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

Surrogacy law in the UK - Is change overdue?

International and UK regulations have simply not kept up with the reality of surrogacy
Determining parenthood is a complex business. When paternity tests revealed that the child Stephen Quinn had raised as his own was in fact the biological offspring of David Blunkett, Quinn attracted palpable sympathy with his declaration: "I will not draw a distinction between biological and non-biological – we are not buying Persil or Daz."

But the complexity of determining paternity pales in comparison to the question of maternity. In the rapidly expanding world of surrogacy births, up to three women can have competing claims to be mother of a newborn child: the birth mother, the egg donor, and the intended parent (or "commissioning mother", as she is prosaically called). The one thing upon which the wildly opposed different groups agree is the fact that the courts – increasingly called on when surrogacy agreements break down – do not have the right tools to resolve them.

The most recent example came in a surrogacy dispute that was decided last month in Birmingham county court. A couple who could not have children had met a surrogate mother in an internet chatroom. She was inseminated with the man's sperm and agreed to hand over the child after birth. In a not uncommon outcome for informal surrogacy agreements, she changed her mind during the course of the pregnancy as her attachment to the child grew.

And in another fact not unrepresentative of wider trends, the case was complicated by the fact that both the would-be parents and the surrogate were avid users of surrogacy websites and chat-rooms. The would-be parents had met another woman, alleged to be a prostitute, on a surrogacy website and allowed her to stay in their home. On her part, the surrogate had adopted a false persona online and deceived the couple to elicit information about them. Both incidents, the judge said, raised questions about the sound judgment of each side, a particular matter of concern for a court trying to determine which side would be more likely to provide the atmosphere of safety, love and guidance needed to raise a child.

It's hard to criticise the findings of the judge, Sir Jonathan Baker, in this case: he allowed the child to stay with the surrogate, finding separation from the woman who was still breastfeeding her to be the greater measure of harm. His view reflects the legal position in the UK, that "mother" is the label given to any woman who gives birth to a child, whether or not she is a genetic relation.

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

International surrogacy: progress or media hype?

International surrogacy has become big news. Last month, a landmark international commercial surrogacy case, Re L [1], attracted front page national headlines. Hard on its heels the media spotlight fell on the birth of Elton John and David Furnish's US surrogate born son, Zachary, on Christmas Day. This has fuelled the debate about surrogacy and the question is why has it generated such attention? The decision in Re L attracted front page national headlines because it marks a significant watershed in the history of UK surrogacy law. For the first time the court has made clear that the child's welfare will trump public policy on payments. It is only the third published case of its kind to ratify a foreign commercial surrogacy arrangement. Having represented the parents in this case (as well as the first parents to secure a parental order in the case of X&Y in 2008 [2]) I know how difficult and sensitive these applications are and quite how much is at stake.
In Re L, a High Court judge, Mr Justice Hedley, awarded legal parenthood to the British couple who entered into a commercial surrogacy arrangement with a surrogate mother in Illinois, USA. Notwithstanding the public policy ban on commercial surrogacy in the UK (which allows only the payment of reasonable pregnancy related expenses to a surrogate, unless retrospectively authorised by the English court on a case by case basis), the judge decided that the welfare of the child (known only as 'L') was the paramount consideration.

Mr Justice Hedley ruled that legal changes last year now (for the first time) weight the balance between public policy and the welfare of the child decisively in favour of welfare except in the clearest case of abuse of public policy. He authorised the British parents' commercial payment to their surrogate and awarded them legal parenthood. In doing so, he highlighted the legal difficulties surrounding re-entry into the UK after the birth, the need for intended parents to grapple with immigration control and the continuing lack of availability of good quality information. He warned that the court would continue to police the public policy concerns and scrutinise the issue of payments carefully. He also added that the legal criteria had been 'fully met' by the 'most careful and conscientious parents' in this case.

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