Archive for the ‘same sex parenting’ Category
Wednesday, July 3rd, 2013
Natalie was delighted to speak alongside Baroness Hale at a conference in London on 20-21 June of leading UK and international experts in donor conception and alternative reproduction.
Baroness Hale of Richmond (first woman Justice of the Supreme Court, and former chair of the committee which drafted the very first HFEA Code of Practice in 1990) gave the conference opening address, speaking about the law for ‘new families’ and how the family courts have sought to uphold the welfare of the child in a range of cases involving donor conception, lesbian parenting and surrogacy.
Natalie, invited to give the response to Lady Hale’s address, shared her practical perspective of the issues affecting non-traditional families on the ground, and spoke about her personal experience. She talked about the deficiencies of current UK law on surrogacy, and how important the new legal rights are for same sex parents. She discussed how complex and divisive known donor disputes can be, and how in practice unequal biological or legal parentage between separating parents can raise temperatures significantly. But she also noted that many parents conceiving in non-traditional ways do so with enormous care and planning, and stressed that the success stories should be remembered as well as the difficult cases which come to court.
The other conference speakers included leading academics from Manchester and Cambridge University, experienced practitioners at fertility clinics, experts in bioethics and international lawyers. Professor Carol Smart and Dr Petra Nordqvist from the Morgan Centre, who hosted the conference, presented the results of their fascinating research project on donor conception, which has explored the responses of parents and grandparents in different family forms to having a child in their family conceived with the help of a donor.
You can read Natalie’s response to Baroness Hale here, or find out more about our campaigning work. You can also find out more about the Morgan Centre’s research: Relative strangers – a key new study of information sharing and senses of connectedness in donor conceived families.
Tags: 20 June 2013, Baroness Hale, donor conception, lesbian parenting, LSE conference, Morgan Centre, Natalie Gamble, Relative strangers, surrogacy campaigning, UK surrogacy
Posted in donor conception, family building, fertility law, international surrogacy, lesbian parenting, Natalie Gamble, Natalie Gamble Associates news, same sex parenting | Comments Off
Saturday, June 22nd, 2013
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has published updated guidance on the immigration procedures for UK parents who have children born through surrogacy abroad. The rules have not been changed, but they are now set out much more clearly than before. The new guidance also contains helpful practical information about what documents need to be included in applications.
If a child is born through surrogacy abroad, UK law applies its own rules on parentage irrespective of the legal position in the birth country. The rules trip up many parents since, even if their child’s foreign birth certificate or court order records them as the legal parents, the child will not automatically be entitled to a British passport. British nationality law treats the surrogate (and if she is married her husband) as the legal parents – irrespective of biology. The child may therefore inherit British nationality from his or her parents, but may not, depending on the circumstances. If the child is not British, there are discretionary procedures to follow to get the documentation needed to bring the child into the UK (to have the child registered as a British citizen, or to obtain an entry clearance visa). The new guidance sets out these procedures much more clearly.
These rules apply to children born through surrogacy anywhere in the world, most commonly India, the Ukraine and the USA. Typically the fastest route home to the UK is from the USA (although to avoid breaching immigration control parents need more than a US passport to travel).
There is more information about international surrogacy law on our website, or you can contact us for advice on your personal situation. We are the UK’s most experienced surrogacy lawyers, having dealt with virtually all the international surrogacy cases which have made the law in the UK, including the very first. We have also long campaigned for better immigration laws for surrogacy, helping create the policy which has allowed entry clearance to be given on a discretionary basis, and in 2010 winning a change to the legislation which allows British nationality to be conferred automatically on children awarded a parental order.
Tags: British nationality, FCO, international surrogacy immigration, international surrogacy law, overseas surrogacy, surrogacy abroad, UK immigration, UK surrogacy
Posted in family building, fertility law, gay men surrogacy, international surrogacy, same sex parenting | Comments Off
Wednesday, June 12th, 2013
The NGA team were delighted to attend the ‘Want to be a parent’ show in Cardiff at the weekend. It was great to meet lots of would-be parents, as well as other exhibitors with one common focus – building families in alternative ways. Whether through donor conception, co-parenting, surrogacy or adoption and whether as a single parent, same sex parents or straight parents, there was something for everyone.
