recorded surrogacy births within Australia, while 394 babies were born in India to Australian citizens – the majority of them almost certainly via commercial surrogacy. We need to make big changes to allow surrogacy to be more accessible at home, rather than exporting our fertility needs to other countries. The fundamental principles of fairness and safety require the informed and continuing consent of all participants in surrogacy, especially of the birth mother. When most surrogacy involving Australians is taking place offshore, it's plainly not accessible and also may not be safe, or not as safe as it would be onshore. Nor, where poorer countries are the providers, is it necessarily fair. Despite remarkably little regulation in the United States, surrogacy agencies and clinics have adopted a fairly common set of practices and standards, including psychological screening, counselling and support services. Research consistently shows that US surrogates are not impoverished or motivated by financial concerns, and are largely satisfied with their experience. In contrast, Australian women are expected to take surrogacy on as altruistic act and can only be paid a very limited amount for documented expenses. This drives people to evade the system, masking unlawful payments onshore, or going offshore to India and Thailand, resulting in reduced or zero access to professional support services and ethical safeguards. The more work I do on assisted reproduction, the more I see that professional support services are an important part of informed consent and the decision-making processes of parents. In the rare instance when things go do go wrong, such as in the Re Evelyn case in 1998, it usually involves informal arrangements in which none of the parties had any screening, counselling, or legal advice before the arrangement, nor any support services during or after it. Ideally, governments should provide screening, matching and counselling services, but if, as is currently the case, they don’t, it may be better to have commercial providers taking on this role rather than no one at all. A major argument against payment to surrogates is that it may act as undue influence that impairs informed consent. This is an important consideration. Surrogacy works when a woman voluntarily undertakes a pregnancy and is happy to relinquish a baby she does not regard as her own. If she has agreed only because of money and not because she regards that baby as someone else’s, everything falls apart. But in addition to guarding against payments that are too high, we should be asking whether surrogates are paid too little. Women who undertake pregnancies for others in surrogacy arrangements are performing labour (in both senses) and they are undertaking risks. Paying nothing does not protect or value this role. In Australia, altruistic surrogacy undertaken through licensed fertility services means that doctors, nurses, social workers, counsellors, scientists, technicians, storage facilities, receptionists, cleaners and delivery people are all paid. So are shareholders. Only the birth mother is not. There are a range of ways that surrogates could be paid within a regime of fair compensation that still guarded against improper inducement. In the UK the fertility regulator recently set a flat compensation payment of £750 ($1,100) per cycle for egg donors in recognition of the pain and risks they undertake. Payments of £15,000 are also regularly accepted by courts in the UK as reasonable compensation for surrogates, although there is no set guideline. Setting a clear minimum (representing a labour based contribution or compensation for risk and burden) would provide certainty if accompanied by proper screening protocols and regulation to guard against unfair inducement. There are important concerns about commercial surrogacy practices that go beyond the question of how much money is paid and go to who is paid for what. Problematic practices in surrogacy common in both developed and developing economies include high multiple birth rates (which are dangerous to babies and surrogate); enforceable contracts (which can prevent surrogates from having control over their pregnancy, and which compel relinquishment after birth), and the widespread use of anonymous egg donors. None of these are mandated by commercial markets, but they are strongly associated with them. An Australian system of compensated surrogacy could avoid such risks. We would continue to centre the informed and continuing consent of the birth mother through important safeguards such as ensuing that she has full control of pregnancy care and decisions, and that consensual relinquishment of the baby and her parental status occurs only after the birth. We already have very high clinical and ethical standards operating in tandem with government regulation to prevent multiple embryo transfer and to record donor identity. Commercial surrogacy could be contained within the existing successful framework of health regulation in Australia rather than distorting clinical and legal practice, as it has arguably done in other countries with far less regulation. This doesn’t mean copying commercial markets – it means learning from them. An Australian system which allowed for advertising, professional intermediaries and payment, if carefully regulated, would be safer and fairer than the now widespread practice of Australians travelling overseas for surrogacy. Article: 3rd September 2013 www.theguardian.com

