Gamble & Ghevaert

Posts Tagged ‘surrogacy law’

A guide for single dads building families

Tuesday, May 15th, 2012

For single prospective dads, the decision between surrogacy, adoption and co-parenting is a tough one, with each option having its own benefits and pitfalls. First, ask yourself the question – what role do I want to have in my child’s life? To go it on your own or share the journey?  If you want to go it on your own, surrogacy or adoption are undoubtedly the best choices. If you want a shared role, co-parenting could be ideal.

UK law is not geared up to cater for all single would-be parents. For men, building your own biological family through surrogacy is difficult, given the need to find a woman to carry your child and the fact that the law may not operate in your favour. The law is more supportive on adoption, but forming a non-biological family requires patience and determination.

Surrogacy – establishing a surrogacy arrangement as a single parent is difficult. As intended (biological) parents are not treated as their child’s legal parents automatically, parents through surrogacy need to go through a specific legal process to achieve this status. This particular process, though, is only available to couples, effectively denying single parents the legal solution available to everyone else. Our previous government’s rationale for this (despite our attempts to persuade them otherwise) was that surrogacy is such a serious undertaking, only couples should be eligible.

This has the knock-on effect of making it almost impossible to join one of the UK’s surrogacy organisations as a single dad, since their first question to applicant members is whether they can resolve their status after birth. This essentially ousts all single parents.

So, finding a surrogate is challenging. Some single dads find a willing volunteer among their friends and family. Others go abroad, where the same restrictions don’t apply locally. This undoubtedly overcomes the initial hurdle of getting things off the ground, but it only gets you half way there. The anomaly in the law on surrogacy means that once your baby is born, the surrogate will automatically be treated as the legal mother. You will only be treated as the legal father if the surrogate is unmarried and even then, you are unlikely to have full parental status in the UK. If born abroad, your child may not be British.

There are various options for fully securing your legal status, and/or extinguishing that of your surrogate, but the law is complex and remains largely untested.

Co-parenting can be an effective way for single dads to have a family and share the load. But, it is naturally complicated, not in the set-up, but by virtue of the distinct influences each co-parent will have on your child.

The best arrangements are built on a strong foundation of openness and matched expectations – the primary cause of co-parenting turning sour is a lack of communication at the outset. The logistics of pregnancy, childbirth and breast feeding will, in the majority of arrangements, mean that your baby will live primarily with the birth mum (and her partner). It is important that this doesn’t lead to resentment.

The courts are beginning to show an appetite for recognising co-parent fathers in situations where things have gone wrong. The law remains muddled though and there are still improvements to be made.

Your legal status (and security) will depend on the circumstances of the birth mum, and whether she is in a relationship. Co-parenting arrangements often involve more than two parents but the law only recognises a child as having a maximum of two parents. This means that the law can override your status as a legal father, instead giving the status as ‘second parent’ to the birth mum’s partner

Adoption is another way of creating a family, with children much in need of a loving parent. This is a different experience to conceiving a family, with the inherent need to engage with the authorities before you can be matched with your child, the non-biological relationship you will have and the fact that your child may have particular needs and be older.

The law is much more up to date with respect to single parents hoping to adopt. Like everyone else, you will need to go through a rigorous assessment process and additionally be able to show that you are the whole package in one, in terms of meeting the needs of a child.

Adoption is possible for you within the UK and abroad, although you will need to ensure that the laws in your destination country are compatible. In advance of your match you will need to be approved as a prospective adopter. The process usually takes 6-8 months and involves attending preparation groups and working with a social worker who will perform background checks, seek references and do home visits before preparing a detailed prospective adopter’s report which will be presented to an adoption panel for their consideration. If successful, you will then begin the matching process either within the UK or abroad.

So there are now more choices than ever for single dads to build their own families with or without sharing the responsibilities. It may not be straightforward but it is by no means impossible.

There is more information on our website about surrogacy for single dads, co-parenting as a father and adoption, or you can contact us for help or advice.

 

UK surrogacy laws are unfair, says MP today in Parliament

Tuesday, April 17th, 2012

John Healey MP (the former 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.

We, 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.

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.

More information

Find out more about why we think surrogacy law needs reviewing.

Find out more about our campaigning work.

Find out more about surrogacy law.

Parliament to debate surrogacy maternity rights

Friday, April 13th, 2012

John Healey MP will be presenting a Ten Minute Rule Bill in Parliament next Tuesday 17 April calling for improved maternity rights for intended parents through surrogacy.  Surrogacy UK and Natalie Gamble Associates have supported John in getting this Bill to this position by providing information on the increasing prevalence of surrogacy and the difficulties suffered by intended parents receiving maternity leave.

