Gamble & Ghevaert

Posts Tagged ‘Natalie Gamble’

NGA at the G3 awards celebrating gay and lesbian achievement

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.

Natalie on the Today Programme – who should have the rights where a surrogate baby is disabled?

Thursday, March 7th, 2013

Natalie was interviewed by James Naughtie on this morning’s BBC Radio 4 Today Programme about surrogacy (listen again here). The programme covered a US surrogacy case which hit the news after a US surrogate mother refused to terminate her pregnancy at 21 weeks when it was discovered that the baby would be born severely disabled.

In the UK, surrogacy law gives all the rights to the woman who carries the pregnancy – she is the legal mother. Although a case like this has never happened in the UK, if it did there would be no doubt (as there was under US law) that the surrogate mother would hold all the cards. But is this the right approach?

In practice, we know on the ground that surrogacy disputes are incredibly rare. For the vast majority of cases, it would make more sense for the intended (biological) parents, rather than the surrogate, to have legal responsibilities much earlier – it’s what everyone involved wants, and the long delay transferring parenthood leaves children vulnerable for far too long. And where there are disputes, we need a more sophisticated approach to balancing the interests of all involved – surrogate, parents and child.

The real lesson of this case is that we can avoid problems like this by giving the right support at the start. Parents and surrogates need to communicate clearly, and those with radically mismatched views on termination should not proceed together. That is why it is so crazy that UK surrogacy law goes out of its way to deny those going into surrogacy arrangements the support they need. Under UK law, surrogacy contracts are unenforceable and illegal for lawyers to draft, and professional matching and brokering services are prohibited by criminal law. It’s time for that to change.

There is more information about surrogacy law and our campaigning work on our website.

Landmark High Court ruling on sperm donation and same sex parenting

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.

NGA in Metro – should commercial surrogacy be legalised?

Friday, January 25th, 2013

Metro featured a big spread on Wednesday asking whether commercial surrogacy should be made legal in the UK.

Read Natalie’s comments on the increasing acceptance of surrogacy, and the need to create a more structured legal framework, as well as legal changes urgently needed to include single parents and to give intended parents legal status from birth. The Metro article is here.

You can also find out more about surrogacy law and our campaigning work from our website. Follow us on Twitter if you want to get involved.

Natalie talks to Red Magazine on the 101 ways to make a family

Tuesday, January 22nd, 2013

Red Magazine has a feature this month about alternative routes to parenthood. From Melanie and her husband who have surrogate twiblings born five days apart, to gay dads with twins created with the same egg donor but each of their sperm (something we actually see quite a lot of), Kate Bussmann shows just how much is now possible, and the positive impact that increasing diversity is having.

Natalie talks about our experience on the ground of working with non traditional families and says:

“I’m constantly surprised by how many variations there are on having a child, the technologies available and the situations people get themselves into… Gay families are obviously different, so they are inevitably having those conversations with children and developing the language. I think it’s helping heterosexual couples deal with some of those issues, because they can see same-sex couples dealing with it in such a positive way. We have experienced a real cultural shift, particularly with donor conception – 20 or 30 years ago, heterosexual couples were told it was best never to tell the child. Now everyone is encouraged to be open and treat it as a positive thing. It’s a complete revolution in thinking. “

The article has a positive message, with stories including that of Fiona O’Driscoll of Surrogacy UK whose surrogate is now ‘Auntie Kate’ to her kids, and research from Stonewall which shows that children with same sex parents are just as likely to be happy as any others. It explores how gay parents are helping to push some positive trends, and how language is evolving fast to keep up.

It’s great to see such a positive piece, which really does reflect what we see on the ground every day. As Kate Bussmann says so eloquently: “And of all the parents I spoke to, gay or straight, with donors or surrogacy, the stories were almost entirely positive. They’re proud of forging their own version of ‘normal’ and more than one of them described the ‘richness’ that comes with having all those extra people in their lives.”

Amen to that.

You can read the Red feature in full here, or find out more about surrogacy, donor conception and our campaigning work from our website.

The Independent reports rise in international surrogacy

Tuesday, January 15th, 2013

The Independent newspaper has criticised the sharp rise in international surrogacy arrangements, quoting Natalie on UK surrogacy law. Responding to a study newly published in the Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, the Independent says that international surrogacy urgently needs regulating to prevent child trafficking, just like inter-country adoption a generation ago. It points to the rise in rich westerners accessing surrogacy in poor countries like India, and highlights how UK law fails to stop the practice and simply gives parents a ‘rap on the knuckles’ after the event.