Surrogacy laws in the UK are unfair says MP today in Parliament

John Healey MP (the Shadow Secretary of State for Health) spoke clearly and compellingly in the House of Commons this afternoon about the need for proper maternity leave and pay for mothers through surrogacy in the UK (you can watch John Healey’s speech in full here). Introducing a Ten Minute Rule motion, he told Parliament about his constituents, surrogate mother Amy Bellamy and her cousin Jane Kassim. They came to see him at his surgery having been “stunned” to discover that Jane had no legal right to maternity leave or maternity pay to care for the twin daughters Amy had carried for her after Jane was told at 15 that she could never bear children.
Natalie Gamble Associates and Surrogacy UK, are proud to have supported today’s important landmark, the first time this issue has been properly raised in Parliament. As we know so well, for parents who have struggled to build their families through surrogacy (often after a long and difficult journey of infertility), the lack of basic rights to care for their newborn baby can feel like the final insult. It makes no sense and has never been a policy decision; just a gap in the law which has not been addressed. But it is important, as the current position leaves children born through surrogacy in the UK without the legal protection afforded to other children born to their mothers or adopted.

Problems with UK surrogacy law
As well as talking about maternity rights as the urgent first step needed, John highlighted some of the wider problems with UK surrogacy law which need addressing, including:
- the parents not being named on their child’s birth certificate,
- problems dealing with the child’s medical treatment,
- delays in the court system to reassign parenthood, and
- the absolute veto the surrogate and her husband hold, no matter what is in the child’s best interests.


The UK’s surrogacy laws were designed in 1990. After 22 years we live in a much changed world, with more children born through surrogacy and a much more sophisticated understanding of families created in unusual ways. The law on surrogacy was not reviewed properly when Parliament had a chance in 2008 and is overdue for review. John drew attention to other models of surrogacy law, including pre birth orders, which have been much more successful in dealing with surrogacy arrangements in certain US States, and which the UK should look to.

What was said in Parliament?
“Unlike other mothers, Jane is entitled – having her baby through a surrogate mother – to only 13 weeks parental leave unpaid, and then only entitled to it when she and her husband have a parental order in place. That means that for mothers like Jane, they are faced with the choice of going back to work very quickly or indeed giving up their jobs entirely. Today is a day when I hope this House will take the first step in closing this legal loophole.

“As the leading lawyer in this field says: The conditions for a parental order do not place the child’s welfare first, and ultimately children born through surrogacy do not have the same protection as other children to the time to bond with their parents in the early months of life. That is from Natalie Gamble, a leading legal expert in this field and one who has conducted more cases and seen through more parental orders than any other lawyer in the country.

“There are probably around 100 babies born through surrogacy each year, but the number is growing as society is changing and science is advancing. Surely there must be a good case for Britain, like some States in the US, to have a system of pre birth orders. But the first and most important step is to secure basic maternity rights. So that mothers like Jane who have their children born through surrogates have the same rights as any other mothers who give birth themselves or indeed who adopt children.

“It is wrong that thousands of mothers who have their own babies or who adopt have a legal right to 39 weeks maternity pay and up to 52 weeks maternity leave, while others have a right to only 13 weeks parental leave unpaid. It is wrong that such parents cannot put their names on their children’s birth certificate, they cannot make decisions about medical treatment for their children until they have a formal parental order in place. It is wrong that such a legal step can be blocked completely by the surrogate mother or her husband; and wrong that it may take months, if a magistrates court is busy, to get that order in place. Above all it is wrong that mothers like Jane are denied the same basic rights to the time they need together with their newborn babies that other mothers have.

“Amy simply wanted Jane to have the same joy as a mother as she had with her own son Archie. Together they make a very powerful case for legal change. This is their campaign and I hope this House will back them today.”

What next?
The Bill proceeded unopposed and was formally listed for a second reading, although in practice it is rare for Ten Minute Rule Bills to be given sufficient Parliamentary time to become law. However, a cross party group of MPs will now meet with the Minister for Employment to press for government-led change. We will continue to support this however we can and if you want to get involved or can help with case studies, please do contact us.

Woman’s Hour today
Natalie was also interviewed on this morning’s BBC Radio 4 Woman’s Hour, following a discussion on the lack of maternity leave rules for surrogacy which Natalie contributed to back in 2009, and updating the programme on what was happening today. You can listen to Natalie on today’s Woman’s Hour here.

