Gamble & Ghevaert

Search

Posts Tagged ‘international surrogacy’

Newer Entries »

Crossing borders for surrogacy: the problems for families and policymakers

Wednesday, June 1st, 2011

This article, written by Natalie Gamble for Bionews, was published on 31 May 2011:

bionewslogo3More people are crossing borders to build their families than ever before. Prospective parents can easily access information about treatment options in countries where regulations permit treatments outlawed in the UK or where there is little or no regulation at all. But where surrogacy is involved, going abroad raises very difficult legal issues.Problems arise where the law in the destination country and the law in the parents’ home country do not match up over the basic question of who are recognised as the legal parents. In the worst cases, babies are born without any legal parents, left stranded in the wrong country without identity or nationality. These sorts of issues are not uncommon in cross-border surrogacy cases, since what drives prospective parents to go abroad for surrogacy in the first place is the wish to access more liberal surrogacy laws.
Reasons for crossing borders might include escaping a prohibition on surrogacy at home, or accessing a commercial environment which makes surrogate mothers (and egg donors) more readily accessible. But because the parents may have breached the law or public policy at home, they are often denied legal parental status – even if they have a court order or birth certificate in the foreign country confirming their parentage.

From the perspective of the immigration authorities and family courts in the home countries, this creates a real headache. If a country has made a policy decision against surrogacy (or against commercial surrogacy), granting exceptions and solutions to those who evade the law by going abroad runs the risk of undermining the wider policy and encourages others to follow suit. However, the reality is that public policy collides uncomfortably with the need in practice to protect a vulnerable child who has already been born.

This is not just a problem for the UK. In a recently reported French case, twin children born through surrogacy to a French couple in the US were denied French citizenship. Similarly a German couple were recently denied a German passport for their child born through surrogacy in India.

The UK’s High Court Family Division, with its paramount focus on protecting the welfare of children, has been less intransigent, and there is a growing history of legal decisions which have retrospectively authorised foreign surrogacy arrangements.

The first case of this kind in 2008 involved a British couple whose surrogate twins were born ‘stateless and parentless’ in the Ukraine because of the conflict between UK and Ukrainian law: Ukrainian law said that the British couple were the parents, and British law said that the Ukrainian surrogate and her husband were the parents. The court ultimately sanctioned the commercial Ukrainian arrangement (an arrangement which would not have been legally possible to set up in the UK), awarding parenthood to the British parents. There have subsequently been three further reported cases in the High Court (and other applications granted without the decisions being made public) involving similar decisions.

The big problem is payments. UK law seeks to discourage payments for surrogacy, and the court is therefore struggling with the question of what it should do where parents enter into surrogacy arrangements outside the UK legal framework, and then retrospectively seek the approval of the court.

To be clear, it is not a question of the parents having broken the law. Payments for surrogacy are not (and never have been) illegal in the UK, since a deliberate decision was made when the law was put into place not to criminalise parents or surrogate mothers for making or receiving payments. What is illegal in the UK is for a third party to be paid to broker a surrogacy agreement, a rule which does not (and could not) extend to agencies outside the UK. Ultimately, it is therefore entirely legal for prospective parents to engage foreign professional surrogacy agencies to help them.

When granting a parental order (which secures the status of a family unit created through surrogacy) the UK courts also have an explicit power to ‘authorise’ a payment of more than expenses to a surrogate mother at their discretion. The intent of the law is clearly to make this the exception rather than the rule, and to encourage altruistic surrogacy as the norm. However, the growth of cross border surrogacy is requiring these exceptional powers to be exercised more regularly.

Ultimately, it is positive that there is a legal solution in the UK for children caught in these difficult legal conflicts, and it is critical that this remains the case. Any attempt to tighten up the rules to enforce restrictions on payments more thoroughly will make things worse for innocent children, who in international situations may be put at serious risk.

What we need is better information about the perils of international surrogacy, and ultimately a move towards a more open, honest and straightforward legal solution in the UK (bearing in mind that payments for ‘expenses’ in the UK are often not in practice much different in scale from payments typical for ‘commercial’ US surrogacy arrangements).

