Showing posts with label surrogacy abroad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label surrogacy abroad. Show all posts
Tuesday, 18 February 2014
New Foreign office guidance for surrogacy arrangements
The new guidance (available at www.gov.uk) sets out the rules on British nationality and immigration, and gives clearer guidance on the procedures parents need to follow to bring a child born through surrogacy abroad home to the UK. In practice, we know on the ground that parents can wait up to 5 months to get the paperwork they need to travel back to the UK after a child is born as a result of an international surrogacy arrangement, so careful planning is key.
The guidance also highlights the need for parents to look beyond the immediate issue of getting home and ensure they do not miss the strict six month deadline for applying to the family court to become the legal parents in the UK. UK law does not recognise foreign birth certificates in surrogacy cases, and without a parental order granted by the UK court the foreign surrogate and her husband remain the legal parents in the UK. Last year High Court Judge Mrs Justice Theis said: ‘The message needs to go out loud and clear to encourage parental order applications to be made in respect of children born as a result of international surrogacy arrangements, and for them to be made promptly’.
The FCO is urging parents to get legal advice before embarking on international surrogacy. At NGA and Brilliant Beginnings, we are passionate about helping parents planning overseas surrogacy arrangements to get the right information at the outset. Since representing the first parents have an international surrogacy arrangement ratified by the UK court in 2008, we have worked with hundreds of families planning overseas surrogacy arrangements. In 2013, 38% of our new international surrogacy cases involved India, 25% the USA and 7% the Ukraine.
There is more information on NatalieGambleAssociate's website about international surrogacy law and about UK immigration and nationality.
Article: www.nataliegambleassociates.co.uk 11th February 2014
Read more about Fertility Law at www.prideangel.com
Thursday, 31 January 2013
India bans surrogacy for gay couples and single people
India faces criticism after officials issued new rules barring foreign gay couples and single people from using surrogate mothers to become parents. Commercial surrogacy is a booming industry in India, and in recent years the ranks of childless foreign couples looking for a low-cost, legally simple route to parenthood have been joined by gay couples and singles.
The measures mark the first step to the regulation of "surrogacy tourism" in India. The rules say foreign couples seeking to enter into a surrogacy arrangement in India must be a "man and woman (who) are duly married and the marriage should be sustained at least two years". The rule changes, posted on the Indian home ministry's website, were denounced by fertility clinics and gay rights activists as "discriminatory".
"Parenting is everybody's right and now we're withdrawing that right," said Dr Rita Bakshi, who heads the International Fertility Centre in New Delhi. "These rules are definitely not welcome, definitely restrictive and very discriminatory," she told AFP. "This is a huge heartbreak for homosexual couples and singles," commented fertility doctor Anoop Gupta.
Gay rights campaigners also denounced the changes to the rules on surrogacy, which was legalised in 2002. "It's totally unfair - not only for gay people but for people who are not married who may have been living together for years, and for singles," Mumbai gay rights advocate Nitin Karani told AFP.
India is a popular destination for gay couples seeking children even though it remains a largely conservative country and only decriminalised consensual sex between homosexuals in 2011. The home ministry would not comment on the changes which stipulate that would-be parents provide proof that their home country will give citizenship to any baby born of a surrogate mother.
There have been several publicised cases of babies born through cross-border surrogacy in recent years who have been trapped in citizenship limbo because their parents' countries refused them passports. Surrogacy is banned in some European countries and is subject to strict regulation in the United States.
The new India rules, which also state applicants must apply for a medical instead of a tourist visa, come as legislation to regulate the industry has yet to be passed by parliament. The bill says only women aged between 21 and 35 can act as surrogates but sets no minimum payment for the mother.
Critics have said a lack of legislation governing surrogacy encourages "rent-a-womb" exploitation of young, poor Indian women. While the government has been pushing the country as a medical tourism destination, the issue of wealthy foreigners paying poor Indians to have babies has raised ethical concerns in many Indian minds.