Article: 17th April 2012 www.nataliegambleassociates.co.uk

UK High Court Judge endorses International Surrogacy

Sir Nicholas Wall, the President of the High Court Family Division, has made public his decision to give parenthood to the British parents of twins born through surrogacy in India. The President said the issues were of “considerable public importance” and he wished to endorse the previous judgments of Mr Justice Hedley in other similar cases.

The decision, from one of the UK’s most senior family judges, represents a bolstering of the UK court’s position on international surrogacy: that although commercially organised surrogacy is not yet permitted in the UK, British parents can be awarded parenthood if they go abroad and pay a foreign surrogate mother more than her ‘reasonable expenses’. Sir Nicholas Wall made clear that the court’s paramount consideration is the child’s welfare, and that a birth certificate will be given as long as there has been no exploitation and the parents are not circumventing child protection laws in the UK.

In this particular case, two Indian surrogate mothers (carrying embryos created with the intended father’s sperm and eggs from the same anonymous donor) gave birth to a boy and a girl within a few days of each other, following a surrogacy arrangement commissioned by a British couple. A total of some £27,000 was paid to the Indian clinic. The court was ultimately satisfied that the parents were “entirely genuine and straightforward” and that “it is plainly in the interests of these two children that they should brought up by Mr and Mrs A as their parents”.

The case follows similar decisions by Mr Justice Hedley in the cases of Re X and Y (2008) in which British parents paid £23,000 to a Ukrainian surrogate mother, Re S (2009) involving a Californian surrogacy arrangement, Re L (2010) involving a surrogate mother based in Illinois and Re IJ (2011) involving a Ukrainian surrogacy.

Article: 13th December 2011 www.nataliegambleassociates.co.uk

International surrogacy parents talk to BBC Radio 4 about their experience

Parents Michelle and Paul (names changed) spoke to BBC Radio 4′s World at One today about their experiences of international surrogacy, and the problems with surrogacy law in the UK. Their legal case (in which we represented them successfully) was reported anonymously by the High Court last December (as Re L (a minor) 2010) and received national press coverage at the time. Michelle and Paul took the brave decision today to speak about their personal experiences, in order to highlight the difficulties they have faced.
As Michelle and Paul explained, they entered into a surrogacy arrangement in Illinois after a very long and difficult journey of failed IVF and miscarriages. They did so in accordance with the law in Illinois and underwent a thorough vetting process with a clear legal procedure designed to protect all involved. Under Illinois law, they were treated as the legal parents of their child from the outset.

However, UK law treated their surrogate and her husband as the legal parents, despite the fact that neither had any biological connection with the child. Michelle and Paul therefore needed an English High Court order to become Mum and Dad in the UK.

One of the key issues for the court here to consider was the mismatch between UK and Illinois law regarding the issue of payments to their surrogate. In Illinois, payments for a surrogate’s inconvenience and discomfort can legitimately be made, although payments for a child are not allowed. In the UK, the law refers to ‘reasonable expenses’ (with no definition of what that means) but confusingly also gives the court a specific power to ‘authorise’ other payments. Ultimately in this case Mr Justice Hedley, noting that Michelle and Paul were the ‘most careful and conscientious of parents’, agreed to authorise the payments so that they could be approved as legal parents. However, he did not accept that the inconvenience payments to their surrogate were reasonable expenses.

It’s a story with a happy outcome, but one which shows that working out what is acceptable to pay for surrogacy at home and abroad is tricky.

In Illinois there is a clear legal framework in which payments are agreed and set out in writing at the outset (following counselling, psychological assessments and legal advice for all). If everything is done correctly at the outset, then the child is a part of the intended parents’ family throughout.

There is no such certainty under UK law. Every judge can interpret what is ‘reasonable’ differently, and the issue will only be considered after the birth of the child when the payments have been long since made, by which time there will always be tremendous pressure on the court to make an order protecting the child’s welfare. As Michelle pointed out so poignantly, the value paid to the surrogate in this case was in fact no more than what has been accepted as being reasonable expenses for surrogacy in the UK, but it was not considered expenses in their case because the arrangement was an international one set up within a different legal framework.