Many parents still enter into foreign surrogacy arrangements without being aware of the potential legal complications and then find themselves stranded abroad facing a legal process which is much more complicated than they had anticipated. Others know of the difficulties and some choose not to engage with the UK legal system at all (which is practically possible in certain scenarios, depending on the immigration position) thereby leaving their family’s status entirely unsecured. Either way, children are being put at risk and this is something we have a duty to take very seriously.

 

 

Tags: ,
Posted in fertility law, gay men surrogacy, international surrogacy, Natalie Gamble, UK surrogacy | Comments Off

UK High Court warns of dangers of overseas surrogacy

Wednesday, April 20th, 2011

The High Court this week announced its decision to award parenthood to a British couple with a child born through surrogacy in the Ukraine. The child concerned, known only as IJ, was caught in a legal black hole, with no legal parents and no nationality anywhere in the world because UK law said that the Ukrainian surrogate and her husband were the parents, and Ukrainian law said that the British commissioning couple were the parents. To protect IJ’s welfare, the High Court decided to endorse the foreign commercial surrogacy arrangement, even though payments for surrogacy in the UK are normally prohibited.

The case follows a previous case from 2008, the first to ratify a foreign commercial surrogacy arrangement, in which twins born ‘stateless and parentless’ in the Ukraine were also rescued by the High Court. In the case announced this week, the court emphasised that the British parents had ‘done their conscientious best to act lawfully and to prepare for all contingencies but had been misled by some unduly simplistic advice from the Ukrainian surrogacy agency’.

Mr Justice Hedley said he had made the unusual move of publishing his decision in order “to emphasise the legal difficulties that overseas surrogacy agreements can create. In the experience of the court to date, overseas jursidictions can confer parental status on the commissioning couple but that status is not recognised in our domestic law… Those who travel abroad to make these arrangements really should take advice from those skilled in our domestic law to be sure as to the problems that will confront them… Reliance on advice from overseas agencies is dangerous as the provisions of our domestic and immigraiton law are often not fully understood.”

The case highlights how important it is for Brits considering overseas surrogacy to know that favourable law abroad won’t protect you worldwide. Being named on a foreign birth certificate, or even having a foreign court order which names you as the parents, will not be enough to make you the parents in the UK or to ensure that you can bring your baby home.

The case also highlights the growing problems caused by mismatched international surrogacy laws worldwide. The French court last week had to consider a similar case involving a French couple with two surrogate children born in the USA, where they were named on the birth certificates. Unlike the UK decision, the French court ruled that the couple could not be treated as their children’s legal parents under French law.

More information about international surrogacy is available on our website, as well as further information about the cases of Re IJ (2011) and Re X and Y (2008), in both of which we acted successfully for the parents.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in international surrogacy, Natalie Gamble, Natalie Gamble Associates news, UK surrogacy | Comments Off

Natalie Gamble speaks at Progress Educational Trust Annual Conference: Cross Border Reproductive Care – Who oversees overseas?

Sunday, December 5th, 2010

Natalie Gamble was delighted to address the Progress Educational Trust’s Annual Conference on 24 November 2010, speaking to an eminent audience about the legal issues for patients having fertility treatment overseas, including donor conception and international surrogacy.

Reproduced below is Rachel Lyons’ article about the event, which appeared in BioNews 586

In a cold room at the Institute of Child Health in London, talk turned to warmer climes during session two of the Progress Educational Trust (PET)’s conference ‘Passport to Parenthood’. Even though the temperature of the room was cold, the debate surrounding who does (and should) oversee overseas cross-border reproductive care ‘hotted up’.

The session was chaired by Dr Evan Harris, adviser to the Social Liberal Forum and former Liberal Democrat Shadow Science Minister. The main aim of this session was to provide an overview of the current legal and regulatory frameworks surrounding cross-border care and to establish whether any changes are required.

The first panellist of the session was Juliet Tizzard, Head of Policy at the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). The HFEA is the UK’s fertility regulator and has a clear responsibility for regulating the activities of fertility centres in the UK. Juliet’s talk mainly focused on the question of whether this responsibility applies to overseas reproductive treatments.

Juliet began by outlining three ways in which the HFEA (and its clinics) has a responsibility, role or duty in relation to cross-border reproductive care. Namely: to inform the patient about the possibility of going abroad for services, to refer them abroad for reproductive services, or to be involved in the shared care arrangement system between the UK, European Union (EU) member states and internationally.

