This is the update pertaining to the French case of Dominique Mennessan and Sylvie. The earlier post on the decision of the Court of Appeals is here.

The Supreme Court of France, which is the highest judicial forum in France, (Court of Cassata) had turned down the application by the couple for inclusion of the names of their twin daughters in the French registry. The twins were born ten years ago through surrogacy in the month of October 2000.  Isa and Leah have a birth certificate indicating that American parents are Menesson, but the French Government challenged transcription of these documents. The couple is fighting, since the birth of twins, for that French law recognizes their parentage.

The couple has been struggling for 10 years with the legal procedures for including the names of twin children in the French registry.  The Court of Appeal, too, had not recognised the children to be French citizens. The children were born to an American surrogate mother, Mary.  She gave birth to Isa and Leah from the embryos created from sperm from Dominique and the egg from a friend.

France does not allow surrogacy, practice to be carried by another woman, for a fee, an embryo conceived in vitro. In this case, the embryo has been conceived with sperm from the joint French, Dominique Menesson, and the oocyte from a friend of the couple. Dominique, the husband, however retains a recognition of parentage of their child through official documents issued in the United States.On the birth of the twin children, their birth certificates were prepared in accordance with the Californian Law.  The couple have been considered to be the legal parents as per the United States authorities, but not by the French authorities.

In France, the woman who gives birth to the children is considered to be the legal mother of the child.  This being so, French Law does not recognize surrogacy arrangements.  According to Court of Cassata, the father of the children, Mennessan is the legal father of the child due to the biological connection.  However, the commissioning mother, Sylvie is not considered the legal mother of the children.  For all practical reasons, the children are considered as living with two different parents.

Last week we had an interesting development at the United Kingdom relating to commercial surrogacy. Mr. Justice Headley had pronounced another landmark decision pertaining to surrogacy. Mr. Justice Headley had earlier decided the case of Re: X & Y and also Re: K (Minors) both of which are pertaining to international commercial surrogacy.

The matter relates to a commercial surrogacy arrangement made in Illinois wherein agreements for commercial surrogacy are legal. The agreement is no doubt illegal as per the 2008 legislation in the United Kingdom. Mr. Justice Headley opined that he remains satisfied that “the payment in excess of the reasonable expenses were made in this particular case to the surrogate mother.”

He also opined: “I observe only that ‘reasonable expenses’ remains a somewhat opaque concept. The approach that I have adopted is to treat any payment described as ‘compensation’ (or some similar word) as prima facie being a payment that goes beyond reasonable expenses. It is necessary to emphasize (as comparisons between the USA and Western India graphically illustrate) that no guidance can be gained from ‘conventional’ capital sums or conventional quantum of expenses. Each case must be scrutinized on its own facts.” Mr. Justice Headley stated that it is important every intended parent duly acquaints themselves about the international surrogacy arrangements prior to entering to the same.

With the introduction of the 2008 legislation, the court stated that the welfare of the child is not only the court’s first consideration, but also the paramount consideration. The court weighed and balanced between the public policy considerations and welfare of the child to decide in favour of the welfare of the child. It was stated that the court would be able to withhold an order if otherwise welfare considerations supports its making. “It underlines the court’s earlier observation that if it is desired to control commercial surrogacy arrangements, those controls need to operate before the court process is initiated i.e. at the borders or even before.”

This decision gains importance in view of the growing number of intended parent flying to India for commercial surrogacy. As stated in the decision, it is important the intended parents are well informed about the legal position in India and in UK prior to entering into commercial surrogacy arrangements. It has to be seen on a case by case basis and never there is a general rule.

The official copy of the full text decision is available here.

An interesting development has taken place in Hong Kong.

Mr. Peter Lee Ka-kit, a resident of Hong Kong had triplets through surrogacy in America. Mr. Peter Lee Ka-kit is son of Mr. Lee Shau-Kee, 18th richest man in the world ranked by the Forbes.

Commercial Surrogacy is banned in China and it is a punishable offence in China irrespective of where the surrogacy arrangement is entered into.  The matter is reportedly referred to the police who might be initiating the first prosecution under the ordinance since its introduction in the year 2000.