Nicola talked on surrogacy, covering both UK and international arrangements and the associated legal and practical aspects that parents should consider. Other talks included ‘fertility for the over 40s’, ‘adoption and fostering’ and ‘single mothers by choice’ all led by a range of experts in a variety of fields.
We hope to see you there next year!
For more information on how we can help you with any of these family building options contact us here
Posted in adoption, Co-parenting, donor conception, family building, international surrogacy, lesbian parenting, same sex parenting, UK surrogacy | Comments Off
Wednesday, June 12th, 2013
Richard has written an article for Bionews about the High Court’s recent decision that a lesbian non birth mother is ‘not a parent’ due to errors at a fertility clinic. The case involved a lesbian couple who had been in a relationship for 13 years and had started a family together at a licensed fertility clinic, with the birth mother conceiving in 2009. The couple had waited for the changes in the law which allow a non birth mother to become a second parent by signing the necessary consent forms, to come into force before conception. However, now the couple have separated a dispute has arisen over whether the non birth mother should have contact with the children (twin boys).
The birth mother raised the question as to whether the non birth mother could be considered a legal parent due to apparent errors made in completing and submitting the consent forms and the procedures followed by the fertility clinic in question. The court was asked to determine on this preliminary issue before hearing the application for contact and has now ruled in favour of the birth mother.
Mr Justice Cobb very carefully considered the provisions under the HFEA 1990 and 2008 and the guidance given to fertility clinics. In the circumstances of the case it transpired that the consent to legal parentage for the non birth mother was not provided prior to conception and therefore she could not be considered a legal parent. In addition it was found that even if the necessary forms had been completed correctly the clinic had erred in not following the correct procedures, including failing to provide adequate counselling.
Although the court has ruled in favour of the birth mother in this instance the non birth mother has been given permission to continue her application for contact with the children.
It is a decision that will no doubt be of interest to both same sex parents and fertility clinics alike. It will serve as an important reminder to fertility clinics to ensure their procedures when treating couples meet the strict statutory requirements. It also highlights the conflict that can arise between couples when a relationship breaks down and the considerable heartache involved.
There is more information about parenthood for lesbian couples conceiving together, and about our relationship breakdown services, on our website.
Tags: children, contact disputes, fertility clinics, legal parent, lesbian parent dispute, parenthood election forms, relationship breakdown
Posted in civil partnership, family building, fertility law, lesbian parenting, Natalie Gamble, Natalie Gamble Associates news, Parenting Law, same sex parenting | Comments Off
Saturday, May 25th, 2013
In a High Court ruling published today (another leading NGA surrogacy case), Mrs Justice Theis has warned parents of children born through international surrogacy that they must apply to court in the UK if they want to be the legal parents of their children.
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, something which the judge in this case pointed out). 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 ap
ply 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 and the court made a parental order in their favour. The surrogate – in accordance with Californian law – had been paid $56,750 plus expenses for her inconvenience. Californian surrogacy attorney Michelle Keeyes, who works with many couples from the UK, says: “In the US it is typical to pay a first time surrogate approximately $25,000-$30,000 for her time and inconvenience over the course of the pregnancy. For UK parents, it is imperative that they retain legal counsel in both the UK and the US (or the country where their surrogacy will take place) who are familiar with the legal process and how their payments will impact their application for a UK parental order.”
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.
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, UK 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.”
You can read the full judgment in the case of J v G (2013) EWHC 1432 here, or find out more from our website about international surrogacy law.
Tags: British Surrogacy Centre, California surrogacy, do I need a parental order, gay dads, gay dads surrogacy, international surrogacy, international surrogacy law, J v G (2013), Mrs Justice Theis, Natalie Gamble, Natalie Gamble Associates, parental order, payments for surrogacy, reasonable expenses, Surrogacy Arrangements Act, surrogacy law, UK surrogacy, US surrogacy
Posted in family building, fertility law, gay men surrogacy, international surrogacy, Natalie Gamble, Natalie Gamble Associates news, same sex parenting | Comments Off
Monday, April 29th, 2013
Natalie and Richard were at the G3 awards on Friday night, a gala evening hosted by Charlie Condou and Sophie Ward, celebrating leading figures and influencers in the LGBT world.