Clinic owners deny ill-treatment of mothers, saying it is in their interest to treat the women well in order for them to have healthy babies, The cost of surrogacy is about $18,000 to $30,000 in India, said Bakshi, of which around $8,000 goes to the surrogate mother. The figure is roughly a third of the US price.
Hari Ramasubramanian, founding partner of Indian Surrogacy Law, said the new measures were introduced without "proper consultation" and needed to be challenged in the courts. "A lot of people who will be affected had seen India as a wonderful option for getting into parenthood and now this option is closed. It's quite sad," he said.
Article: January 2013 www.telegraph.co.uk
Wednesday, 18 April 2012
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
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
Saturday, 17 December 2011
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
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
Monday, 21 November 2011
Surrogacy: Parenting the hard way
Alice Jolly and her husband knew they could offer a loving home to one of the thousands of British children awaiting adoption. So why were they forced to go abroad instead and use a surrogate to get the child they longed for?
The scene: a church hall in Oxford three years ago. My husband, Stephen, and I are attending a seminar for couples who want to adopt. A social worker stands beside a whiteboard and explains the process. I look around at the other couples. Their eyes are blank, puzzled. Some start to yawn while others scratch their heads. The social worker has become a tic tac man at a race course, frantically waving her arms, speaking a language that no-one understands. We all start to stare at our shoes. It's becoming embarrassing – what are we doing here and who put these people in charge of something so important?
A man in the audience is trying to raise his hand but his wife keeps pulling his arm back down. He refuses to be silenced. "So any 16-year-old girl can go into an alleyway on Saturday night," he says, "and have a knee-trembler with a bloke whose name she doesn't know, and no one is ever going to ask about her suitability for motherhood. But I'm going to have to go through all this just to be a father?"
The room is silent. The man's wife is tearful. A social worker crouching in the corner makes a note in her black book. We all know that this couple have fallen at the first hurdle. And yet he has only said what everyone in the room is thinking.
As we have a six-year-old son, Stephen and I decide that it might be best for us to adopt a child under two. No children under two are available for adoption in the UK – or at least none are under two by the time they emerge from our adoption system. And so we go to a seminar in North London about overseas adoption. There we are made to play a bizarre board game. Adoption Monopoly? Or is it Snakes and Ladders – but without any ladders? Each couple has a marker to move around the board. Cards are drawn from a pack. They say, "your paper work has been lost, go back three months." Or, "the country you have chosen is now closed for adoption, go back to square one."
Finally, it comes to our turn. "So, Stephen and Alice, where are you up to now?" "Well, I've just retired," Stephen says, pretending to read the card. No one dares laugh or it'll be back to the beginning for them. We break for a coffee and chat to other people. One couple can't currently be considered for adoption because, although they are home owners and employed, they have £5,000 of credit card debt. Another couple used to live in Bedfordshire, and they got two years into the adoption process, but then they moved to Berkshire so they had to begin again.
After coffee, the discussion focuses on the difficulties experienced by adopted children. Two men interrupt – one is black, the other of Asian origin. Both of them were themselves adopted. The lady running the seminar is clearly uncomfortable with real-life multi-cultural adoption stories. But she presses them to express the anger they must surely feel towards their adoptive parents.
"Anger? I was in an orphanage in Thailand and my Mum and Dad adopted me, brought me back here, gave me everything. From an early age I wanted to be a musician and they made that possible. How could I possibly be angry?" Then the black guy says: "I was adopted from Ghana and for me it was certainly traumatic. Because every year my adoptive family in Hampstead wanted to celebrate Ghanaian National Day. So all my flabby, white relatives dressed up in African costumes and played drums. Man, I've been on the pyschiatrist's couch for years..." Doubtless the names of these two have gone into the black book as well.
A one-to-one meeting with a social worker follows. It's a scene from The Trial, by Kafka. We have to convince her we want a child, but we must not appear to want one too much. We tell our story: a stillbirth, four miscarriages, failed IVF. The social worker thinks we have too much baggage – but surely the truth is that most people who adopt do so because other plans have failed?