I learn from a news report, Times of India, Chennai Edition dated January  25th 2010 of a strange case involving an American Couple where the American Consulate had denied citizenship to a child which was not genetically related to the Intended Mother. The intended mother reportedly had taken recourse to adoption for taking her child to the US. I am not completely aware of the facts of the case and the article also does not disclose the fine facts of the issue. However, I have mailed the author of the article, Ms./Mrs. Jaya Menon asking for more information on her article. I await the reply for the same.

The article brings me quite an amount of curiosity as to what difference this case had made as I am through informed sources that the processing of the Passport applications of Children born through surrogacy is a regular affair at Bombay and the Hyderabad Consulate. This case to be singled out certainly is very curious.

The link to the article is found here.

I learn from a news report, Times of India, Chennai Edition dated January  25th 2010 of a strange case involving an American Couple where the American Consulate had denied citizenship to a child which was not genetically related to the Intended Mother. The intended mother reportedly had taken recourse to adoption for taking her child to the US. I am not completely aware of the facts of the case and the article also does not disclose the fine facts of the issue. However, I have mailed the author of the article, Ms./Mrs. Jaya Menon asking for more information on her article. I await the reply for the same.

The article brings me quite an amount of curiosity as to what difference this case had made as I am through informed sources that the processing of the Passport applications of Children born through surrogacy is a regular affair at Bombay and the Hyderabad Consulate. This case to be singled out certainly is very curious.

The link to the article is found here.

I learn from a news report, Times of India, Chennai Edition dated January  25th 2010 of a strange case involving an American Couple where the American Consulate had denied citizenship to a child which was not genetically related to the Intended Mother. The intended mother reportedly had taken recourse to adoption for taking her child to the US. I am not completely aware of the facts of the case and the article also does not disclose the fine facts of the issue. However, I have mailed the author of the article, Ms./Mrs. Jaya Menon asking for more information on her article. I await the reply for the same.

The article brings me quite an amount of curiosity as to what difference this case had made as I am through informed sources that the processing of the Passport applications of Children born through surrogacy is a regular affair at Bombay and the Hyderabad Consulate. This case to be singled out certainly is very curious.

The link to the article is found here.

This is one of the most frequent questions I answer during my meetings with the Intended Parents. Though the answer seems quite simple, the consequence of missing the right time to sign a surrogacy contract is quite a serious problem to the whole surrogacy program. Indian Surrogacy Law Centre recommends the right time to enter into a surrogacy contract with the surrogate is when the following four aspects have been finalized,

(a) the choice over the surrogate mother

(b) the choice over the Clinic

(c) the financial element, with regard to the compensation to the surrogate

(d) The dates for commencing the procedures at the hospital has been fixed.

Once all the above factors have been determined, it is the right time for entering into a surrogacy agreement. The surrogate should have a clear understanding of the agreement and there should be also some evidence for the same.

Importance of the time factor:

The date of signing of the surrogacy contract plays an important role is assessing the mind of the parties to the contract. It is important that the surrogate enters into the contract before the taking up of the medical procedures. The reason is that the medical procedures itself is a result of the contract entered between the parties, and this order of events cannot be rearranged. There have been cases where clinics do not stress on the need for signing of an appropriate agreement with the surrogate before carrying out the procedures. However, this practice does not serve any purpose.

More importantly, the effect of not signing of a surrogacy agreement at an appropriate time has an adverse inference over the agreement. In such cases, the obvious question the Court poses to a person who relies on the agreement is as to why the agreement was not entered with the surrogate before she had taken up the medical procedures.

Therefore it is important to have the surrogacy agreement entered by the parties before proceeding with the medical procedures.

The Decision of the First Case decided by the Supreme Court on Surrogacy has been extracted hereunder:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ Petition (C) No. 369 of 2008

Decided On: 29.09.2008

Appellants: Baby Manji Yamada
Vs.
Respondent: Union of India (UOI) and Anr.

Hon’ble Judges:
Arijit Pasayat and Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.

1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter for short ‘the Constitution’) raises some important questions.