NGA was proud to be nominated for not just one but two of the prestigious awards – Family Provider of the Year, and Diversity Champion of the Year – at an event attended by guests including Stephen Fry, Clare Balding, Peter Tatchell and Ben Summerskill.
Here’s what G3 said about us:
Natalie Gamble Associates is known for its pioneering work pushing the boundaries of the law for same sex parents. The team has helped thousands of alternative families, including acting in the groundbreaking cases which have made UK law on donor conception and international surrogacy. NGA campaigns on behalf of alternative families, successfully defending the right for same sex parents to be named on birth certificates together back in 2008, and recently winning a long campaign to give gay dads through surrogacy equal maternity leave rights.
Find out more about our work with same sex parents or about our team, or contact us for help or advice.
Tags: 26 April 2013, Diversity Champion, Family provider, G3 awards, Natalie Gamble, Natalie Gamble Associates, Out in the City awards, Richard Perrins
Posted in fertility law, gay men surrogacy, lesbian parenting, Natalie Gamble Associates news, same sex parenting | Comments Off
Sunday, April 7th, 2013
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has voted to update the guidance it gives to UK fertility clinics on surrogacy. The new Code of Practice will:
* clarify what UK clinics should say to surrogacy patients, and
* update clinic procedures and forms for surrogacy.
The HFEA voted to make these changes (following advice from NGA and its own lawyers) at its meeting on 20 March 2013 and will now undergo a period of consultation on the practicalities, before the new Code of Practice is introduced on 1 October 2013. This includes a workshop for clinics and professionals practising in surrogacy, to be held at the HFEA on 30 April 2013.
We congratulate the HFEA on a very sensible decision, which will mean clearer guidance for parents and clinics dealing with increasing numbers of surrogacy cases. In particular, it will be made clear that where a surrogate is unmarried, one of the intended parents (whether gay or straight, and whether or not a biological parent) can be named on the child’s initial birth certificate together with the surrogate. This approach will make the HFEA’s guidance entirely consistent with longstanding practice at register offices and in the family courts.
You can find out more about the HFEA meeting on 20 March here, and there is more on our website about surrogacy law.
Note added – Natalie has written an article for Bionews on this issue ‘The HFEA gets into gear on surrogacy’ which you can read online here.
Tags: Authority meeting 20 March 2013, Code of Practice, HFEA, Natalie Gamble Associates, surrogacy campaigning, surrogacy law, surrogacy lawyer, UK surrogacy
Posted in fertility law, gay men surrogacy, same sex parenting, UK surrogacy, Uncategorized | Comments Off
Friday, March 15th, 2013
The decision in Re A & B (Parental Order: Domicile) represents another landmark ruling for NGA – a parental order having been granted to a non-British gay couple following the birth of their son through Indian surrogacy last year.
The case not only clarifies the law for foreign but UK-resident parents conceiving through surrogacy, but also shows how same sex parents are being drawn to the UK’s open culture and law. We were proud to have supported the parents in this case through to successful conclusion, and once again to have helped make new law.
What happened?
The parents, who are American and Polish respectively, moved to the UK as a couple in 2008 (having registered their domestic partnership in California four years earlier). They were initially attracted to the UK by our unrivalled equal laws and gay rights – something they were not afforded in their respective home counties. Having decided to start a family, they found a surrogate through an agency in India and were delighted when their son was born in 2012. On their return to the UK they sought help from NGA to establish the non-biological dad’s parental status, which led to their application for a parental order (the legal solution following surrogacy, enabling both intended parents to become their child’s legal parents under UK law).
What does the law say?
In order to be eligible for a parental order, at least one of the intended parents must demonstrate to the court’s satisfaction that they are ‘domiciled’ in a part of the UK. Domicile for these purposes is more complex than simply where a person lives – it comes down to where their permanent roots and allegiances lie. This particular criterion (one of a number of strict requirements attached to the parental order) is designed to prevent foreign parents ‘forum shopping’, by using the UK court to grant them a more favourable legal solution than their own country might. The parents in this case therefore had to show that they had made the UK their permanent home and that, notwithstanding their American and Polish citizenship status, they had cut their ties with the US and Poland and did not intend to return.