I mention that we've been told that adopting from Russia will probably take two years. No, she says. It will take four and most of the Russian babies have foetal alcohol syndrome. I have talked to a number of families who have adopted from Russia and they tell a different story – but I can't say so. And so it goes on. No and no and no. We are guilty until proven innocent. Everything is a problem – the fact that we've lived abroad, that we have an existing child, that we both went to boarding school, that once every two months Stephen might smoke a cigarette in a bar.
But strangely, the biggest problem is that we are about to have building work done in our house. Until that work has finished, we can't even start the process. As we drive home, Stephen is fuming and I am in tears. I know the social worker is playing games, trying to find out if we are serious. But could she not have offered some support or encouragement? I know that adoption isn't easy – and that it shouldn't be easy. But does it have to be negative, intrusive, judgemental and so painfully inefficient? Would they rather leave 100 children in care than relax their impossible demands for perfection?
Six months later we meet a lawyer who specialises in gestational surrogacy in the US. Nearly everyone who crosses her threshold has tried to adopt and given up. And US surrogacy? Well, it's expensive and legally complex – but it can be done. We get in touch with agencies in the States. Yes, they say. Yes and yes and yes.
But I am unconvinced. To me, surrogacy seems bizarre and extreme. It's from the world of lawsuits and reality TV shows. But then I talk to people with real experience of surrogacy and uncover a world that couldn't be more different from those sensational media stories. A world in which women are genuinely trying to help other women overcome the pain of infertility.
Two weeks ago we came back from America with our baby daughter. She is called Hope. We are the luckiest people in the world. Throughout the whole process, I continued to doubt whether surrogacy can really work well for everyone involved – now I know that it can. But still I am left with questions about why we couldn't have given a home to an existing child instead of creating a new one. And some part of me will always be haunted by that baby who we might have adopted – and who is probably still waiting for a family and a home.
Article: 15th November 2011 www.independent.co.uk
Photo: Alice Jolly, her husband Stephen and children Thomas and Hope by JOHN LAWRENCE
Proceeds from this article have been donated to SANDS (Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society) uk-sands.org
The scene: a church hall in Oxford three years ago. My husband, Stephen, and I are attending a seminar for couples who want to adopt. A social worker stands beside a whiteboard and explains the process. I look around at the other couples. Their eyes are blank, puzzled. Some start to yawn while others scratch their heads. The social worker has become a tic tac man at a race course, frantically waving her arms, speaking a language that no-one understands. We all start to stare at our shoes. It's becoming embarrassing – what are we doing here and who put these people in charge of something so important?
A man in the audience is trying to raise his hand but his wife keeps pulling his arm back down. He refuses to be silenced. "So any 16-year-old girl can go into an alleyway on Saturday night," he says, "and have a knee-trembler with a bloke whose name she doesn't know, and no one is ever going to ask about her suitability for motherhood. But I'm going to have to go through all this just to be a father?"
The room is silent. The man's wife is tearful. A social worker crouching in the corner makes a note in her black book. We all know that this couple have fallen at the first hurdle. And yet he has only said what everyone in the room is thinking.
As we have a six-year-old son, Stephen and I decide that it might be best for us to adopt a child under two. No children under two are available for adoption in the UK – or at least none are under two by the time they emerge from our adoption system. And so we go to a seminar in North London about overseas adoption. There we are made to play a bizarre board game. Adoption Monopoly? Or is it Snakes and Ladders – but without any ladders? Each couple has a marker to move around the board. Cards are drawn from a pack. They say, "your paper work has been lost, go back three months." Or, "the country you have chosen is now closed for adoption, go back to square one."
Finally, it comes to our turn. "So, Stephen and Alice, where are you up to now?" "Well, I've just retired," Stephen says, pretending to read the card. No one dares laugh or it'll be back to the beginning for them. We break for a coffee and chat to other people. One couple can't currently be considered for adoption because, although they are home owners and employed, they have £5,000 of credit card debt. Another couple used to live in Bedfordshire, and they got two years into the adoption process, but then they moved to Berkshire so they had to begin again.
