Pakistan requires legislation on Surrogacy

by ⋅ Leave a Comment

Pakistan surrogacy india

Pakistan found itself in the unlikely company of India in the group of nations that require a special legislation on surrogacy to deal with complex issues of domestic and international surrogacy. There is no special legislation on surrogacy in Pakistan, and the Lahore High Court decided that surrogacy is neither allowed nor permitted.

Pakistan’s Rawalpindi Bench of the Lahore High Court decided the first case involving a surrogacy arrangement and subsequent parental rights that arose from it. The crux of the facts of the case is that the biological mother, Farzana Naheed, claims complete parental rights over the child, Fatima, under the ground that she was the wedded wife of the biological father when the child was born. The alleged Biological Father of the child, Farooq Siddique, in his late 50s, claims that he had entered into a surrogacy agreement with the biological mother, and that the child was born through surrogacy. He further claims that the child is not genetically related to the biological mother, Farzana.

With this background, the biological mother filed an application under the Code of Criminal Procedure for the custody of the child in the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court transferred her custody to the mother two weeks after the birth of the child. The child is now is now eight years old and her legal status is still in limbo.

The alleged Biological Father of the child, Farooq Siddique, then moved to the Rawalpindi Bench of the Lahore High Court on appeal and presented the surrogacy agreement to the Court to assert his claim over the child. The High Court hearing a case on surrogacy for the first time, said that there was no law on surrogacy in Pakistan. The court further stated that even if there is a law that allowed surrogacy in Pakistan, there is no material evidence to prove that the Siddique is the biological father of the child. Siddiqui had alleged that Naheed and her relatives had tried blackmailing him for more money while she was pregnant. Contrastingly, the court also did not accept the fact that the marriage took place between the biological mother and Farooq Siddique as the biological mother could not prove her marriage to him in a satisfactory manner.

The court stated that the custody of the child should rest with the biological mother Naheed and that her poverty should not stand in her way for exercising parental rights over her child. Further, since there is no special legislation on surrogacy existing in Pakistan, the Court had no legal material to accept or reject the prayer of the biological mother and decided the case as in the case of a normal petition for custodial rights.

A Case of Lesbian Parenting Conflict in Nevada

by ⋅ Leave a Comment

Lesbian parentingThe mother of a four-year old girl is yet to be decided in Las Vegas, U.S. for want of Domestic Partnership arrangements and Parental contract as her parents are Gay Partners. In the Nevada Law itself there is no provision for same sex co-parenting agreements, especially for unmarried person or persons or persons who have not entered into valid domestic partnership arrangements.

Sha’Kayla St.Mary and Veronica Damon are gay partners. The two were Corrections Officers at a state women’s prison in North Las Vegas and began to have intimate relationship. During the course of their relationship, they decided to go through the process of surrogacy for having a child. They sought the help of an Infertility Clinic.  St. Mary underwent in vitro fertilization. The embryo was created from the eggs contributed by Damon, which was fertilized with the sperm of an anonymous sperm donor.  Veronica was designated as Biological Parent and St.Mary was termed as “Non-biological parent”. The child was born in June 2008. They both have signed a co-parenting agreement.

After the birth of the child the relationship between the two partners deteriorated and they got separated.  A conflict arose between the two for claiming motherhood for the child, which lead to a litigation.   After their separation, during October 2009, Nevada Law had been amended in which the marriage is defined between a man and a woman.    The said law has no provision with regard to position of gay couple, especially partners without contractual agreement.

As there are no valid domestic partnership arrangements between the two partners, just decision has not yet been arrived at. The counsel for the biological mother contends that the fact of having given birth to a child does not confer parental rights. She further pointed out to the County Court that Damon was the sole legal parent of the girl, based on which the Judge ruled that the Gestational Mother, St. Mary could seek visitation rights of the child.  It is the contention of her lawyer that under State Law a woman gains parental rights to whom she gives birth.  But to substantiate her contention she has to justify many of the concerns raised by the State High Court, which are yet to be addressed by the Trial Court.  Though several judges are favoring to refer back to the Family Court for finding out the facts of the case and to give justice to the two partners.  But, the main concern is that no guardian has been appointed for the child, who is not in a stage to raise her voice for justice.