2. Essentially challenge is to certain directions given by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court relating to production/custody of a child Manji Yamada. Emiko Yamada, claiming to be grandmother of the child, has filed this petition. The Writ Petition before the Rajasthan High Court was filed by M/s. SATYA, stated to be an NG0, the opposite party No. 3 in this petition. The D.B. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 7829 of 2008 was filed by M/s. SATYA wherein the Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs, State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, The Director General of Police, Government of Rajasthan and the Superintendent of Police Jaipur City (East), Jaipur were made the parties. There is no dispute about Baby Manji Yamada having been given birth by a surrogate mother. It is stated that the biological parents Dr. Yuki Yamada and Dr. Ikufumi Yamada came to India in 2007 and had chosen a surrogate mother in Anand, Gujarat and a surrogacy agreement was entered into between the biological father and biological mother on one side and the surrogate mother on the other side. It appears from some of the statements made that there were matrimonial discords between the biological parents. The child was born on 25th July, 2008. On 3rd August, 2008 the child was moved to Arya Hospital in Jaipur following a law and order situation in Gujarat and she was being provided with much needed care including being breastfed by a woman. It is stated by the petitioner that the genetic father Dr. Ifukumi Yamada had to return to Japan due to expiration of his visa. It is also stated that the Municipality at Anand has issued a Birth Certificate indicating the name of the genetic father.

3. Stand of respondent No. 3 was that there is no law governing surrogation in India and in the name of surrogation lot of irregularities are being committed. According to it, in the name of surrogacy a money making racket is being perpetuated. It is also the stand of the said respondent that the Union of India should enforce stringent laws relating to surrogacy. The present petitioner has questioned the locus standi of respondent No. 3 to file a habeas corpus petition. It is pointed out that though custody of the child was being asked for but there was not even an indication as to in whose alleged illegal custody the child was. It is stated that though the petition before the High Court was styled as a “Public Interest Litigation” there was no element of public interest involved. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 with reference to the counter- affidavit filed in this Court had highlighted certain aspects relating to surrogacy. The learned Solicitor General has taken exception to certain statements made in the said counter affidavit and has submitted that the petition before the High Court was not in good faith and was certainly not in public interest.

4. We need not go into the locus standi of respondent No. 3 and/or whether bonafides are involved or not. It is to be noted that the Commissions For Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (hereinafter for short ‘the Act’) has been enacted for the constitution of a National Commission and State Commissions for protection of child rights and children’s courts for providing speedy trial of offences against children or of violation of child rights and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 13 which appears in Chapter III of the Act is of considerable importance. The same reads as follows:

13. Functions of Commission.

(1) The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely:

(a) examine and review the safeguards provided by or under any law for the time being in force for the protection of child rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation;

(b) present to the Central Government, annually and at such other intervals, as the Commission may deem fit, reports upon the working of those safeguards;

(c) inquire into violation of child rights and recommend initiation of proceedings in such cases;

(d) examine all factors that inhibit the enjoyment of rights of children affected by terrorism, communal violence, riots, natural disaster, domestic violence, HIV/AIDS, trafficking, maltreatment, torture and exploitation, pornography and prostitution and recommend appropriate remedial measures.

(e) look into the matters relating to children in need of special care and protection including children in distress, marginalized and disadvantaged children, children in conflict with law, juveniles, children without family and children of prisoners and recommend appropriate remedial measures;

(f) study treaties and other international instruments and undertake periodical review of existing policies, programmes and other activities on child rights and make recommendations for their effective implementation in the best interest of children;

(g) Undertake and promote research in the field of child rights;

(h) spread child rights literacy among various sections of the society and promote awareness of the safeguards available for protection of these rights through publications, the media, seminars and other available means;

(i) inspect or cause to be inspected any juvenile custodial home, or any other place of residence or institution meant for children, under the control of the Central Government or any State Government or any other authority, including any institution run by a social organisation; where children are detained or lodged for the purpose of treatment, reformation or protection and take up with these authorities for remedial action, if found necessary;

(j) inquire into complaints and take suo motu notice of matters relating to, –

(i) deprivation and violation of child rights;

(ii) non-implementation of laws providing for protection and development of children;

(iii) non-compliance of policy decisions, guidelines or instructions aimed at mitigating hardships to and ensuring welfare of the children and to provide relief to such children, or take up the issues arising out of such matters with appropriate authorities; and

(k) such other functions as it may consider necessary for the promotion of child rights and any other matter incidental to the above functions

2) The Commission shall not inquire into any matter which is pending before a State Commission or any other Commission duly constituted under any law for the time being in force.