After coffee, the discussion focuses on the difficulties experienced by adopted children. Two men interrupt – one is black, the other of Asian origin. Both of them were themselves adopted. The lady running the seminar is clearly uncomfortable with real-life multi-cultural adoption stories. But she presses them to express the anger they must surely feel towards their adoptive parents.
"Anger? I was in an orphanage in Thailand and my Mum and Dad adopted me, brought me back here, gave me everything. From an early age I wanted to be a musician and they made that possible. How could I possibly be angry?" Then the black guy says: "I was adopted from Ghana and for me it was certainly traumatic. Because every year my adoptive family in Hampstead wanted to celebrate Ghanaian National Day. So all my flabby, white relatives dressed up in African costumes and played drums. Man, I've been on the pyschiatrist's couch for years..." Doubtless the names of these two have gone into the black book as well.
A one-to-one meeting with a social worker follows. It's a scene from The Trial, by Kafka. We have to convince her we want a child, but we must not appear to want one too much. We tell our story: a stillbirth, four miscarriages, failed IVF. The social worker thinks we have too much baggage – but surely the truth is that most people who adopt do so because other plans have failed?
I mention that we've been told that adopting from Russia will probably take two years. No, she says. It will take four and most of the Russian babies have foetal alcohol syndrome. I have talked to a number of families who have adopted from Russia and they tell a different story – but I can't say so. And so it goes on. No and no and no. We are guilty until proven innocent. Everything is a problem – the fact that we've lived abroad, that we have an existing child, that we both went to boarding school, that once every two months Stephen might smoke a cigarette in a bar.
But strangely, the biggest problem is that we are about to have building work done in our house. Until that work has finished, we can't even start the process. As we drive home, Stephen is fuming and I am in tears. I know the social worker is playing games, trying to find out if we are serious. But could she not have offered some support or encouragement? I know that adoption isn't easy – and that it shouldn't be easy. But does it have to be negative, intrusive, judgemental and so painfully inefficient? Would they rather leave 100 children in care than relax their impossible demands for perfection?
Six months later we meet a lawyer who specialises in gestational surrogacy in the US. Nearly everyone who crosses her threshold has tried to adopt and given up. And US surrogacy? Well, it's expensive and legally complex – but it can be done. We get in touch with agencies in the States. Yes, they say. Yes and yes and yes.
But I am unconvinced. To me, surrogacy seems bizarre and extreme. It's from the world of lawsuits and reality TV shows. But then I talk to people with real experience of surrogacy and uncover a world that couldn't be more different from those sensational media stories. A world in which women are genuinely trying to help other women overcome the pain of infertility.
Two weeks ago we came back from America with our baby daughter. She is called Hope. We are the luckiest people in the world. Throughout the whole process, I continued to doubt whether surrogacy can really work well for everyone involved – now I know that it can. But still I am left with questions about why we couldn't have given a home to an existing child instead of creating a new one. And some part of me will always be haunted by that baby who we might have adopted – and who is probably still waiting for a family and a home.
Article: 15th November 2011 www.independent.co.uk
Photo: Alice Jolly, her husband Stephen and children Thomas and Hope by JOHN LAWRENCE
Proceeds from this article have been donated to SANDS (Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society) uk-sands.org
Friday, 14 October 2011
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?
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?
Wednesday, 14 September 2011
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
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
Wednesday, 13 July 2011
Surrogacy: court awards parenthood to deceased father
The High Court has made an unprecedented order awarding parenthood to a deceased father of a baby boy born through surrogacy in India. A couple, known only as Mr and Mrs A, entered into a surrogacy arrangement and their son was born in India on 12 April 2010. But Mr A tragically contracted liver cancer during the course of the proceedings and died, leaving the High Court to make a landmark decision to award parenthood to the mother and her deceased husband.
The case was complicated by the fact that only couples – and not single people – can apply for parental orders. When the UK’s surrogacy laws were debated in 2008, Parliament decided that only couples should be able to commission surrogacy arrangements. Parents who apply for parental orders following surrogacy must therefore either be married or living as partners in an enduring family relationship.