Currently parents who have a baby through surrogacy have no legal rights to time off work or to maternity pay, even though they are caring for their own biological child in the first months of his or her life.  This is very different from parents who give birth or adopt a child, who are entitled to maternity or adoption pay and around a year off work to bond with their new child.

As those who follow our Blog will know, this is an issue that we have been campaigning on for many years and we are delighted that it is finally being debated in Parliament.   Although the chance of a Ten Minute Rule Bill becoming law is statistically small, this is an important step towards putting this problem on the Parliamentary map.

The Bill will be screened live on on Tuesday 17th in the afternoon; you should be able to catch it on the Parliament TV channel or on the web:  http://www.parliamentlive.tv/main/home.aspx.  We will update the Blog with news as things go forward.

Find out more about surrogacy law and our campaigning on this issue:

Radio 4 Women’s hour, 3 June 2011 – Interview with Natalie Should surrogacy law be changed?

Natalie writing in The Guardian, 29 December 2010 – After the birth of Elton and David’s son, can the UK deliver surrogacy reform?

Evening Standard, 27 October 2009 - Ministers face a legal challenge over rules barring women who use a surrogate from receiving maternity pay

Medical News today, 28 December 2008 – Leading fertility patient organisations call for urgent changes to surrogacy law

Bionews, 28 April 2008 – Why UK surrogacy law needs an urgent review

 

Sunday Telegraph – Surrogacy mother launches maternity leave challenge

Tuesday, March 20th, 2012

We are delighted that the Sunday Telegraph has reported the case of a woman who is challenging the UK’s discriminatory rules on maternity leave, highlighting this important issue which affects many parents building families through surrogacy.  The following article appeared in Sunday’s Telegraph:

A mother who had a baby through a surrogate has launched landmark legal action for the right to paid maternity leave

By Ben Leach, 18 March 2012

Her employer refused to give her maternity leave, so she went to an employment tribunal.  The woman, who has been allowed to remain anonymous by judges, was refused the leave by her employer when she became a mother.  She is suing her employer, alleging sex and maternity discrimination, and has taken her case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to decide whether the British laws comply with European Union directives, which could force a change in the rules. The court is expected to make a decision later this year.

An estimated 70 women became mothers through surrogates last year and campaigners say they deserve the same rights as other women.

Natalie Gamble, an expert in fertility law, said that only mothers who were pregnant or those who have adopted are entitled to take maternity leave under the existing rules, which left “a gap” in cases where mothers used surrogates.

Stuart Walne, a spokesman for Surrogacy UK, a support organisation, said the rules created an added “trauma” for these women, who faced disputes over paid leave.

A spokesman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said that there were no plans to change the law regarding people who have a child through surrogacy.

 

We hope the case will make a significant difference, although it is unlikely to do so for some time.  You can find out more from our website about why surrogacy law in the UK needs changing, and about our campaigning work, as well as about our surrogacy law services.

Family Law journal on international surrogacy law

Monday, February 20th, 2012

We were really pleased to be asked to write an article for UK journal Family Law following Natalie and Helen’s participation in the American Bar Association conference in Las Vegas late last year. 

Family Law asked us to give an account of the conference and the issues it discussed, for other family lawyers across the UK.  Natalie’s article looks at the development of UK policy and how the UK courts have increasingly accepted the modern reality of international surrogacy arrangements, with a string of cases (in which our team has been proud to be involved) which have established the principle that the welfare of children should come first.  Quite right too – we believe that all children deserve to have recognition and status within their biological and intended family, however or wherever they were born.  However, the situation is less rosy in other countries around the world, as was clear from the other surrogacy law experts we met at the conference. 

Problems with cross-border surrogacy arrangements have also led the Hague Conference on private international law to consider regulating international surrogacy, which was something discussed widely at the conference.  Natalie’s also article looks at some of the early proposals from the Hague, which include vetting prospective parents as if they were adopting a child rather than conceiving their own biological child.  We are concerned to ensure that the unique nature of surrogacy arrangements is properly recognised in any new international regulation.

If you are interested, you are welcome to read Natalie’s article in full here, or see our website on international surrogacy law.

President of the High Court Family Division endorses international surrogacy

Tuesday, December 13th, 2011

Sir Nicholas Wall, the President of the High Court Family Division, has made public his decision to give parenthood to the British parents of twins born through surrogacy in India.  The President said the issues were of “considerable public importance” and he wished to endorse the previous judgments of Mr Justice Hedley in other similar cases.

