Hague Convention to regulate international surrogacy?

The Hague Conference on Private International Law is considering a new global convention on international surrogacy. This follows previous international Hague Conventions regulating inter-country adoption and international child abduction, and marks a response to the blossoming of global surrogacy over the last five years.

To help the Hague with its investigations, experienced surrogacy law practitioners from across the globe (including Natalie Gamble Associates) have been asked to give evidence to give a picture of what is actually happening on the ground, and the problems arising in practice.  Submissions are due by 30 September.

Our experience

Our evidence to the Hague paints an interesting picture of the cross-border surrogacy arrangements being entered into by UK parents (both those living in Britain and abroad).  Over the past four years, we have worked with 227 families in cross-border surrogacy cases, covering children born in 19 different countries to married and unmarried heterosexual parents, same sex parents, and single mums and dads. Most have been commercially arranged gestational surrogacy arrangements (the majority involving donated eggs), but there has also been a significant minority of family arrangements, including some traditional surrogacy cases where the surrogate is the biological mother. The costs for parents have ranged from a few hundred pounds up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The most popular surrogacy destination countries for UK parents are the USA, India and the Ukraine.  It will be interesting to see how this experience compares with surrogacy lawyers from other countries.

All the international surrogacy cases we have dealt with have involved conflict of law problems, since the very first international surrogacy case in which Ukrainian-born twins were famously declared ‘stateless and parentless’ by the UK High Court in 2008 (because Ukrainian law said our clients were the legal parents, and UK law said the Ukrainian surrogate and her husband were the legal parents).  Since then, we have worked with 45 further families to obtain parental orders to resolve similar problems following international surrogacy arrangements (including our six further published cases which have made new law) with other parents representing themselves and more cases currently in the pipeline.  Parents will be reassured to know that we have not seen any parental order applications refused, or any children ultimately denied entry to the UK.

But five years down the line from that first landmark Ukrainian case, UK families continue to be stuck abroad for a significant period of time after the birth and to face a long and often complex UK court process. Some of the families we have advised have not been eligible to apply for a parental order (or have chosen not to do so) which means they are caring for their children without secure legal status, something which concerns us greatly.

Our view on what the Hague should do

The focus of any international regulation should be to recognise the right people as the legal parents internationally, so that children can be brought home promptly after the birth by the parents who conceived them, and no children are left in an unresolved legal position.

The Hague should also seek to ensure the quality of intermediaries (surrogacy agencies and clinics) to ensure that surrogate mothers and parents are fully informed, protected and supported.  This will create the strongest platform for protecting the welfare of yet-to-be conceived children, and reduce the risk of exploitation of surrogate mothers and intended parents, particularly in third world countries like India.  The issue of payments to surrogate mothers should be considered in the context of ensuring that surrogates give full and informed consent.

Onerous vetting of intended parents should be avoided. Surrogacy is a form of reproduction, and it would be entirely inappropriate to require parents seeking to conceive their own children to follow the procedures used to approve inter-country adopters. Particular care should also be taken to protect the human rights of non-traditional families (such as single and same sex parents). Research evidence shows that it is the quality of parenting which matters for child welfare, rather than the family form, and so any regulation of international surrogacy should be neutral, and should not be used to apply moral positions concerning who should and should not become a parent.

We know from long experience how resolute intended parents are in their longing to have a family.  They are prepared to grapple with significant legal and logistical challenges (and in some countries even criminal restrictions) to conceive through international surrogacy. It is therefore important that any international regulation of surrogacy is pragmatic.  Rather than fruitlessly seeking to curb surrogacy generally, any new convention should instead focus on creating a workable international system for surrogacy which protects all involved, and particularly the children.

What happens next?

The Hague is just in the early stages of gathering information, and it is likely to be years before any new convention comes into force.  However, this is important work and it is critical that those who have real experience of surrogacy get involved and help shape any future regulation as the discussion proceeds.  We will stay closely involved and keep you updated with developments.

In the meantime, the deadline for submissions from legal practitioners is 30 September.  If you are a lawyer with experience in international surrogacy, we would urge you to complete a questionnaire and have your say http://www.hcch.net/limesurvey/index.php/519183/lang-en

There is more information about international surrogacy law on our website, and you can read our publishedinternational surrogacy judgments here.