Leading fertility lawyer Natalie Gamble, who drafted an amendment to the law in 2008 (which was debated in Committee but rejected) which would have allowed applications from single parents, comments: “The case shows how dangerously outdated our surrogacy laws are. Although Mrs Justice Theis was able to find a way around the law in this case because the father had died after issuing the application, what would have happened if either of the parents had died earlier, perhaps during the pregnancy? This has always been an accident waiting to happen, and the restrictiveness of the current law is leaving children vulnerable and unprotected.
Natalie, whose firm has dealt with many of the leading international surrogacy cases heard by the High Court in recent years including the first to ratify a foreign arrangement, goes on to say: “The case demonstrates the continuing difficulties the courts are facing in dealing with surrogacy arrangements. The High Court is repeatedly having to stretch the legislation in order to secure the status of vulnerable children born through surrogacy, and the emotional and financial cost of this for the family involved is significant. We need a better system of law which caters for these kinds of eventualities, and gives clarity and certainty to ensure that children being born through surrogacy (and their parents and surrogates) are properly protected.”
The case is also the first published case to ratify an Indian surrogacy agreement in which more than expenses were paid to a surrogate mother, following a line of previous published cases ratifying commercial payments for surrogacy made to US and Ukrainian surrogate mothers.
The case was complicated by the fact that only couples – and not single people – can apply for parental orders. When the UK’s surrogacy laws were debated in 2008, Parliament decided that only couples should be able to commission surrogacy arrangements. Parents who apply for parental orders following surrogacy must therefore either be married or living as partners in an enduring family relationship.
Leading fertility lawyer Natalie Gamble, who drafted an amendment to the law in 2008 (which was debated in Committee but rejected) which would have allowed applications from single parents, comments: “The case shows how dangerously outdated our surrogacy laws are. Although Mrs Justice Theis was able to find a way around the law in this case because the father had died after issuing the application, what would have happened if either of the parents had died earlier, perhaps during the pregnancy? This has always been an accident waiting to happen, and the restrictiveness of the current law is leaving children vulnerable and unprotected.
Natalie, whose firm has dealt with many of the leading international surrogacy cases heard by the High Court in recent years including the first to ratify a foreign arrangement, goes on to say: “The case demonstrates the continuing difficulties the courts are facing in dealing with surrogacy arrangements. The High Court is repeatedly having to stretch the legislation in order to secure the status of vulnerable children born through surrogacy, and the emotional and financial cost of this for the family involved is significant. We need a better system of law which caters for these kinds of eventualities, and gives clarity and certainty to ensure that children being born through surrogacy (and their parents and surrogates) are properly protected.”
The case is also the first published case to ratify an Indian surrogacy agreement in which more than expenses were paid to a surrogate mother, following a line of previous published cases ratifying commercial payments for surrogacy made to US and Ukrainian surrogate mothers.
Surrogacy: court awards parenthood to deceased father
The High Court has made an unprecedented order awarding parenthood to a deceased father of a baby boy born through surrogacy in India. A couple, known only as Mr and Mrs A, entered into a surrogacy arrangement and their son was born in India on 12 April 2010. But Mr A tragically contracted liver cancer during the course of the proceedings and died, leaving the High Court to make a landmark decision to award parenthood to the mother and her deceased husband.
The case was complicated by the fact that only couples – and not single people – can apply for parental orders. When the UK’s surrogacy laws were debated in 2008, Parliament decided that only couples should be able to commission surrogacy arrangements. Parents who apply for parental orders following surrogacy must therefore either be married or living as partners in an enduring family relationship.
Leading fertility lawyer Natalie Gamble, who drafted an amendment to the law in 2008 (which was debated in Committee but rejected) which would have allowed applications from single parents, comments: “The case shows how dangerously outdated our surrogacy laws are. Although Mrs Justice Theis was able to find a way around the law in this case because the father had died after issuing the application, what would have happened if either of the parents had died earlier, perhaps during the pregnancy? This has always been an accident waiting to happen, and the restrictiveness of the current law is leaving children vulnerable and unprotected.