The decision, from one of the UK’s most senior family judges, represents a bolstering of the UK court’s position on international surrogacy:  that although commercially organised surrogacy is not yet permitted in the UK, British parents can be awarded parenthood if they go abroad and pay a foreign surrogate mother more than her ‘reasonable expenses’.  Sir Nicholas Wall made clear that the court’s paramount consideration is the child’s welfare, and that a birth certificate will be given as long as there has been no exploitation and the parents are not circumventing child protection laws in the UK.

In this particular case, two Indian surrogate mothers (carrying embryos created with the intended father’s sperm and eggs from the same anonymous donor) gave birth to a boy and a girl within a few days of each other, following a surrogacy arrangement commissioned by a British couple.  A total of some £27,000 was paid to the Indian clinic.  The court was ultimately satisfied that the parents were “entirely genuine and straightforward” and that “it is plainly in the interests of these two children that they should brought up by Mr and Mrs A as their parents”.

The case follows similar decisions by Mr Justice Hedley in the cases of Re X and Y (2008) in which British parents paid £23,000 to a Ukrainian surrogate mother, Re S (2009) involving a Californian surrogacy arrangement, Re L (2010) involving a surrogate mother based in Illinois and Re IJ (2011) involving a Ukrainian surrogacy.

For further information you can read the judgment in full or see our international surrogacy law pages.

Parents to baby Hope talk to the Independent about why they chose US surrogacy

Tuesday, November 15th, 2011

Today’s Independent features a piece by Alice Jolly, mother to daughter Hope who was born through a surrogacy arrangement in the US, and who we are proud to be working with.  Well done to Alice for her bravery in speaking out to highlight her experience.  As she says so compellingly, she and husband Stephen are by no means the only parents who have come to us having decided that the adoption process in the UK is just too long, hard and uncertain.  Alice describes their experience of US surrogacy and how it has enabled them to build their family in another way.  With aptly named Hope in arms they are, she says, “the luckiest people in the world”.

Here is Alice’s article in full, which you can also read at the Independent online

Surrogacy: Parenting the hard way

Alice Jolly and her husband knew they could offer a loving home to one of the thousands of British children awaiting adoption. So why were they forced to go abroad instead and use a surrogate to get the child they longed for?

Tuesday 15 November 2011

Alice Jolly with her husband, Stephen, and their children, Thomas and Hope
JOHN LAWRENCE
 

The scene: a church hall in Oxford three years ago. My husband, Stephen, and I are attending a seminar for couples who want to adopt. A social worker stands beside a whiteboard and explains the process. I look around at the other couples. Their eyes are blank, puzzled. Some start to yawn while others scratch their heads. The social worker has become a tic tac man at a race course, frantically waving her arms, speaking a language that no-one understands. We all start to stare at our shoes. It’s becoming embarrassing – what are we doing here and who put these people in charge of something so important?

A man in the audience is trying to raise his hand but his wife keeps pulling his arm back down. He refuses to be silenced. “So any 16-year-old girl can go into an alleyway on Saturday night,” he says, “and have a knee-trembler with a bloke whose name she doesn’t know, and no one is ever going to ask about her suitability for motherhood. But I’m going to have to go through all this just to be a father?”

The room is silent. The man’s wife is tearful. A social worker crouching in the corner makes a note in her black book. We all know that this couple have fallen at the first hurdle. And yet he has only said what everyone in the room is thinking.

As we have a six-year-old son, Stephen and I decide that it might be best for us to adopt a child under two. No children under two are available for adoption in the UK – or at least none are under two by the time they emerge from our adoption system. And so we go to a seminar in North London about overseas adoption. There we are made to play a bizarre board game. Adoption Monopoly? Or is it Snakes and Ladders – but without any ladders? Each couple has a marker to move around the board. Cards are drawn from a pack. They say, “your paper work has been lost, go back three months.” Or, “the country you have chosen is now closed for adoption, go back to square one.”

Finally, it comes to our turn. “So, Stephen and Alice, where are you up to now?”

“Well, I’ve just retired,” Stephen says, pretending to read the card.

No one dares laugh or it’ll be back to the beginning for them. We break for a coffee and chat to other people. One couple can’t currently be considered for adoption because, although they are home owners and employed, they have £5,000 of credit card debt. Another couple used to live in Bedfordshire, and they got two years into the adoption process, but then they moved to Berkshire so they had to begin again.

After coffee, the discussion focuses on the difficulties experienced by adopted children. Two men interrupt – one is black, the other of Asian origin. Both of them were themselves adopted. The lady running the seminar is clearly uncomfortable with real-life multi-cultural adoption stories. But she presses them to express the anger they must surely feel towards their adoptive parents.

