Posts Tagged surrogacy lawyer

United Kingdom High Court rules on commercial surrogacy contracts

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.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

New York Court upholds Parentage decision of California court in surrogacy case

New York does not allow commercial surrogacy and New Yorkers opt to go for some other place where surrogacy is legal to have children from there. A male gay couple from New York had taken up surrogacy in California. The embryo was created out of the egg from an egg donor and sperm from one of the gay couple. On birth of the child, pursuant to the standard California practice, they approached a court there, along with the surrogate mother and her husband and obtained a pre-birth order naming the gay couple as the parents of the twin to be born. The twins were born in the year 2001 and the names of the gay parents appeared on the birth certificate.

Later, the gay couple broke up. The parent, who is genetically related to the child filed for child support in the New York Family court.  It was argued by the defendant, who was genetically unrelated to the child, that parentage deriving from surrogacy was not recognized in the New York and hence he was not liable to pay the child support. On October 4 2010, Magistrate Rachel Parisi rejected that argument. It was noted by her that there is no public policy exception to the enforcement of judgments from courts in other states. The parentage decision was entitled to recognition in the New York. She also relied on a 2005 ruling that New York statutes contemplate that a court will determine parental rights and responsibilities even when a child has been born from a surrogacy arrangement.

This decision is significant for number of New Yorkers who take up international surrogacy. This decision also highlights the importance of having a parental order on birth of the child.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Surrogate Mothers need independence in decision making


surrogacy india lawyer law firm
An unnamed Canadian couple who had taken up surrogacy created a new row of ethical  moral debates over their surrogacy arrangement. The surrogate mother was pregnant with their child using embryos created out of their own gametes. When in the womb of the surrogate mother, the child was found to have medical risks to be born with Down’s Syndrome. The Intended Parents who had come to know of this wanted the surrogate mother to abort the child. The surrogate mother refused for the same. However, when the intended parents threatened to withdraw their support for the surrogacy arrangement, the surrogate mother decided to abort as she had two kids of her own. Neither the intended parents nor the surrogate mother approached the court of law. The above case was reportedly enumerated by Dr. Seethram at the Canadian Society of Fertility and Andrology conference during his presentation. These facts had brought to the world a new set of issues where the surrogate mother would be required to decide freely without any coercive environment. The intervention of governmental agencies occupied a prominent scope in the debates.

Tags: , , , ,

German Couple all set to take twins to homeland

The German Couple who had a tiring journey through the Indian Judicial System in a bid to travel back to their homeland with the twin children finally have crossed the first step. The German Government had granted VISA for the children to be brought to Germany. The Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) had earlier agreed that it would issue a No Objection Certificate for the adoption of the children. With what can be seen, the children have to be adopted (or something similar) by the German Couple in Germany. The Union of India had given the Exit Permit for the children to be taken to Germany.

The children remain stateless yet. The Union of India had only granted the Exit Permit to the children and not a citizenship. I do not see a change of scenario as far as nationality is concerned. However, the change in attitude of the German Government is seen by issuance of the VISA. The German Couple now have an opportunity to fight for their rights at judicial forums in Germany for the citizenship of the children. The German Government had always remained steadfast to its view that familial ties arising out of a surrogacy agreement cannot be valid in law. German Government was also very precautious that the Jan Balaz’s case should be a precedent for other Germans to take up surrogacy abroad.

The German Couple may be required to adopt the twin children in Germany. This would pave way for the twin children to obtain German Citizenship. However, the Balaz Family has percolated through the first step with the guidance and aid of the Supreme Court of India.

When the appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of India, the court did not have much in its hands as the issue largely involved the policy of two states, Germany and India. Germany and India had conflicting policies with regard to surrogacy.

India was unable to grant citizenship to the twins born through surrogacy. The acquisition of citizenship by birth under the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 requires either one or both of the parents of the child to be Indian Citizens at the time of birth of the child. In the case on hand the children did not have an Indian National Parent. The contention of the German Couple was that the children born to an Indian surrogate mother using the gamete from an Indian anonymous egg donor is India; and that the surrogate mother was required to be regarded as the legal mother of the children. This contention had got the sympathetic eyes of the High Court of Gujarat, which agreed that the surrogate mother should be regarded as the legal mother of the child. The Gujarat High also directed the Union of India to grant citizenship and passport for the children enabling them to travel abroad.