Juliet said the circumstances surrounding shared care arrangements cause the most problems for the HFEA. According to Juliet, the HFEA has sought legal advice on the extent of its powers to regulate the activities of UK licensed clinics which enter into a shared care arrangement. The advice that the HFEA received was unequivocal. The HFEA has almost no powers over clinics that provide information about or refer patients to clinics in other countries.

Regardless of this however, Juliet explained that the HFEA does expect centres, whether referring patients abroad or recommending shared, cross-border care, to provide patients with information about the consequences of having treatment outside the UK. For instance, patients having donor conception treatment abroad should be made aware that they (and their resultant child/children) will not be able to request information from the HFEA about their donor.

Juliet concluded by saying the HFEA will soon be revising the information they provide to patients and will make details available after they’ve concluded a consultation in January 2011. The HFEA hopes this will help those considering whether or not to travel abroad to understand the advantages and disadvantages. This, in turn, will help patients find the clinic that best meets their needs and will enable them to make informed treatment choices at their chosen clinic.

Second to speak was Natalie Gamble, who was introduced as the UK’s leading fertility lawyer and a founding partner of Gamble and Ghevaert LLP. The main focus of Natalie’s talk was the issues surrounding the patchwork of laws and regulations governing cross-border reproductive care. As she said: ‘the law is struggling to catch up’. Natalie’s primary concern was the information available on donor rights, parenthood and international surrogacy arrangements.

Natalie started by confirming information on country of conception is key for patients. Potential patients may not have the same protection that they might have had in their home country. The problem is many are not aware of this and how it might impact on their situation.

People need to be concerned about whether they will be treated as the legal parent of a child born to a surrogate. Natalie said the law of the person’s home country applies. In the UK, a child’s father and mother have parental responsibility for the child if they were married to each other at the time of his or her birth. Where a child’s mother and father were not married to each other at the time of his or her birth, only the mother has automatic parental responsibility for the child.

Natalie used surrogacy in cross-border situations as the perfect illustration of where the intended mother and father may have immense difficulty claiming legal parenthood over the child. As Natalie put it, ‘there is no harmonisation here’. Different countries take radically different stances. She cited the case of re X and Y (Foreign Surrogacy) 2008 to highlight how difficult the situation can be. The case concerned a British couple who went to the Ukraine to undergo surrogacy, but the child faced considerable immigration difficulties. Under Ukrainian law, the commissioning couple were treated as the child’s parents from birth so the surrogate mother was not the child’s mother.

Under UK law, which applied to the commissioning couple, they could not be treated as the child’s parents without a court order. The child was potentially then both stateless and parentless. The judge in the case The Hon. Mr Justice Hedley cautioned those contemplating parenthood by entering into a foreign surrogacy agreement because of the possibility of unintended consequences.

Natalie concluded her talk by making three clear statements. First, there needs to be better public information available for those considering cross-border reproductive care. Second, the law globally is struggling immensely with this area. And lastly, we have to remember that ultimately, the first priority is to the resulting child and ensuring that they are protected.

The third speaker on the panel was James Lawford-Davies, who is a solicitor and partner at Lawford Davies Denoon. His talk focused on the EU’s approach to cross-border care. He explained each EU member state has an obligation to protect the free movement of persons and services and there should be no restrictions on this right. He provided the example of the landmark case of Yvonne Watts who challenged this right all the way to the European Court of Justice.

Even with this landmark case, James emphasised that the law remains uncertain. However, it is hoped that the draft Directive concerning the application of patient’s rights in cross-border healthcare will provide more legal certainty on the quality and safety standards across the EU. James did show slight concern for the margin of appreciation aspect of the Directive, which will mean provisions will be in place to enable member states to enact limitations on certain treatments. However, James (and the audience) did seem pleased the Directive might enforce the requirement that Member States have to provide information about the procedures and services available.

The final speaker of the session was Zeynep Gürtin-Broadbent, a research fellow at the Centre for Family Research at the University of Cambridge. Zeynep began her talk by discussing the difficulty in defining cross-border reproduction, as it is a new and rapidly evolving problem with a lack of empirical data. However, she was comforted by the fact that there are a large number of studies being undertaken, which should provide us with greater insight in the near future.