“Anger? I was in an orphanage in Thailand and my Mum and Dad adopted me, brought me back here, gave me everything. From an early age I wanted to be a musician and they made that possible. How could I possibly be angry?”

Then the black guy says: “I was adopted from Ghana and for me it was certainly traumatic. Because every year my adoptive family in Hampstead wanted to celebrate Ghanaian National Day. So all my flabby, white relatives dressed up in African costumes and played drums. Man, I’ve been on the pyschiatrist’s couch for years…” Doubtless the names of these two have gone into the black book as well.

A one-to-one meeting with a social worker follows. It’s a scene from The Trial, by Kafka. We have to convince her we want a child, but we must not appear to want one too much. We tell our story: a stillbirth, four miscarriages, failed IVF. The social worker thinks we have too much baggage – but surely the truth is that most people who adopt do so because other plans have failed?

I mention that we’ve been told that adopting from Russia will probably take two years. No, she says. It will take four and most of the Russian babies have foetal alcohol syndrome. I have talked to a number of families who have adopted from Russia and they tell a different story – but I can’t say so. And so it goes on. No and no and no. We are guilty until proven innocent. Everything is a problem – the fact that we’ve lived abroad, that we have an existing child, that we both went to boarding school, that once every two months Stephen might smoke a cigarette in a bar.

But strangely, the biggest problem is that we are about to have building work done in our house. Until that work has finished, we can’t even start the process.

As we drive home, Stephen is fuming and I am in tears. I know the social worker is playing games, trying to find out if we are serious. But could she not have offered some support or encouragement? I know that adoption isn’t easy – and that it shouldn’t be easy. But does it have to be negative, intrusive, judgemental and so painfully inefficient? Would they rather leave 100 children in care than relax their impossible demands for perfection?

Six months later we meet a lawyer who specialises in gestational surrogacy in the US. Nearly everyone who crosses her threshold has tried to adopt and given up. And US surrogacy? Well, it’s expensive and legally complex – but it can be done. We get in touch with agencies in the States. Yes, they say. Yes and yes and yes.

But I am unconvinced. To me, surrogacy seems bizarre and extreme. It’s from the world of lawsuits and reality TV shows. But then I talk to people with real experience of surrogacy and uncover a world that couldn’t be more different from those sensational media stories. A world in which women are genuinely trying to help other women overcome the pain of infertility.

Two weeks ago we came back from America with our baby daughter. She is called Hope. We are the luckiest people in the world. Throughout the whole process, I continued to doubt whether surrogacy can really work well for everyone involved – now I know that it can. But still I am left with questions about why we couldn’t have given a home to an existing child instead of creating a new one. And some part of me will always be haunted by that baby who we might have adopted – and who is probably still waiting for a family and a home.

Proceeds from this article have been donated to SANDS (Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society) uk-sands.org

 

 

There is more information about international surrogacy law on our website

ABA Conference in Las Vegas brings together fertility lawyers from across the globe

Monday, October 31st, 2011

Natalie and Helen were delighted to attend the American Bar Association’s Family and Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) conference in Las Vegas (26-29 October 2011).  The conference brought together the world’s leading experts in assisted reproduction and surrogacy law, with lawyers from many US states (where laws vary enormously), Germany, Italy, Canada, Australia, the Ukraine, India, Brazil and Greece.  Natalie was invited to speak about English law at a packed session, and was proud to represent the UK alongside leading fertility law experts from Germany, Italy, Australia and Canada.

The ABA conference comes at a key time, with the Hague Conference putting surrogacy on its agenda for international regulation, as well as increasing numbers of clients crossing borders for surrogacy and ART.  We were thrilled to meet so many professionals who, like us, understand and care passionately about helping people build families successfully.  It was abundantly clear that surrogacy lawyers across the globe need to play a key role, both in helping parents get the best legal protection and recognition possible (while national laws are so disastrously mismatched), and in advocating more widely at an international level as a voice for those conceiving in alternative ways.

Thank you to the American Bar Association for hosting such an inspiring international conference, which we know will be just the first step in building a strong international community of advocates for alternative families.

More information about international surrogacy law is available on our website and in particular check out our area for non-UK advisors and US attorneys.

International surrogacy parents speak to the World at One

Tuesday, October 11th, 2011

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?  

You can hear the interview at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qptc

There is more information about international surrogacy law on our website.

Can you trust your surrogacy lawyer?