The scenario took a complete change when the Union of India rushed to the Supreme Court of India challenging the verdict of the High Court of India. The Supreme Court of India seemed unmoved by the plea of the German Couple. The Solicitor General had time again stood stead fast to his argument that children born to a surrogate mother cannot be provided with Indian Citizenship.

I personally feel that the arguments which could have strengthened the stand of Union of India, but which was not presented is as follows:

(a) The Supreme Court of India in its earlier decision of Baby Manji (Japanese baby) held that the surrogacy agreement is valid in law.

(b) Any basic surrogacy agreement is required to contain the clause that the surrogate mother relinquishes her rights over the child, which is born to her.

(c)  The surrogacy agreement has to be enforced by a court of law. In the absence of any law to the contrary, the surrogacy agreement should control the conduct of the parties and a contrary view cannot be taken.

(d) Where the court takes an opinion, which is unfounded in law and in the surrogacy agreement, it would amount to legislating of a new principle.

(e) Concluding, in absence of law to the effect that the surrogate mother is the legal mother of the child, the court cannot bring out this new theory.

(f)  India does not have a legal mechanism whereby the parental rights of the surrogate mother would be transferred to the intended parent.

However, the above argument was not presented before the Supreme Court of India in support of the Union of India.

The Supreme Court of India successfully guided the German Couple through the legal maze. The Supreme Court of India had also recommended the emergent legislation of a law on surrogacy. The Bench headed by Justices G.S. Singhvi and C.K. Prasad said that no surrogate child should undergo the difficulties faced by Nicolas and Leonard.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CARA agrees to provide No Objection Certificate in the Jan Balaz case

There is a quite a significant development in the Jan Balaz’s Case which is presently pending before the Supreme Court of India.

On the 3rd May 2010, the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) has reportedly represented before the Supreme Court of India its willingness to grant a No Objection Certificate to the German Couple, Jan Balaz and his wife to adopt their twin children born through surrogacy in India. This response form the Supreme Court of India would certainly prove to be beneficial to the couple who have been longing to take back their twin children back to their nation.

However, the much-awaited decision of the Apex Court would be answering many questions, and would be making way for many more new questions. This is the second decision from the Apex Court on Surrogacy, the first being that of Baby Manji. This decision of the Supreme Court of India is expected to answer the most important question of who is the legal mother of a child born through surrogacy.

The Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) was earlier directed by the Supreme Court of India to consider the application for adoption made by the German Couple. The CARA had represented before the Supreme Court of India that children born through surrogacy is not within its scope of working, and that CARA can handle only cases of abandoned children. The Supreme Court of India had then directed CARA to reconsider its report and submit a fresh report.

This however does not turn out to be the final solution for the German Couple, as they are required to wait for the reply from the German government for the adoption plea.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Legal Audit and Risk Assessment

We have mails pouring in from anxious intended parents worrying about their prospects of having a surrogacy arrangement in India.
“How safe is it to take up surrogacy in India as the Supreme Court of India is now considering the merits of surrogacy? What if the Supreme Court of India gives a negative verdict?” is the usual concern.
And my usual answer would be “it would be the safest way to parenthood if you are informed.”
International surrogacy arrangements (anywhere it may be) always involve legal complexities and uncertainties irrespective of the countries involved. No country in the world can claim that surrogacy in their nation is perfectly uncomplicated and without any legal hassles. The simple reason for this is surrogacy involves very basic but serious questions of law relating to citizenship, nationality, motherhood, and parentage etc. Any country would have laws with these laws forming its backbone and conflict of laws in many is natural.
However, it is most important that you are not stuck into the legal issues without even knowing the depth of it. It is most recommended that intended parents assess what might be possible issues that they might be facing if they take up surrogacy in India. They are required to assess the risk factors against them, and weight it against the positives. Some countries have an established route to take back the child but many don’t. But in all cases, it is most advisable to know your cues before proceeding.

Legal Audit and Risk Assessment

For this purpose, the Legal Audit and Risk Assessment plays a key role. Legal Audit and Risk assessment involves a comparative study of the laws of homeland of the intended parents and that of India to speculate the issues of conflict that might arise and as to tackle them. Special concern at this occurs to intended parent who are gays as the Indian Law in not uniform in may of the cases.