Zeynep questioned the diversity of cross-border reproduction, namely who/what is doing the travelling (intending parents, donors, the import and export of gametes) and the reason for this travel. Zeynep suggested four categories illustrating why people might go to a different country for reproductive treatment: 1) travel for legal restrictions, 2) resource scarcity, 3) safety concerns and 4) personal preferences.

Zeynep believes that it should be down to the regulators to tackle the issue of patients going abroad. She believes the regulators need to assess whether the current law is fit for purpose. She suggested the harmonisation of laws is a burden for the EU and individual member states to resolve. Zeynep believes there needs to be sound empirical evidence and creative thinking to solve these dilemmas.

The discussion that followed covered issues of the welfare and interest of the child, the disparity of the information available and the issues surrounding surrogacy and legal parenthood. The final word final word must go to Juliet Tizzard who said that ‘[the HFEA] is not wanting to wash their hands of this issue’. We await the results of the consultation, which will be launched in January, with interest. A report on the third session of the conference will be published in next week’s BioNews. PET is grateful to the conference’s gold sponsors Merck Serono.

There is more information about international surrogacy law, fertility law in the UK and donor conception law on our website.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in donor conception, fertility law, international surrogacy, Natalie Gamble, Natalie Gamble Associates news, UK surrogacy | Comments Off

Today’s Observer: New surrogacy laws ease the path to parenthood for gay men

Sunday, March 28th, 2010

By Robin McKie, science editor, The Observer, Sunday 28 March 2010

Changes to legislation will recognise growing trend for same-sex couples to become parents, say campaigners.

Gay male couples will be able to use a fast-track route to become the legal parents of surrogate children from next week. On 6 April, changes to the law will permit two men to be named as parents on a child’s birth certificate for the first time in British history.

The transition will take effect following the implementation of the final piece of the 2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. This last section is aimed at helping same-sex and unmarried couples who seek to have surrogate children and will allow them to secure legal parenthood in a new, simplified manner. At present, only married, heterosexual couples can use this route.

“These changes bring the law up to date with the realities of modern 21st-century life and recognise that increasing numbers of same-sex and unmarried couples are having children together,” said Natalie Gamble, of the fertility law firm Gamble and Ghevaert.

Surrogacy has become increasingly common and offers couples an alternative route to parenthood if all other methods, including IVF treatments, fail. Current legislation allows heterosexual, married couples to get a parental order to give them a birth certificate for a child born to a mother with whom they have entered into a surrogacy agreement. But gay, lesbian and unmarried couples cannot do this. The surrogate mother has to be named on the birth certificate. If she is married, her husband is legally considered to be the father.

An example is provided by the story of Steven Ponder and his partner, Ivan Sigston. Both are police officers. Last year, they became one of the first gay couples to father a baby in Britain when Ponder’s married sister, Lorna Bradley, gave birth to a boy, William.

Crucially, however, Lorna Bradley’s name appeared on the birth certificate, which made her a legal guardian of the child. Ponder and Sigston could have applied to adopt the baby. If successful, they would have been given an adoption certificate to replace his original birth certificate. But adoption is complex and involves the intervention of social workers and other professional groups.

The new system is far more streamlined. Provided that a court is satisfied that two men are in a stable relationship; that no fees, other than expenses, are paid to the surrogate mother; and that it is in the child’s best interest, then it will award a parental order for a birth certificate to be drawn up with both men named as parents, and therefore legal guardians. “Lesbian couples and unmarried couples usually have other routes available to them if they want to have children, but surrogacy is particularly important to gay men, so they will get most out of this change in legislation,” said Gamble.In effect, the law has now opened the doors in order to make it easy for a gay man and his partner to have children.

This point was backed by Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, the gay rights campaign group: “We are delighted that the reality of people’s family lives is being recognised at last, that both lesbian and gay couples no longer have to go through the unpleasantness of an adoption procedure.”

Gamble warned, however, that while the new legislation would make it easier for gay couples to have children, the rules governing surrogacy in the UK remained badly out of date.