What did the court consider?
In order to establish whether the parents in this case had met this high bar, the judge considered a number of factors in detail. She was particularly assisted by the parents’ statements, which outlined in detail their connections here (including that they ran a UK based company and both intended to apply for British citizenship at the earliest opportunity) and their affection for the UK including their very personal reasons for making it their home and the place that they raise their family, away from the discrimination abundant in their home countries. The judge went on to quote one of their reasons for not returning to the US, “We will never return and raise our son in a society in which schools may censor him from talking about his family”, as a factor which bolstered their contentions.
Why is this case significant?
Mrs Justice Theis reiterated in this case the importance, for non-British parents applying for a parental order, of demonstrating a clear intention to make the UK their permanent home – the court otherwise being powerless to make a parental order. The judge was also assisted by an independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding domicile by CAFCASS Legal, who found that the parents had abandoned their respective domicile of origins in favour of English domiciles of choice. This case (in addition to Z v C [2011]) provides helpful guidance for future non-British parents through surrogacy who hope to apply for a parental order.
What you need to know if you are not British, or are British and based abroad, and considering applying for a parental order
Domicile is a far-reaching principle of law and far from contingent on just one factor. Having dealt with the key cases which have tested the law on this, we would be happy to advise you on your eligibility to apply for a parental order, no matter what your circumstances. You can contact us here, or alternatively there is more information about domicile on our website.
Tags: commercial surrogacy, domicile, fertility law, fertility lawyer, gay men conception, gay parenting, gay surrogacy law, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, Indian surrogacy, international surrogacy, international surrogacy law, law, Mrs Justice Theis, Natalie Gamble Associates, Re A and B (parental order domicile), same sex parenting law, surrogacy agreements, surrogacy law, surrogacy lawyer, surrogacy solicitor
Posted in fertility law, gay men surrogacy, international surrogacy, Natalie Gamble Associates news, same sex parenting | Comments Off
Saturday, February 2nd, 2013
NGA has been contacted by UK patient organisations trying to clarify the implications of the High Court’s ruling, which has allowed two sperm donors to argue in court that they should have rights of contact with their biological children. NGA has been representing the lesbian mothers in this case.
The ruling received a lot of press attention yesterday (including on the front page of the Daily Mail, and in the Guardian, Telegraph, Independent and BBC). Natalie spoke to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the British Fertility Society, the National Gamete Donation Trust and the Donor Conception Network – all seeking further information about what to say to patients, donors and donor conceived families who were contacting them.
The HFEA and the BFS have issued press statements in response to the ruling.
We thought it would be helpful to provide a clear summary of what the ruling means for these organisations and others concerned about this:
* The ruling only gave the two donors the right to argue their case in court. It is not yet know whether they will be given any rights of contact with the children.
* The reason for the decision was very fact specific, a result of the fact that the donors were known to the lesbian mothers and had contact with the children in their early months before relationships broke down. The court was satisfied, on the facts, that the donors had sufficient connection with the children to at least justify their cases being heard in court.
* The ruling is therefore exceptionally unlikely to apply to donors who have had no contact with the child – for example unknown donors through licensed clinics.
* However, the ruling could apply to other types of known donors, including known sperm or egg donors who have donated through a licensed clinic, if they can demonstrate sufficient connection with the child in practice. Although in this case conception took place outside a licensed clinic, the law which provided that these men were ‘not to be treated as the father for any purpose’ is the same law which excludes the status of other types of egg and sperm donors.
* The ruling does not in any way affect donors’ responsibilities – it does not make it possible to hold a donor legally or financially responsible for a child they help conceive.
For further information on the case (including the judgment) see our blog. You can also follow us on Twitter for updates.