When should Legal Audit and Risk Assessment be taken up?
It is very important that Legal Audit is taken before surrogacy arrangement is made with a clinic in India so that you aware of the laws that would affect you and you can act in a cautioned manner. However, couples who have already crossed the implantation of the embryo stage, but are still uncertain on how to take back the child would can take up the Legal Audit and Risk Assessment.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

French Court holds IP to be legal parents, but not for nationality

Dominique and Sylvie Mennesson Photo: AFP

India does not seem to be the only country caught in midst of legal controversies over issues of surrogacy. France is also facing a similar question.

Since 1994, surrogacy arrangements are held to be illegal in France according to The French Law – Article 16-7 inserted by Act No. 94-653 of July 29, 1994 Art.1 I, II, art. 3 Official Journal of July 30, 1994 states -”Any agreement on procreation or gestation on behalf of others is void.”

A French couple, Dominique and Sylvie Mennesson paid a surrogate mother in California about $10,000 in 2000 to carry their child. The surrogate mother carried the child to term and have birth to twin daughters. On birth the twins Isa and Léa, were given US birth certificates recognising the Mennesson couple as the legal parents – but the French authorities refused to accept these.

The Paris Court of Appeals had held that Dominique and Sylvie Mennesson were the legal parents of the children, but refused to consider the children as French nationals. The Mennesson couple have reportedly stated that they will take their case to the Cour de Cassation which is France’s highest court. They hope to set a legal precedent for other parents of children born to surrogate mothers, after six years of legal action.

A draft law hoping to overturn the present law of holding any agreement for procreation of child was presented to the Senate in January, but has yet to be discussed.

Tags: , , ,

Supreme Court of India directs CARA to consider adoption plea in German’s Surrogacy Case

The Jan Balaz Case at the Supreme Court is now taking wild turns with the suggestion of the Solicitor General of India being turned down by the German Couple. As reported from several sources, the German Couple’s Counsel had expressed their willingness to contest the matter before the Supreme Court rather than wait for the Government with a favourable response. The Solicitor General of India had earlier sought time before the Supreme Court stating that the Government is trying to do its best for the immediate settlement of the matter in an amicable manner. The German Couple’s Counsel had stated that four month had already elapsed the same way and they wished to fight the matter rather than wait for the Government to come with an amicable settlement. The German Couple’s Counsel had represented before the Supreme Court that the decision of the Gujarat High Court may be allowed to operate since the Government of India does not have a problem in allowing the children for going abroad. The Solicitor General protested against this argument stating that the holding of the surrogate mother to be the legal mother of the child would have far reaching impact and that cannot be allowed.

The Supreme Court then directed the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) to consider as a one-time measure the plea of the German couple for adoption of twins born through a surrogate Indian mother as a special case. The CARA is the body which was set up pursuant to India becoming a party to Hague Convention on Inter-country Adoption in the year 2003.

No arguemnts has yet been presented before the Supreme Court of India on the effects of holding the surrogate mother to be the legal mother of the child. The stand of other intended parents who are presently taking up surrogacy in India has also not been made available before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decision would be affecting every intended parent who is presently taking up surrogacy in India.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Times of India writes on Surrogacy by Gay Couple’s in India

The Times of India carried the following article on Surrogacy by Gay Couples in India.

surrogacy gay couple india

BUNDLE OF JOY: Brad Fister with his child, Ashton, in Hyderabad on Thursday
US gay couple rents a womb in Hyderabad
City Woman Delivers Baby For Rs 4 Lakh
Roli Srivastava | TNN

Hyderabad: At an upmarket ethnic wear store in Banjara Hills, US citizen Brad Fister (29) carefully cradled his 22-day-old baby who carries his genes but is ‘made’ at a clinic in Hyderabad. On Thursday, 24 hours before he leaves for Kentucky, US, where he lives with his same-sex partner Michael, Fister said he was happy he was leaving India with ‘his’ daughter.

Fister and Michael, who owns a computer firm, spent an amount of $60,000 to get this child, are the first among a bunch of gay couples who are coming to Hyderabad seeking surrogate mothers to carry babies for them. In fact, Fister’s daughter, who he has named Ashton, is the first surrogate child case of an American couple handled by the US Consulate in Hyderabad.

