women & surrogacy arrangements

It's 4 minutes long but this video that a friend shared on FB today far more closely reflects my own experiences of surrogacy. www.facebook.com/tasha.beer.9/videos/10154490515644292/

oddboots Thanks for the clarification.

The only issue I would see with making surrogacy illegal is that people would do it on the 'black market'

Yes, although in a way it already is a black market (unless they go through a UK clinic which is regulated as old boots did). The case in the OP was completely unregulated until the men brought it to court. That's the problem, the regulation only starts once the child has been born and the adults go to court to sort out the parenthood issues. By that point you have an existing child and want to do what is in their best interests but in doing that the courts often end up retrospectively approving pretty dodgy exploitative set-ups as in the 'obscene gesture' case I posted above or as could have happened in this case if the judge had decided the child was better off with the more affluent, educated men.

If you made it illegal you'd still have to decide what to do with the resulting child and it would seem pretty harsh to do something that was worse for that child just to uphold the spirit of the law.

Caroldecker - a father could prevent a mother putting a child up for adoption if he himself would take on the parenting - in such a case the mother would pay maintenance.

Once you officially give a child up for adoption you are not liable to maintain it.

Could a man use this to get out of paying maintenance or is this option only available to women?

That was a very chilling read, I am pleased X seemed to have good support and it beggars belief why A and B are allowed to retain custody of their twins from Y.

The only issue I would see with making surrogacy illegal is that people would do it on the 'black market', and women would be exploited further, perhaps being forced to use ineffective and dangerous ways of conception, such as PIV sex they don't want or a 'turkey baster' style method.

that should read 'She retains her rights/responsibilities despite the 'adoption'' sorry - trying to do too many things at once!

Any woman who gives birth to a child can give up all rights and responsibilities for that child. There are formal procedures for doing so.

If you are talking about the law in this country then the only way of doing that is through adoption or, in surrogacy cases, through parental orders, which as Old Boots says are essentially a form of adoption. VV is saying that even if there is a parental order and the birth mother has consented to the 'adoption' she should keep her rights. As parental rights are really about responsibilities I am guessing that also means she remains responsible.

That's quite an odd position. Imagine two women who give birth on the same day and want to give the child up. One has a child who is genetically hers, she can have the child adopted and lose all her rights/responsibilities as soon as the adoption goes through. The other is not genetically related to the child and always intended to hand the child to the genetic parents. She can't retains her rights/responsibilities despite the 'adoption'. It's not really clear why there should be that distinction, unless VV means that it shouldn't be possible in either case.

The courts and their reps I was involved with spoke of parental order as a form of adoption. I needed to sign to give up my rights and it was made very clear what that meant. It's also important to remember that however any of the adults involved feel at the absolute centre is a child and their rights trump everyone else's.

It's quite common for example for a step parent to adopt their spouse's natural child. The other natural parent is then out of the picture.

Once you officially give a child up for adoption you are not liable to maintain it.

It is possible in Scotland ( or certainly used to be ) for an unmarried father to adopt his own child. The child became legitimate that way. The rules on legitimacy have changed so that may be a historic quirk. But adoption still severs all responsibility.

Lass I can see that working if the child is adopted. But can the father raise the child and claim maintenance from the mother?

I agree Trixy I used to be OK with it, whether heterosexual or homosexual couples but have definitely changed my mind.

They really didn't give a shit about her health or circumstances did they? I used to be ok with surrogacy but I've read a few really concerning cases now.

And equally of course setting genuine unsuitability as a parent aside any woman who gives birth cannot be forced to give up that baby

What you seem to be saying is that the surrogate mother couldn't divest herself of her responsibilities to the child, even if the child is being well looked after by the intended parents and everyone is happy with that.

Any woman who gives birth to a child can give up all rights and responsibilities for that child. There are formal procedures for doing so.

It doesn't happen very often but it is legally possible for a woman to walk out of a maternity ward saying she wants nothing to do with the baby. There will still be paperwork and procedures but a woman cannot actually be forced to accept responsibility for a child if she is determined to give it up.

I am for making surrogacy illegal, period.
I agree.