Tags: British Fertility Society, donor, donor conception law, Donor Conception Network, egg donor, High Court, Human Fertilisation and Embryology, Mr Justice Baker, Natalie Gamble Associates, National Gamete Donation Trust, Re G, Re G (a minor) and Re Z (a minor) [2013] EWHC 134 (Fam), Re Z, sperm donor
Posted in Co-parenting, donor conception, fertility law, Natalie Gamble Associates news, same sex parenting | Comments Off
Thursday, January 31st, 2013
The High Court has today made a landmark ruling, allowing two civilly partnered sperm donors the right to ask for contact with their biological children (against the wishes of the children’s respective lesbian mothers), but also warning that it will consider the need to protect the lesbian families carefully before a final decision is made. NGA is representing the mothers in the case of Re Z, one of the two connected cases.
The ruling has significant implications for same sex parents and families created through donor conception. It is the first case to test rights for same sex parents introduced by Parliament in 2008, which give lesbian mothers the same legal protection following sperm donation as opposite sex parents. Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, the mothers in this case, as civil partners, are the legal parents of their children. The biological fathers, like sperm donors through clinics, are expressly excluded from being treated as the legal fathers ‘for any purpose’. Relationships broke down after the men each sought more involvement than the mothers agreed. They applied to court, and the court has now ruled that they can have their cases heard.
The court’s decision opens the door to legal claims from sperm donors who want involvement but have no legal parental status. But the judgment also makes it clear that every case will be considered carefully. Donors will not simply be treated as other fathers are, and protecting the primary family is also a material consideration.
Donors will only be able to seek redress on the basis of the the particular facts, where this is justified. In Re G and Re Z, the fact that the donors had had early contact with the children was what persuaded the court that they should at least be allowed to have their cases heard. However, although the court has given the donors ‘leave’ to apply, it does not necessarily follow that they will actually be given any rights of contact, and the court has warned that the underlying legal framework will be a significant consideration, and that the level of contact originally being sought may be considered ‘wholly unrealistic’.
Mr Justice Baker suggested that there was no principle being created of automatic rights for donors to lesbian couples: “I endorse the submissions that the policy underpinning these reforms is an acknowledgement that alternative family forms without fathers are sufficient to meet a child’s need… Thousands of children in this country are being brought up happily and successfully by same-sex couples.”
Going forward, there are some significant lessons for same sex parents (and anyone conceiving through known donation):
Lesbian mothers need to understand that being named on the birth certificate does not give absolute protection. Conceiving with a known donor will always carry some level of risk if things don’t work out as intended, so mothers should be very careful about giving any level of contact unless they are absolutely sure.
Gay fathers who act as known donors need to understand that their legal position may be more fragile and uncertain than they think. Men who want to be fully involved fathers will not have any automatic rights if there is a dispute.
Everyone going into known donation or co-parenting arrangements should be crystal clear about their expectations from the outset. Setting the strongest possible foundations at the start is the best way of avoiding later problems. One way to do that is to put an agreement in place, but the real key is good communication – an agreement is a means to that rather than an end in itself. There is more from our blog on How to Avoid a Known Donor Dispute.
You can read the judgment in full to Re G (a minor) and Re Z (a minor) [2013] EWHC 143 (Fam).
At NGA, we provide leading specialist advice to parents conceiving through known donation, including same sex parents, both male and female, and leading representation to those in disputes. We have worked at the cutting edge of the law, pushing boundaries, for many years, and were instrumental in helping create the rights for same sex parents in the HFE Act 2008. There is more information on our website about known donor disputes and about planning known donation for mothers and for fathers. You can also follow us on Twitter for the latest updates on our work and campaigns.
Tags: dispute, father, gay dads, High Court, known donor, lesbian mums, lesbian parent, lesbian parenting law, Mr Justice Baker, Natalie Gamble, Re G, Re G (a minor) and Re Z (a minor) [2013] EWHC 134 (Fam), Re Z, same sex parent, same sex parenting law, sperm donor
Posted in Co-parenting, donor conception, fertility law, Natalie Gamble Associates news, same sex parenting, Uncategorized | Comments Off
Natalie was delighted to speak alongside Baroness Hale at a conference in London on 20-21 June of leading UK and international experts in donor conception and alternative reproduction.