“There are particular pitfalls for single parents and those going abroad. In the latter case, a couple returning to England with a surrogate child find that the law does not recognise their right to parenthood. It can cause immense distress. There are a lot of aspects of surrogacy that now need to be addressed urgently.”

More information about surrogacy law, international surrogacy law, and how the law is changing for same sex and unmarried couples from Gamble and Ghevaert LLP.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in fertility law, gay men surrogacy, international surrogacy, Natalie Gamble, Natalie Gamble Associates news, UK surrogacy | Comments Off

The art of baby making

Monday, January 11th, 2010

Deciding that the time is right to build a family is a defining moment in your life. However, unfortunately this is all too often just the start of a long and difficult journey to parenthood, fraught with many potential problems and pitfalls along the way. Whether you are a single gay man or woman or in a relationship, there is a definite art to building a family and making babies.

The problems

For prospective same-sex parents the obvious biological difficulties create major hurdles to overcome in the baby making process. Decisions inevitably have to be made about sourcing anonymous or known donor sperm, donor eggs, surrogacy or the merits of co-parenting. The wrong decision at the outset can lead to all manner of problems further down the line.

Many people are often short of time, lack peace of mind about their choice or feel overwhelmed by the different options for creating a family. Issues of, timing, cost, treatment and general logistics can lead to knee jerk decisions, wasted time and money, legal complications and a lot of heartache.

Take for example John, a successful marketing consultant, who’s always wanted a family of his own and feels the time is right to get started. What are his options as a single gay man? He could adopt, co-parent with a female friend, consider surrogacy in the UK or abroad or get himself a partner with children. However, there is so much to get to grips with in terms of understanding the fertility sector as a whole, knowing the fertility treatment options and tackling the often complex underlying legal issues. John simply doesn’t know where to start and he doesn’t want to mess things up. His concerns often keep him awake at night and are stopping him from taking the plunge.

Solutions

John should be encouraged to know that he isn’t alone in his wish to build a family and there is good quality of advice and information out there if he knows where to look. Once he appreciates the bigger picture and takes more control, family building and baby making becomes easier. So, what are some of the basics John should think about?

Navigating the fertility and parenting sector

John would benefit enormously from a greater understanding of how the law works. John needs to get clear in his own mind whether he wants parental autonomy or whether he would be happy to share parenting and if so the degree of his involvement on a day to day basis.

John then needs to think about the practicalities of achieving his goal. He will need to understand better the wide range of services available in the fertility and parenting sector. These include UK licensed fertility clinics, the issues surrounding informal conception, the role of the not-for-profit organisations in the UK including Infertility Network UK, Donor Conception Network, COTS, Surrogacy UK, the British Association for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF), the framework surrounding fertility treatment in the UK and options if he were to build a family abroad.

If John decides that conception is the way to go, understanding the basic different fertility treatment options is key. It may be stating the obvious, but no one is born knowing the difference between IVF, IUI, ICSI, straight or host surrogacy, and it makes sense to take a little time to explore these at the outset. This can help John to gather more information and medical help and support with better efficiency.

Underlying legal issues

John shouldn’t be fooled into thinking that everything will be straightforward legally. Building a family through assisted conception often creates a legal minefield. The law isn’t always logical and he really does need to understand the legal basics, including legal parenthood, parental responsibility, issues of citizenship and the importance of family-proofing his Will.

Having a family is no longer the preserve of straight couples. Time have changed and with recent improvements to the law there are now more options than ever to build a family and become a parent. You just need to know how to go about it in the right way.

For more information on our family building service see our website.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Co-parenting, donor conception, family building, gay men surrogacy, international surrogacy, UK surrogacy | Comments Off

Leading journal International Family Law publishes article on international surrogacy law

Friday, December 4th, 2009

The November edition of leading international law journal, International Family Law has published our substantial article ‘The chosen middle ground: England, surrogacy law and the international arena’.  The article discusses the problems of international surrogacy law from the UK perspective and takes stock of the history of surrogacy law in the UK, explaining how the law has evolved over the past 25 years through the Warnock Report, the 1985 Surrogacy Arrangements Act, the 1990 legislation, the Brazier Report and the most recent changes in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, and examines where surrogacy law in the UK now stands.