Natalie, whose firm has dealt with many of the leading international surrogacy cases heard by the High Court in recent years including the first to ratify a foreign arrangement, goes on to say: “The case demonstrates the continuing difficulties the courts are facing in dealing with surrogacy arrangements. The High Court is repeatedly having to stretch the legislation in order to secure the status of vulnerable children born through surrogacy, and the emotional and financial cost of this for the family involved is significant. We need a better system of law which caters for these kinds of eventualities, and gives clarity and certainty to ensure that children being born through surrogacy (and their parents and surrogates) are properly protected.”
The case is also the first published case to ratify an Indian surrogacy agreement in which more than expenses were paid to a surrogate mother, following a line of previous published cases ratifying commercial payments for surrogacy made to US and Ukrainian surrogate mothers.
The case was complicated by the fact that only couples – and not single people – can apply for parental orders. When the UK’s surrogacy laws were debated in 2008, Parliament decided that only couples should be able to commission surrogacy arrangements. Parents who apply for parental orders following surrogacy must therefore either be married or living as partners in an enduring family relationship.
Leading fertility lawyer Natalie Gamble, who drafted an amendment to the law in 2008 (which was debated in Committee but rejected) which would have allowed applications from single parents, comments: “The case shows how dangerously outdated our surrogacy laws are. Although Mrs Justice Theis was able to find a way around the law in this case because the father had died after issuing the application, what would have happened if either of the parents had died earlier, perhaps during the pregnancy? This has always been an accident waiting to happen, and the restrictiveness of the current law is leaving children vulnerable and unprotected.
Natalie, whose firm has dealt with many of the leading international surrogacy cases heard by the High Court in recent years including the first to ratify a foreign arrangement, goes on to say: “The case demonstrates the continuing difficulties the courts are facing in dealing with surrogacy arrangements. The High Court is repeatedly having to stretch the legislation in order to secure the status of vulnerable children born through surrogacy, and the emotional and financial cost of this for the family involved is significant. We need a better system of law which caters for these kinds of eventualities, and gives clarity and certainty to ensure that children being born through surrogacy (and their parents and surrogates) are properly protected.”
The case is also the first published case to ratify an Indian surrogacy agreement in which more than expenses were paid to a surrogate mother, following a line of previous published cases ratifying commercial payments for surrogacy made to US and Ukrainian surrogate mothers.
Wednesday, 9 February 2011
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
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
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
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
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
Sunday, 2 January 2011
Barrie and Tony to open 'one-stop-shop' Surrogacy centre in UK
Barrie and Tony Drewitt-Barlow - the first gay couple in Britain to have a baby with a surrogate mother, and who advised Sir Elton John and David Furnish over their new son, Zachary - tell Olga Craig about their newest arrival: a "one-stop-shop" surrogate baby centre which they open in Essex next month
It is a morality tale for our times. To the casual observer, they could have been the conventional Christmas festivities seen in any household – turkey and trimmings, excited children, doting parents and a huge pile of presents under the tree.
But this was anything but a traditional gathering. In the Drewitt-Barlow home, the guest list for last weekend’s laughter-filled Christmas lunch consisted of five children, their two fathers and their four mothers.
In our changing moral climate, in which the traditional nuclear family is becoming increasingly outmoded, such a mix of melded families is far from uncommon.
But this household – a happy one, it must be said – is unique. Seated around the table with gay parents Barrie and Tony Drewitt-Barlow and their children were the two women who donated eggs and the pair who were the surrogates, carrying the children.
The youngsters call Barrie Dad and Tony Daddy and refer to all four women as Mum. They live with their fathers in Essex during term time and spend the holidays in California, where the couple also have a home and where they see their mothers – although none of the women has any legal rights over their offspring.