At NGA we are proud to have helped parents win legal parental status after international surrogacy. We believe it is the right outcome for much-wanted families who are trying to navigate outdated law. The process is not easy, and the UK court applies great care and sophistication, keeping its focus quite rightly on the welfare of the child.

Surrogacy is very different from adoption, because it involves parents conceiving their own biological child. Collaborative reproduction can be positive – a win-win process which addness richness to the lives of all involved, including the cherished child. But there are potential problems too. The worry is that women will be pushed (whether by exploitative intermediaries or by environmental factors like poverty) into becoming surrogate mothers without fully understanding the risks or without free consent. This is what regulation needs to deal with, not placing restrictions on parents.

And before we start criticising countries like India, let’s get our own house in order. The lack of up to date law and regulation in the UK is what is driving parents abroad for surrogacy. We don’t need to stop parents crossing borders; we need to make surrogacy safer, easier and better regulated in the UK so they don’t need to.

You can read the Independent article here (and a follow up article in the Daily Mail). You can find out more about international surrogacy law and our campaigning on surrogacy from our website.

Natalie on Woman’s Hour talking about known sperm donors

Tuesday, November 20th, 2012

Natalie was interviewed on BBC Radio 4 Woman’s Hour on Thursday on the topic of private sperm donation. The programme feature NGA client Mark Langridge (the donor who has been pursued for child support by the CSA twelve years after donating his sperm to a lesbian couple) and Laura Witjens, Chief Executive of the National Gamete Donation Trust, with Jenni Murray asking ‘what makes a father’?

You can listen to Natalie on Woman’s Hour here.

At NGA, we advise many prospective parents (and donors) considering a known donation arrangement, helping them to set things up with the strongest foundations.

We sadly also help people whose known donation arrangements have broken down, both representing donors pursued for child support and lesbian and solo parents whose donors seek more involvement than they want.

You can find out more from our website about known donation and about known donor disputes.

Maternity leave rights to be introduced for parents through surrogacy

Thursday, November 15th, 2012

Some days I feel very proud of what we do here, and today is one of those days. After a campaign of more than five years, I am thrilled to post that the government announced yesterday that they would be introducing adoption leave (equivalent to maternity leave) rights for parents through surrogacy.

Until now, parents whose biological child is carried by another woman have had no rights to time off work when their new baby arrives, unlike parents who give birth or who adopt a child. This has been grossly unfair, and resulted in parents through surrogacy having to quit their jobs or go back to work if their employer does not (or cannot) give leave on a discretionary basis.

The new rights will be introduced as part of the government’s maternity leave and adoption leave reforms, expected to come into force in 2015. Although the full detail has yet to be confirmed, we know that parents through surrogacy will be entitled to two antenatal appointments during the pregnancy, and adoption leave after the birth. This will be available to all couples eligible to apply for a parental order, including heterosexual parents and gay dads. Surrogate mothers will also retain their right to maternity leave to recover from giving birth.

More information is available in the government’s response to the consultation on modern workplaces which says:

We propose that intended parents in surrogacy cases who satisfy the criteria for a Parental
Order and intend to apply, or have applied, to a court for a Parental Order will be entitled to
leave and pay on the same basis as adopters who are eligible for statutory adoption leave
and pay, subject to the qualifying conditions and evidential requirements. In addition, both
intended parents will be entitled to take unpaid time off to attend two antenatal appointments
with the surrogate mother carrying their child.

What is so exciting about the change, as well as the practical legal rights it will introduce for new parents, is that this is the very first time in UK legal history that parents through surrogacy have been recognised as having any rights in advance of the birth of their child. This is a very significant recognition that surrogacy is real and here to stay, and hopefully a first step towards wider reform of our surrogacy laws.

There is more information about surrogacy law on our website, and more about our campaigning work.

Should surrogate mothers still have an absolute right to change their minds?

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2012

Natalie has written a comment piece for Bionews criticising the unchallengeable position surrogate mothers are currently given by UK surrogacy law.

The law in the UK has long provided that the woman who gives birth is the legal mother. In surrogacy cases, the intended parents (one or both of whom must be the biological parents) can apply to the family court to have parenthood reassigned to them, but they are entirely dependent on the surrogate and her husband/civil partner giving their consent. If it is withheld, they cannot become the legal parents. Conversely, if the intended parents do not take responsibility, the surrogate has no means of holding them both legally responsible for the life they have created.

