Women risk surrogacy exploitation due to lack of legislation

Consultant obstetricians who reviewed current practice in UK hospitals said the lack of rules put mothers and children at risk. Celia Burrell, consultant obstetrician at Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospital NHS Trust said: “We are calling for additional legislation and guidelines to prevent women and babies being exploited, provide safeguards for children and guide professionals. The review published in the The Obstetrician and Gynaecologist said that staff should consult hospital lawyers and risk management teams before taking a decision to discharge a baby separately from the mother who gave birth to the child. Researchers said they expected the number to increase, following laws introduced in 2010 which give same sex and unmarried couples the same legal rights as married hetrosexual couples to apply for parental orders, after a child is born. Dr Burrell said current laws were “precarious”, because legislation varies so much around the world. Last month, a new precedent was set in the Republic of Ireland when the genetic mother was put on the child’s birth certificate. In 2011, a surrogate mother in the UK won the legal right to keep her child after learning that the would-be parents were violent. In March, a surrogate mother in the United States fled across the country to give birth and save her child after the parents to be wanted to have the child aborted because disabilities had been found. Researchers said there are currently no UK guidelines providing advice for surrogates, would-be parents or healthcare professionals, nor is data collected to establish how common the practice is. Researchers said the lack of guidance left healthcare professionals struggling with many ethical and legal dilemmas. Since Britain’s first official surrogate birth, in 1985, laws have limited payments to cover only what is described as “reasonable expenses”, such as loss of income. Estimates suggest that, since then about 800 children have been born in this country of such arrangements, with “expenses” payments averaging about £15,000. Exact figures are unknown, because many arrangements proceed without any medical or legal input. In 2011, a British judge allowed a couple to keep their child, despite the fact that they made higher payments to a couple in the United States, where there is no ceiling on amounts. In making the ruling, he went further, saying that the welfare of the child was the paramount consideration, and future cases would be rejected only in the “clearest case of the abuse of public policy”. Article: 19th April 2013 www.telegraph.co.uk Read more about surrogacy at www.prideangel.com

Surrogate mothers - Should they have the right to change their minds?

Natalie has written a comment piece for Bionews criticising the unchallengeable position surrogate mothers are currently given by UK surrogacy law. The law in the UK has long provided that the woman who gives birth is the legal mother. In surrogacy cases, the intended parents (one or both of whom must be the biological parents) can apply to the family court to have parenthood reassigned to them, but they are entirely dependent on the surrogate and her husband/civil partner giving their consent. If it is withheld, they cannot become the legal parents. Conversely, if the intended parents do not take responsibility, the surrogate has no means of holding them both legally responsible for the life they have created. Natalie criticises the law as being outdated in a modern age in which surrogacy is becoming more common. Very few arrangements do go wrong (a proportion of roughly 0.02%) and where things run to plan, the current law means that parental responsibility is left in the wrong hands for far too long, contrary to everyone’s wishes and the best interests of the child. In the rare cases where things go wrong, the courts in practice decide care arrangements flexibly on a best interests basis, but legal parentage can remain unresolved forever. It is time for us to introduce law which deals with surrogacy in a much more sophisticated way, understanding that it is a collaborative process in which the rights and responsibilities of everyone involved – the surrogate, her partner, the intended parents and the child – all need to be carefully balanced. This is what both surrogates and parents want, and what is in the best interests of children born through surrogacy. You can read Natalie’s comment piece Should surrogate mothers still have an absolute right to change their minds? or find out more about surrogacy law from our website. Article: 23rd October 2012 www.nataliegambleassociates.co.uk

High court challenge to change maternity leave rights for surrogacy families

A joint claim has been lodged at the High Court challenging the lack of maternity leave rights for families through surrogacy. Surrogacy UK and a mother directly affected are together seeking a declaration from the High Court that the current law is unfair. The issue is that UK parents who have a child with the help of a surrogate mother do not have rights to time off work to care for their new child, while parents who give birth or who adopt do. As a result, the mother bringing the claim (known only as RKA) was denied maternity leave rights by her employer to care for her newborn child, and was then made redundant while on unpaid leave. Surrogacy UK, which has brought the claim together with her in its capacity as a leading representative of many UK families, says: “We’ve made this claim as the leading surrogacy organisation in the UK, reflecting our responsibility to promote and protect the interests of our members and all others involved in surrogacy. Put simply, there can be no reason to treat parents of children born via surrogacy any differently from any other parent looking after a new-born. The Government has a responsibility to ensure that all parents have rights to a family life and the best possible start for their child.” Merry Varney from law firm Leigh Day & Co, who is representing RKA and Surrogacy UK, says: “The Government has a positive obligation under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act to protect surrogate parents to ensure respect for their private and family life and a positive obligation under Article 14 to avoid discrimination.” The anomaly which denies maternity leave was raised in Parliament earlier this year, when John Healey MP called for equal maternity leave rights for mothers through surrogacy. His constituent Jane Kassim had also been denied maternity leave after her cousin Amy carried her and husband’s twins (read more about what he said here). With the Department of Business Innovation and Skills currently reviewing the law on maternity rights, there is an opportunity to address the problem. While surrogacy was historically a rare phenomenon which only affected a tiny handful of families, that is no longer the case. The numbers of parental orders (the orders which make parents through surrogacy the legal parents) stood at 138 last year, up from 58 just two years ago. We at Natalie Gamble Associates have been campaigning to end discrimination against surrogate families for many years. As well as the employment law issues, other problems arise from the fact that it takes so long (often up to a year after the birth) for the parents to win legal recognition. There can be problems with medical consent, not to mention severe difficulties over immigration where children are born through surrogacy abroad. There is also no proper regulation of surrogacy services in the UK, while surrogacy thrives as an industry in many places abroad, driving more and more parents to go abroad. Surrogacy law in the UK desperately needs updating and we hope dealing with the employment discrimination will be just the first step.

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

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?

Your surrogate will keep the baby, won't she?

So many clients tell us that this is the question they are asked when they tell their friends – and even their fertility doctors – that they are considering surrogacy. Is it true? Are surrogacy arrangements in the UK very risky, with the surrogate mother holding all the cards and having an absolute right to keep the baby? Do those who embark on surrogacy arrangements frequently end up with the surrogate mother keeping the child in practice?
It is certainly a widespread belief, and one which in the globalised world is an important factor which drives people abroad to surrogacy destinations like the USA, the Ukraine and India, where surrogacy arrangements are legally enforceable.

But the reality is that this is in fact incredibly rare in practice. To date, there have been only two reported cases in UK legal history of the court having to arbitrate between the intended parents and a surrogate mother where a surrogacy agreement has broken down. In only one of these cases was the surrogate allowed to keep the baby, since the UK courts (far from being obliged to uphold the status of the surrogate mother) in fact have flexible powers to determine what is in the child’s best interests where something does go wrong.

So why do surrogacy arrangements in the UK so rarely go wrong? Our experience of working with families in these situations tells us that it is because surrogacy is not entered into by parents or surrogates lightly, but with the benefit of enormous care, thought and respect. Often with the help and support of long established and experienced agencies like Surrogacy UK and COTS, we find that parents and surrogates invest heavily in building a strong foundation to their relationship, and treat it with significant value.

The reality of surrogacy in the UK is that arrangements far more often end up in a lifelong friendships than in custody disputes