Yotam Ottolenghi on becoming a gay dad through surrogacy

Hoorah for NGA client Yotam Ottolenghi and his wonderfully heartfelt piece in Saturday’s Guardian:  Why I’m coming out as a gay father.
In a brave and personal editorial, the renowned TV chef and restarauter has spoken out about his long journey to fatherhood as a gay man, and how becoming a father has enabled him to reconcile himself to a new openness about his sexuality.  He says:
“At the end of a five-year process, I know we can’t be shy about telling our story, that privacy just isn’t an option. That’s because we could only have had Max, and hopefully also a future sibling, thanks to other people who have shared their stories. Max has already brought us immense joy. He has also forced our second coming out, this time as gay parents.”
We salute his bravery in coming out to the world about such incredibly personal issues.  We have been privileged to share his journey (as his legal advisors), which has taken him through the option of co-parenting to international surrogacy and the birth of his son Max earlier this year.  We know it takes brave men like Yotam willing to talk about their experience to inspire others that it can be done, and to enable them to feel comfortable about their choices.
The good news, from a legal perspective, is that the options for gay men to become fathers have never been better than they are now.
Since 2010, gay men who conceive with a surrogate mother have been able to apply to the family court for a parental order.  This ultimately gives them a UK birth certificate naming them both as parents.  It is a legal solution for gay dads who conceive through surrogacy in the UK and abroad, and it fully resolves all the UK legal issues.  Surrogacy in the UK is often more achievable than people realise, but many gay dads, like Yotam, are also going to the US where a more professional and managed surrogacy service is available.  There has developed a significant track record over the past five years of the UK High Court authorising such arrangements (even though they involve commercial surrogacy arrangements), case law which we have been proud to have helped shape.
Since 2005, gay men have been able to adopt as couples, with just the same rights as heterosexual couples.  They have full and equal parental status and an adoption certificate to confirm it.
And there is the option of co-parenting.  Here the law is more complex, and in particular gay couples  who donate sperm to lesbian couples may have no legal status as parents if the birth mother is in a civil partnership.  But these arrangements work too, and there are legal solutions available.
The climate has never been better for gay dads to start a family than it is now, and we hope that other gay men will draw courage from Yotam’s story.
There is more information on surrogacy for gay dads, co-parenting and adoption on our website.

High Court judge warns 'loud and clear': international parents need a UK court order

In a High Court ruling published today, Mrs Justice Theis has issued a public warning to parents of children born through international surrogacy that they must apply to court in the UK.

She said: “The legal relationship between children born as a result of surrogacy arrangements and their intended parents is not on a secure legal footing without [a UK parental order] being made. That can have long term legal consequences for the children… 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 agreements, and for them to be made promptly.”

Mrs Justice Theis was granting parenthood to a gay couple (civil partners) who had conceived twins through surrogacy in California. She said: “I am entirely satisfied the applicants have acted in good faith at all stages. Their journey to have a family has clearly been a long and arduous one, both emotionally and financially. They are a loving and committed same sex couple with a stable home environment.”

The judge published her decision to send a message that British parents through surrogacy must, like this couple, deal with UK law properly. As we well know at NGA, increasing numbers of prospective parents are travelling to places like California where professional surrogacy agencies manage the process (unlike in the UK, where it is a criminal offence for third parties to broker surrogacy arrangements for profit). California offers legally binding surrogacy contracts and a birth certificate naming the intended parents. But UK law does not recognise Californian law, instead treating the surrogate and her husband as the parents no matter what the US birth certificate says. The British parents then need a parental order from the UK family court to become the legal parents in the UK.

Without it, they have no right to make decisions as parents and may be caring for their child illegally. Their child may lack basic legal rights to inheritance, child support and British nationality. If the parents do not apply to court within six months of the birth, they lose the chance of getting a UK birth certificate forever. It is not known how many UK parents may already be in this position.

In this case, the parents had followed UK legal procedures properly and the court made a parental order in their favour. The surrogate – in accordance with Californian law – had been paid $56,750 plus expenses. Payments for surrogacy are not illegal under UK law, but if more than ‘reasonable expenses’ is paid the court has to weigh things up carefully before making a parental order. This is not the first time the High Court has ‘authorised’ a commercial payment to a foreign surrogate, although the amount in this case was larger than in any previous case. It is lawful to pay a surrogate an inconvenience fee in California. Payments are usually lower ($25,000 to $30,000 being typical) which is in practice often not much more than the £10,000 to £15,000 commonly paid to UK surrogates. As the judge explained, the payment in this case was exceptional because the parents, following a difficult fertility journey, had selected an experienced surrogate. She subsequently carried twins and gave birth by caesarean. The judge, having assessed the facts carefully, was satisfied that the surrogate was a “mature woman with financial means. She had legal advice before entering into the agreement and was able to command a higher compensation fee because of her proven track record”. Making an order was therefore not an affront to public policy and was justified because it ensured the children’s lifelong security.

Natalie Gamble, solicitor for the parents, comments: “Surrogacy law in the UK desperately needs to be updated to deal with the realities of the global fertility market. Our current law was written more than 20 years ago before any of these scenarios were dreamt of, and there is no logical fit between the law here and the law abroad. It is easy for parents to overlook the need to deal with UK law as well as US law, and if they do, the legal status of their children may be permanently compromised. The court is rightly very worried about that. All parents planning international surrogacy arrangements need the right information about the law, and they need it in time.”