Monday, September 12th, 2011

By Natalie Gamble

Appeared in BioNews 624

Theresa Erickson, a high profile Californian attorney specialising in assisted reproduction law (self-styled online and in the media as ‘the surrogacy lawyer’) pleaded guilty last month to charges relating to her involvement in a baby selling scam. The case has sent shock waves through the US assisted reproduction law community, which is reeling at the disgrace of one of its best known members.

But although the story is shocking, I would hate to think that wider conclusions might be drawn about the way in which commercial surrogacy is practiced (legally) in many US states, or that US surrogacy lawyers in general should not be trusted. As well as being a story about the wrongs, this is a story of ethical boundaries being enforced, and a story of reputable US surrogacy attorneys who ensured that an unethical and illegal scheme was exposed and stopped.

How did the scheme work?

According to news reports and information posted online from those involved, Ms Erickson, working with another lawyer, Ms Neiman, and a third woman, Ms Chambers, recruited ‘surrogate mothers’ in the USA and arranged for them to travel to the Ukraine where embryos were transferred which had been created with donated eggs and sperm. The birth mothers were assured that this was perfectly legal and was ‘just another way of doing surrogacy’, and that there was a long list of intended parents waiting for their help.

Once the birth mothers were three months’ pregnant then – and only then – would the conspirators advertise for prospective intended parents. The couples who approached them were told, falsely, that intended parents had backed out of a planned surrogacy and that, for a substantial fee, they could step in. Ms Erickson then filed fraudulent papers with the Californian court to enable the parents to be named on the birth certificate. The scheme was said to have been carried out on at least twelve occasions.

What happened to expose the scam?

One of the birth mothers involved, suspecting something was amiss, approached another US assisted reproduction attorney for advice about whether this really was legitimate surrogacy practice. The attorney was concerned and contacted the chair of the American Bar Association’s Assisted Reproductive Technology Committee. He approached Ms Erickson to ask her about the scheme (she denied any involvement) and then, with the support of a colleague based in California where Ms Erickson was based, followed his professional duty to report dishonest or criminal conduct, and referred the case to the FBI. Following an investigation, Ms Erickson was charged and pleaded guilty. She is currently awaiting sentencing and faces up to five years in prison.

(I should add that the intended parents involved, all of whom were exonerated of any wrongdoing, have since been legally confirmed as the parents of the children they have, in effect, adopted).

Why was the scheme wrong?

This baby-making scam was so deeply and fundamentally wrong that it is difficult to know where to start. What shocks me the most, I suppose, was the flagrant disregard for all those involved – for the birth mothers who became pregnant on the basis of a lie (and the abuse of trust, relying on the reputation of a well-known lawyer, which that involved), for the intended parents whose desperation was exploited so greedily, and most of all for the preciousness of the lives of the children conceived, not within a loving family, but by design and for profit.

This was not, on anyone’s definition, really surrogacy. Under UK law, surrogacy involves artificial conception with the gametes of one or both of the intended parents (which quite obviously has to involve the intended parents from the outset). The rules are different in California, but surrogacy still has to involve an arrangement between specific individuals made before conception. Baby selling or adoption for profit is therefore probably a more accurate categorisation, although of course Ms Erickson was a well known surrogacy lawyer and so those involved were able to ‘sell’ the scam as surrogacy.

Interestingly, Ms Erickson was ultimately convicted, not of baby selling or any offences directly related to assisted reproduction, but of wire transfer fraud. Given the context, this has the resonance of Al Capone being convicted for tax evasion. However, I suppose it is appropriate that Ms Erickson has been held to account for deception (the scheme had, as I understand it, involved lies to the surrogates, the intended parents and even the Californian court). If the rules are anything like they are in the UK, whether or not she goes to prison, Ms Erickson will never be able to practice law again.

What does this mean for surrogacy lawyers in the USA?

Lawyers hold a very special position of trust and credibility. The essence of legal practice is to help others to comply with the law, and this carries a strict duty of honesty and integrity as well as, obviously, legality. This case is a perfect example of why the professional standards for lawyers are – quite rightly – so high. Would this scheme have been credible to the participants had Ms Erickson not been involved and, crucially, had she not been a well known lawyer? It seems doubtful.

This is, in many ways, an almost science fiction style tale of the creation of life for sale. But it is a strange and unusual case, and I would hate to think that wider conclusions about how surrogacy is practiced in the USA might be drawn from it. I salute the bravery and professionalism of the lawyers who ensured that their dishonest colleague was held criminally accountable – it cannot have been an easy decision. On behalf of them and the many other scrupulous US surrogacy lawyers I have worked with, I say shame on you Ms Erickson.

More information about international surrogacy law for those considering a US surrogacy arrangement is available on our website.