5. Surrogacy is a well known method of reproduction whereby a woman agrees to become pregnant for the purpose of gestating and giving birth to a child she will not raise but hand over to a contracted party. She may be the child’s genetic mother (the more traditional form for surrogacy) or she may be, as a gestational carrier, carry the pregnancy to delivery after having been implanted with an embryo. In some cases surrogacy is the only available option for parents who wish to have a child that is biologically related to them.

The word “surrogate”, from Latin “subrogare”, means “appointed to act in the place of”. The intended parent(s) is the individual or couple who intends to rear the child after its birth.

6. In “traditional surrogacy” (also known as the Straight method) the surrogate is pregnant with her own biological child, but this child was conceived with the intention of relinquishing the child to be raised by others; by the biological father and possibly his spouse or partner, either male or female. The child may be conceived via home artificial insemination using fresh of frozen sperm or impregnated via IUI (intrauterine insemination), or ICI (intra cervical insemination) which is performed at a fertility clinic. ‘

7. In “gestational surrogacy” (also know as the Host method) the surrogate becomes pregnant via embryo transfer with a child of which she is not the biological mother. She may have made an arrangement to relinquish it to the biological mother or father to raise, or to a parent who is themselves unrelated to the child (e. g. because the child was conceived using egg donation, germ donation or is the result of a donated embryo). The surrogate mother may be called the gestational carrier.

8. “Altruistic surrogacy” is a situation where the surrogate receives no financial reward for her pregnancy or the relinquishment of the child (although usually all expenses related to the pregnancy and birth are paid by the intended parents such as medical expenses, maternity clothing, and other related expenses).

9. “Commercial surrogacy” is a form of surrogacy in which a gestational carrier is paid to carry a child to maturity in her womb and is usually resorted to by well off infertile couples who can afford the cost involved or people who save and borrow in order to complete their dream of being parents. This medical procedure is legal in several countries including in India where due to excellent medical infrastructure, high international demand and ready availability of poor surrogates it is reaching industry proportions. Commercial surrogacy is sometimes referred to by the emotionally charged and potentially offensive terms “wombs for rent”, “outsourced pregnancies” or “baby farms”.

10. Intended parents may arrange a surrogate pregnancy because a woman who intends to parent is infertile in such a way that she cannot carry a pregnancy to term. Examples include a woman who has had a hysterectomy, has a uterine malformation, has had recurrent pregnancy loss or has a healthy condition that makes it dangerous for her to be pregnant. A female intending parent may also be fertile and healthy, but unwilling to undergo pregnancy.

11. Alternatively, the intended parent may be a single male or a male homosexual couple.

12. Surrogates may be relatives, friends, or previous strangers. Many surrogate arrangements are made through agencies that help match up intended parents with women who want to be surrogates for a fee. The agencies often help manage the complex medical and legal aspects involved. Surrogacy arrangements can also be made independently. In compensated surrogacies the amount a surrogate receives varies widely from almost nothing above expenses to over $ 30,000. Careful screening is needed to assure their health as the gestational carrier incurs potential obstetrical risks.

13. In the present case, if any action is to be taken that has to be taken by the Commission. It has a right to inquire into complaints and even to take suo motu notice of matters relating to, (i) deprivation and violation of child rights (ii) non-implementation of laws providing for protection and development of children and (iii) non-compliance of policy decisions, guidelines or instructions aimed at mitigating hardships to and ensuring welfare of the children and to provide relief to such children, or take up the issues arising out of such matters with appropriate authorities.

14. It appears that till now no complaint has been made by anybody relating to the child, the petitioner in this Court.

15. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with a direction that if any person has any grievance, the same can be ventilated before the Commission constituted under the Act. It needs no emphasis that the Commission has to take into account various aspects necessary to be taken note of.

16. Another grievance of the petitioner is that the permission to travel so far as the child is concerned including issuance of a Passport is under consideration of the Central Government; but no orders have been passed in that regard. The other prayer in the petition is with regard to an extension of the visa of the grandmother of the child requesting for such an order.

17. Learned Solicitor General, on instructions, stated that if a comprehensive application, as required under law, is filed within a week, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously and not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of such application. If the petitioner has any grievance in relation to the order to be passed by the Central Government, such remedy, as is available in law may be availed.

18. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs. All proceedings pending in any High Court relating to the matter which we have dealt with in this petition shall stand disposed of because of this order.