Without harmonisation of international surrogacy laws, and in an increasingly globalised world in which prospective parents are increasingly crossing borders for fertility treatment, UK fertility law simply has not kept pace. The article examines the legal problems which arise for foreign couples coming to the UK for surrogacy, and the difficulties for British couples conceiving through surrogacy abroad (looking in particular at the importance of the Re X and Y case which involved a British-Ukrainian surrogacy arrangement and which we dealt with in the High Court a year ago). The article considers the way forward, arguing that international surrogacy law desperately needs to be reviewed.

If you would like to read the article in full, please contact us for a copy.

More information about international surrogacy law from our website.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in fertility law, gay men surrogacy, international surrogacy, Natalie Gamble, Natalie Gamble Associates news, UK surrogacy | Comments Off

21st Century Surrogacy in the UK: bust or boom?

Friday, May 29th, 2009

There is no denying that the demand for surrogacy is rising. It is no longer the taboo subject it once was, with India and certain US states widely reported as surrogacy “hotspots” and high profile celebrities, such as Sarah Jessica Parker, having embraced surrogacy. Restrictive laws in the UK are driving increasing numbers of British people abroad for surrogacy and many are unwittingly falling foul of English law as a result with serious consequences. The middle ground, which England adopted decades ago to deal with small numbers of altruistic surrogacy arrangements, can no longer cope with the realities of widely available foreign commercial surrogacy. English surrogacy law is now demonstrably inadequate.

The question is what should be done about it? The problem is complex and it raises difficult ethical issues.

One of the most basic objectives of English surrogacy law has been to restrict the payment of more than reasonable expenses to surrogate mothers, reflecting concerns about the exploitation of surrogate mothers, commodification of surrogate-born children and contravention of social beliefs that, just as body parts cannot be sold, neither should such intimate services.

Existing surrogacy law was also made to reflect the sanctity of marriage and in the belief that no mother should be forced to hand over a baby to whom she has given birth. As a result English law states that the surrogate mother is always the legal mother of the surrogate born child (even if the commissioning mother’s or donor eggs have been used) and that the surrogate’s husband is always the legal father unless it can be shown he did not consent to the surrogacy arrangement (which is rare in practice).

The net legal result is that British couples conceiving abroad using a married surrogate (and most surrogates tend to be married as they are deemed to be more stable and secure) have no legal connection with their surrogate-born child. The legal parents are the surrogate mother and her husband. The commissioning parents have no right to care for the child in the UK, may fall foul of immigration law and entry clearance provisions and cannot confer British citizenship. To make matters worse, they are likely to have paid more than reasonable expenses if their payments to the surrogate mother contained any element of a “reward”. The reward element then requires close judicial scrutiny and authorisation as part of a complex parental order application to reassign legal parenthood from the surrogate parents to the commissioning parents and resolve the legal problems.

Solution

The long term solution must be changes in the law. This needs joined up thinking to take into account other legislation (most notably immigration and children law). But inevitably, there will be no quick fix, leaving increasing numbers of people in a legal minefield.

Legislative change requires public debate and the government should consider commissioning an up to date in-depth report on surrogacy. The government last commissioned such a report in 1997 (The Brazier Report) although no action was ever taken to implement its recommendations. Surrogacy needs to be revisited and examined from the perspective of life as it is now – with ready access to the internet and more accessible fertility treatment worldwide. Difficult ethical and moral questions need examination and this is a challenging exercise requiring the best minds and a cross section of society.

In the meantime, there needs to be better access to good quality information about surrogacy and the legal implications. At present, all too often people discover the legal difficulties after conception or birth and are then caught like rabbits in a headlight. Fertility clinics, public bodies, not for profit institutions and lawyers need to do more to communicate the issues effectively to those contemplating or undergoing surrogacy.

The issue of commercial payments needs careful review. Is it right or fair and reasonable to continue to prohibit commercial surrogacy? The current middle ground approach, which allows the authorisation of commercial payments by a judge after the event, is a costly, lengthy and cumbersome way of dealing with matters on a case by case basis. Commercial surrogacy is a ticking time-bomb and one that looks set to explode.