Natalie criticises the law as being outdated in a modern age in which surrogacy is becoming more common. Very few arrangements do go wrong (a proportion of roughly 0.02%) and where things run to plan, the current law means that parental responsibility is left in the wrong hands for far too long, contrary to everyone’s wishes and the best interests of the child. In the rare cases where things go wrong, the courts in practice decide care arrangements flexibly on a best interests basis, but legal parentage can remain unresolved forever.

It is time for us to introduce law which deals with surrogacy in a much more sophisticated way, understanding that it is a collaborative process in which the rights and responsibilities of everyone involved – the surrogate, her partner, the intended parents and the child – all need to be carefully balanced. This is what both surrogates and parents want, and what is in the best interests of children born through surrogacy.

You can read Natalie’s comment piece Should surrogate mothers still have an absolute right to change their minds? or find out more about surrogacy law from our website.

Progress Educational Trust, which publishes Bionews, is a wonderful charity which does crucial work informing debate on assisted conception and genetics. You can donate to PET or subscribe to Bionews by clicking here.

International surrogacy – judge awards parenthood to gay dads after Indian surrogate ‘disappears’

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2012

The Telegraph and Daily Mail have today reported the international surrogacy case of D and L (surrogacy) 2012. The case marks a legal first: the court agreeing to make a parental order after the surrogate mother could not be found to give her consent. We are proud to have worked with the parents on this case to help win legal security for their family.

What happened?

A UK same sex couple had twin boys through an Indian surrogacy arrangement. They had taken legal advice at the outset and knew they would need their surrogate’s consent, after the birth, to become the legal parents under UK law.

They became concerned during the pregnancy that their clinic might not be as helpful as they had thought, so we wrote to the clinic explaining what was needed, and the clinic confirmed they would help. However, after the birth, the clinic refused to secure the surrogate’s notarised consent. As a final insult, our clients were sent a couriered package which they thought finally contained the consent document they desperately needed – instead it contained a single sheet of paper with a sketch of an obscene gesture. They then tried to track their surrogate down themselves, but the address they had been given for the surrogate was a false one and they could not find her.

They applied to the UK court for a parental order and asked the judge to help. Focusing on the need to give the boys legal security with their parents throughout their lifetime (and our clients’ extensive efforts to obtain the required consents), Mr Justice Baker in the High Court made them their sons’ legal parents without the surrogate’s confirmed consent.

What does the law say?

UK law requires parents who have a child through surrogacy to make an application to the family court, after the birth, for a ‘parental order’. Once granted, a parental order makes them their child’s legal parents in the UK.

The criteria for getting a parental order are strict and include that the surrogate mother (and her husband if she is married) must consent to the order being made ‘fully, freely and unconditionally’. The surrogate’s consent is ineffective if given less than six weeks after the birth – the same rule that applies if a woman gives up a child for adoption.

There is, however, a limited exception: consent is not required if the surrogate ‘cannot be found’. That power has always existed in the law, but until now has never been exercised.

What significance does the case have?

Mr Justice Baker made it clear that the power to waive consent should not be exercised lightly. Before making a parental order without the surrogate’s consent, the court must take into account the extent of efforts made to find her, and whether there is any other evidence indicating she would have been likely to have consented if found.

It is worth noting that this case does not involve a parental order being given against the surrogate’s wishes. Surrogate mothers have always under UK law had an unchallengeable right to change their mind. Whether this remains appropriate is another question but this is not what this case was about.

What to know if you are considering Indian surrogacy

The parents in this case did everything they should have done: they understood the legal processes they would need to follow, and had asked their clinic to help them comply with the requirements of UK law, which they promised to do. The fact that things went wrong was not their fault, and they were let down badly by their clinic.

While the case is, in our experience, very unusual, it does highlight that doing surrogacy in an unregulated jurisdiction is a risky business, and that parents place an enormous amount of trust in a clinic or agency a very long way away.

If you are considering Indian surrogacy, what can you do to protect yourselves?

1. Work with a reputable clinic which has a track record dealing with UK parents successfully and helping get the requisite consents.

2. Make sure that everyone understands from the outset that there will be papers for the surrogate (and her husband) to sign after the birth.

3. If possible, have direct and personal contact with your surrogate yourselves so that you are not entirely dependent on your clinic (although in practice most good clinics can make the process significantly easier by facilitating things for you).

There is more information about Indian and international surrogacy on our website.