We are left asking – where the values being paid for surrogacy are comparable, does it make any sense to treat them differently just because they are called compensation rather than expenses, and just because they are agreed in writing at the outset? Would it not be better to have a more upfront system in the UK which resolves these issues at the start, rather than after the event?

Can you trust your surrogacy lawyer?

Theresa Erickson, a high profile Californian attorney specialising in assisted reproduction law (self-styled online and in the media as ‘the surrogacy lawyer’) pleaded guilty last month to charges relating to her involvement in a baby selling scam. The case has sent shock waves through the US assisted reproduction law community, which is reeling at the disgrace of one of its best known members.
But although the story is shocking, I would hate to think that wider conclusions might be drawn about the way in which commercial surrogacy is practiced (legally) in many US states, or that US surrogacy lawyers in general should not be trusted. As well as being a story about the wrongs, this is a story of ethical boundaries being enforced, and a story of reputable US surrogacy attorneys who ensured that an unethical and illegal scheme was exposed and stopped.

How did the scheme work?
According to news reports and information posted online from those involved, Ms Erickson, working with another lawyer, Ms Neiman, and a third woman, Ms Chambers, recruited ‘surrogate mothers’ in the USA and arranged for them to travel to the Ukraine where embryos were transferred which had been created with donated eggs and sperm. The birth mothers were assured that this was perfectly legal and was ‘just another way of doing surrogacy’, and that there was a long list of intended parents waiting for their help.

Once the birth mothers were three months’ pregnant then – and only then – would the conspirators advertise for prospective intended parents. The couples who approached them were told, falsely, that intended parents had backed out of a planned surrogacy and that, for a substantial fee, they could step in. Ms Erickson then filed fraudulent papers with the Californian court to enable the parents to be named on the birth certificate. The scheme was said to have been carried out on at least twelve occasions.

What happened to expose the scam?
One of the birth mothers involved, suspecting something was amiss, approached another US assisted reproduction attorney for advice about whether this really was legitimate surrogacy practice. The attorney was concerned and contacted the chair of the American Bar Association’s Assisted Reproductive Technology Committee. He approached Ms Erickson to ask her about the scheme (she denied any involvement) and then, with the support of a colleague based in California where Ms Erickson was based, followed his professional duty to report dishonest or criminal conduct, and referred the case to the FBI. Following an investigation, Ms Erickson was charged and pleaded guilty. She is currently awaiting sentencing and faces up to five years in prison.
(I should add that the intended parents involved, all of whom were exonerated of any wrongdoing, have since been legally confirmed as the parents of the children they have, in effect, adopted).

Why was the scheme wrong?
This baby-making scam was so deeply and fundamentally wrong that it is difficult to know where to start. What shocks me the most, I suppose, was the flagrant disregard for all those involved – for the birth mothers who became pregnant on the basis of a lie (and the abuse of trust, relying on the reputation of a well-known lawyer, which that involved), for the intended parents whose desperation was exploited so greedily, and most of all for the preciousness of the lives of the children conceived, not within a loving family, but by design and for profit.

This was not, on anyone’s definition, really surrogacy. Under UK law, surrogacy involves artificial conception with the gametes of one or both of the intended parents (which quite obviously has to involve the intended parents from the outset). The rules are different in California, but surrogacy still has to involve an arrangement between specific individuals made before conception. Baby selling or adoption for profit is therefore probably a more accurate categorisation, although of course Ms Erickson was a well known surrogacy lawyer and so those involved were able to ‘sell’ the scam as surrogacy.

Interestingly, Ms Erickson was ultimately convicted, not of baby selling or any offences directly related to assisted reproduction, but of wire transfer fraud. Given the context, this has the resonance of Al Capone being convicted for tax evasion. However, I suppose it is appropriate that Ms Erickson has been held to account for deception (the scheme had, as I understand it, involved lies to the surrogates, the intended parents and even the Californian court). If the rules are anything like they are in the UK, whether or not she goes to prison, Ms Erickson will never be able to practice law again.

To read more go to http://bit.ly/ri0LQO