Barrie Drewitt-Barlow, 42, and his partner Tony, 46, were headline news a decade ago when they became Britain’s first gay surrogate parents.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/ebBT4N
It is a morality tale for our times. To the casual observer, they could have been the conventional Christmas festivities seen in any household – turkey and trimmings, excited children, doting parents and a huge pile of presents under the tree.
But this was anything but a traditional gathering. In the Drewitt-Barlow home, the guest list for last weekend’s laughter-filled Christmas lunch consisted of five children, their two fathers and their four mothers.
In our changing moral climate, in which the traditional nuclear family is becoming increasingly outmoded, such a mix of melded families is far from uncommon.
But this household – a happy one, it must be said – is unique. Seated around the table with gay parents Barrie and Tony Drewitt-Barlow and their children were the two women who donated eggs and the pair who were the surrogates, carrying the children.
The youngsters call Barrie Dad and Tony Daddy and refer to all four women as Mum. They live with their fathers in Essex during term time and spend the holidays in California, where the couple also have a home and where they see their mothers – although none of the women has any legal rights over their offspring.
Barrie Drewitt-Barlow, 42, and his partner Tony, 46, were headline news a decade ago when they became Britain’s first gay surrogate parents.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/ebBT4N
Monday, 13 December 2010
Surrogacy couple in UK win legal right to pay a surrogate mother in the US
A British couple who won the legal right to pay a “commercial” rate to a surrogate mother in the US have said that the act was their last chance to have a child - and disclosed that the woman is now "firmly part of our family".
In a rare legal case, a senior family court judge allowed the couple to keep their newborn child, even though they had payed more than the “reasonable expenses” permitted under English law to the birth mother in Illinois.
Speaking publicly for the first time about their decision, the couple said they had suffered years of fruitless fertility treatment, several miscarriages and had no choice but to seek help abroad.
Their case is one of only three such arrangements ever to have emerged. It attracted condemnation from Christian lawyers, who warned that allowing surrogate mothers to make a profit turned children into “commodities”.
Other family law experts and childless couples said the High Court was right to put the needs of the child first and called for reforms to allow commercial surrogacy in the UK.
In a statement to The Daily Telegraph, the couple, who cannot be named for legal reasons, expressed their joy at their newborn child, who is known only as “L”.
“We entered into this surrogacy arrangement after a great deal of thought and research, having exhausted all our other options for having a family, and following years of fertility treatment and several miscarriages," they said.
“Our surrogate is a wonderful person who is now very firmly part of our family and will be part of our – and our child’s – lives going forwards. She gave us the most incredible life-changing gift which we will be ever grateful for.”
An estimated 70 children each year are born to surrogate mothers in Britain but hundreds of couples are thought to be so desperate that they are travelling abroad to countries such as India and the USA, where costs can be £25,000 or more.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/hQ3qAs
In a rare legal case, a senior family court judge allowed the couple to keep their newborn child, even though they had payed more than the “reasonable expenses” permitted under English law to the birth mother in Illinois.
Speaking publicly for the first time about their decision, the couple said they had suffered years of fruitless fertility treatment, several miscarriages and had no choice but to seek help abroad.
Their case is one of only three such arrangements ever to have emerged. It attracted condemnation from Christian lawyers, who warned that allowing surrogate mothers to make a profit turned children into “commodities”.
Other family law experts and childless couples said the High Court was right to put the needs of the child first and called for reforms to allow commercial surrogacy in the UK.
In a statement to The Daily Telegraph, the couple, who cannot be named for legal reasons, expressed their joy at their newborn child, who is known only as “L”.
“We entered into this surrogacy arrangement after a great deal of thought and research, having exhausted all our other options for having a family, and following years of fertility treatment and several miscarriages," they said.
“Our surrogate is a wonderful person who is now very firmly part of our family and will be part of our – and our child’s – lives going forwards. She gave us the most incredible life-changing gift which we will be ever grateful for.”
An estimated 70 children each year are born to surrogate mothers in Britain but hundreds of couples are thought to be so desperate that they are travelling abroad to countries such as India and the USA, where costs can be £25,000 or more.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/hQ3qAs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