The issue of legal parenthood needs re-examination. Should a surrogate mother’s husband be treated as legal father (even where he has no biological connection)? If not, this may be one way of short-circuiting some of the practical issues associated with foreign surrogacy, affording the commissioning parents some legal rights and responsibilities for their surrogate child automatically from birth. However, it would not protect and resolve the commissioning mother’s legal position, leaving her without any legal status for the child and arguably not in her or the surrogate-born child’s best interests longer term.

Assessment of different ways of resolving the legal issues surrounding surrogacy issues, to include the possibility of pre-birth orders may also be useful. Commissioning parents crave greater certainty because surrogacy contracts are unenforceable under English law and because the surrogate parents currently have an absolute veto and can prevent the making of a parental order if they so chose. The removal of the non extendable six month deadline for application for a parental order should also be considered.

Practically speaking, it is no longer an option to leave the issue of surrogacy in abeyance. Surrogacy laws and practice need to be reviewed as a matter of urgency. The foreign surrogacy industry is booming and the foundations upon which English surrogacy law were made look set to bust at any moment.

More information from our website about international surrogacy law.

 

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in UK surrogacy | Comments Off

Natalie Gamble warns of the legal problems of foreign surrogacy in today’s Evening Standard

Friday, May 29th, 2009

Today’s Evening Standard has highlighted the potential legal minefield for British parents of foreign-born surrogate children. Following extensive coverage of the boom in Indian surrogacy earlier in the week (and the leading case of Re X and Y which was the first English case to explore the legal problems for British couples who go abroad for surrogacy), today’s Evening Standard article, which quotes Natalie Gamble as a leading fertility law expert, focuses on the legal problems and the urgent need for a review of the law in the UK. Read the Evening Standard article ‘Parents who hire foreign surrogates risk losing children’.

More on international surrogacy law and the problems with current surrogacy laws from our website.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in UK surrogacy | Comments Off

Natalie Gamble joins growing media debate on Indian surrogacy

Friday, May 22nd, 2009

We are delighted that the London Evening Standard is raising awareness about this important issue. See Natalie’s comments quoted in the Evening Standard yesterday.

Read more about international surrogacy law on our website.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Natalie Gamble Associates news, UK surrogacy | Comments Off

Pioneering lawyer Natalie Gamble launches UK’s first fertility law firm

Monday, May 18th, 2009

The UK’s first fertility law firm opens for business today. Founded by high profile fertility lawyer Natalie Gamble and parenting lawyer Louisa Ghevaert, Gamble and Ghevaert LLP is the first solicitors’ firm in the UK to specialise exclusively in fertility and parenting law. The new niche firm will offer leading expertise to parents conceiving through fertility treatment and in non-traditional family structures.

“The law in this area is complex and much of it brand new” say Natalie and Louisa. “There are growing numbers of parents starting or structuring their families in unusual ways including families with more than two parents, same sex parents, children conceived using frozen embryos or donor gametes or the help of a surrogate. They need legal experts who can provide sensitive, cutting edge advice on difficult and often unprecedented legal questions, both about conception and later parenting issues.”

Natalie Gamble is widely known as a leading fertility lawyer and was a prominent commentator on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. She has passionately championed the rights of fertility patients, and was last year nominated by gay rights organisation Stonewall as a Hero of the Year for her work supporting the new rights for gay and lesbian parents. Louisa Ghevaert is an experienced family law litigator, who brings to the firm a wealth of experience of dealing with parenting disputes.

“Our launch of Gamble and Ghevaert LLP is timely” say Natalie and Louisa. “ The new parenthood rules have just come into force, and the rest of the Act is due to take effect later this year. It’s a time when patients need guidance on how the law affects them.”

As part of the launch, Natalie and Louisa unveil the Gamble and Ghevaert website today (www.nataliegambleassociates.co.uk). The first comprehensive resource of its kind, it contains a wealth of information about fertility and parenting law and looks sure to become a staple resource for patients and parents.

“Increasing public knowledge and understanding of fertility and parenting law issues is all part of our passion for our subject” say Natalie and Louisa. “We are immensely excited to be launching the first fertility law firm in the UK and we will do all we can to help improve the lot of parents and fertility patients.”

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Natalie Gamble Associates news | Comments Off

Newer Entries »