Fister had come to Hyderabad last year when he donated his sperm which was fused with an egg donated by an Indian egg donor. The resultant embryo was then implanted in a surrogate mother and this entire procedure was carried out at a citybased infertility centre, a first such case (of two dads) for them. The child was delivered by the surrogate mother on January 28 and Fister says the baby girl is his reflection with his “chin and lips’’. The surrogate mother got paid Rs 4 lakh for carrying the baby, the going rate for rented wombs in the city. The presence of international clients in the surrogacy industry in Hyderabad, say industry insiders, have led to higher rates for surrogate mothers.  Rates, they say, have doubled over the last few months. Of the total Rs 4-4.5 lakh charged for the surrogate mother, the woman who delivers the child gets Rs 2.5 lakh and another one lakh is earmarked for her diet and comfort during the ninemonth period. The remaining amount of Rs 50,000 goes to the registered medical practitioner who would get the surrogate mother. Surrogacy, a $500 mn biz Hyderabad.

While questions are being raised on how ethical surrogacy is, it is an established business in the country with its worth reportedly pegged at around $500 million.

For those like US citizen Brad Fister, surrogacy is a boon. An interior designer, Fister says he always wanted a baby but adoption norms in the US are difficult. He made his first visit to India on January 25, 2009 after watching an Oprah Winfrey Show episode on surrogacy which featured Dr Naina Patel of an infertility clinic in Anand. She was, predictably, their first choice “But, Dr Patel declined because we are gay couple,’’ said Fister. He then came to Hyderabad, to Kiran Infertility Centre, through one of the many agencies that have come up to help such couples, both gay and straight, with surrogate mother deals. Of these, Surrogate Abroad Inc. that offers people based out of the US an end-to-end surrogacy service in India, clicked.The couple had already spent $ 20,000 in their quest for a child in the US and the promise of having an escort in India to facilitate their journey through the dusty streets leading to infertility clinics seemed good. For many couples, India is also a safe haven given that commercial surrogacy was legalised in 2002. Besides, the country has an additional advantage of the biological mother not staking claim to the child.

But if half the battle was about a pregnancy clicking, the remaining half was about getting the paperwork in place. Fister, for instance, underwent a DNA test along with his daughter at the US Consulate, for the child’s birth certificate. This was followed by an interview at the Foreign Registration Office at Purani Haveli for the child’s visa. At this point even the surrogate mother was also interviewed and her consent taken.

Benhur Samson, a native of Hyderabad and now based out of Chicago, is the CEO of Surrogate Abroad Inc, and has handled 26 cases so far. He says that a lot of people were going back from India disappointed, with nobody to finetune their search for a good clinic or even their stay here. And this is where he steps in. The flourishing business aside, legal eagles like G R Hari, partner, Indian Surrogacy Law Centre, Chennai, say that several surrogacy cases have landed in various courts and legal opinion should be taken before any international couples take a womb on rent in India.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Michigan couple lose their child to surrogate mother

Amy Kehoe and Scott – a couple from Michigan were trying for a child. Amy underwent miscarriage thrice and was medically advised surrogacy. The couple had found a surrogate mother named Shelly Baker from Detroit. Shelly Baker had four children and had already been a surrogate mother twice. The couple entered into a surrogacy agreement with Shelly Baker. Shelly Baker had then become pregnant carrying the child of the couple.

On July 28 2008 Shelly gave birth to a boy and a girl. After a few days Amy brought the twins Ethan and Bridget home. On August 21st Amy and Scott received the notice from Shelly that the couple must give up the babies in about two weeks. Amy had also received intimation from her attorney that Shelly was going to revoke her adoption. Apparently Shelly has accused Amy of not disclosing information regarding a drug possession incident the latter was charged for years ago and that she was seeing a psychiatrist for anxiety disorder. But Amy claims that Shelly was actually acquainted of the fact that Amy was seeing a psychiatrist.

Unfortunately the laws in Michigan are wary since it is one of the five states that do not recognize surrogacy contracts and hence subsequently making them unenforceable. It is such that irrespective of the intended parent’s genetic relation with the child, the biological mother giving birth to the child would be considered the legal mother. Because of the surrogacy laws in Michigan, Shelly had the final say and on September 3rd the couple were forced to return the babies to Shelly.

These short facts raises serious concerns in choosing to take up surrogacy in states such as Michigan where neither is allowed nor banned. Surrogacy agreements are not enforceable in such states. Surrogacy in India is lot better where the legal complications are far less. In fact there is a nil history of reported case of the surrogate mother claiming the child.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,