If people who pay women for surrogacy knew that a) they may not be allowed to keep the baby and might only get the visitation rights that are traditionally given to genetic parents who aren't living with the birth parent, and b) they won't get their money back in any case and c) might have to pay child support

This is the case (whether or not the woman is paid) at the moment in this country. On (a) no surrogacy agreement is enforceable and the court can't override the mother's refusal to consent to the surrogacy so it's quite clear that the commissioning parents might not get to keep the child as was the case in the case in the OP (and might not even get visitation in other cases). On (b) yes, because the agreement can't be enforced there is no way that you can get your money back even if the mother has signed something to say that it can be returned. On (c) that would depend on the precise facts but in a case like the one in the OP where the woman isn't married and the intended father is also the genetic father then yes he could be liable for child support. It doesn't seem to have put them off.

It's also currently the case that if the intended parents don't want to take the child then there's nothing the surrogate mother can do to force them to do so. All she can do is give the baby up for adoption if she does not want to raise the baby herself. That puts the woman in a pretty risky position.

Your approach is all about rights but parenthood is really about responsibilities. What you seem to be saying is that the surrogate mother couldn't divest herself of her responsibilities to the child, even if the child is being well looked after by the intended parents and everyone is happy with that.

VV, do you mean that you think a surrogate should be able to retain parental rights for that child until he or she is 18?

Retain, yes. If she immediately says she wants to keep the child, she keeps it.
If the child has lived three years with the genetic parents, then that's a bit trickier, as in that case, the child's best interest should be considered. But in that case, she should be able to get visitation rights, just like any glorified sperm donor who never showed any interest in his child before is able to.

Simply ignoring any surrogacy agreement when it comes to parental rights might be sufficient to cover most cases, but there is of course the problem of the financial burden, that the birth mother of any child bears. If she keeps the child, then the financial burden of that would be added to that of the pregnancy, and that's a problem - especially in such cases where the gene donors decide they don't want a disabled child.

That could be covered if genetic parents were held responsible, for which it would be necessary to hold fathers responsible in a much more efficient way than is done at the moment.

It has always been very easy for men to exploit women in order to spread their genes. Surrogacy is just enabling women to join in the exploitation of other women.
I think that the safeguards we need against that sort of thing are much the same. It is just that sex is much harder to control than IVF.

If people who pay women for surrogacy knew that a) they may not be allowed to keep the baby and might only get the visitation rights that are traditionally given to genetic parents who aren't living with the birth parent, and b) they won't get their money back in any case and c) might have to pay child support - then I hope that would discourage such horrible behaviour.
Or is the problem only that people don't know about those laws?

We still need an universal basic income to make sure no woman is ever poor enough to have to resort to surrogacy OR prostitution, OR organ selling. But I don't have much hope that this will be the case anytime soon.

Yes and the law that old boots describes above also applies if the child has been born to a surrogate abroad. The problems are even worse then as trying to work out whether the woman consented when they might (a) not have ever met the couple (b) be illiterate and unable to speak English (c) be in a position of such financial disparity with the intended parents that the amount of money is life changing (d) have huge family pressures that are unknown to the court (e) be untraceable. Then what is the court supposed to do when they have a couple holding a baby and they have to decide what's best for that baby? E.g. look at this case where the couple tried to get the mother's consent from the clinic and 'the only response they received was a DHL package contaning a single sheet of paper with an 'obscene gesture' printed on it.'

I do think our system is set up in a way that gives legal sanction to exploitation of women. I'm undecided on whether I think paid surrogacy should be legal but I don't think that even the keenest supporters could really agree with the system we currently have.

At the moment in England and Wales (it is similar but slightly different in Scotland)any woman that gives birth does have parental rights with regard to that child (as does her husband if she is married), the parental order cannot be applied for until 6 weeks after the birth and no signed agreement can over-ride that. Once it has been applied for it takes months and the involvement of a court appointed guardian for a parental order to be granted.

VV, do you mean that you think a surrogate should be able to retain parental rights for that child until he or she is 18?

The arguments for surrogacy tend to be based around women having the freedom to do as they wish with their own bodies but that freedom is illusory if there is nothing to ensure that they have the information and understanding to give consent and the safeguards put in place to make sure that they get adequate protection for the risks that come with any pregnancy.

It is much like prostitution - under the guise of "freedom", protections that would have prevented vulnerable women being harmed even further are taken away.
If it was about freedom, then men would be allowed to sell their organs, and that would be called freedom, too. But that's illegal, and with good reason. As should surrogacy.

I am for making surrogacy illegal, period. Laws need to be changed so that doing it outside the country doesn't change anything. The woman who gives birth to a baby ought to have parental rights, as should the woman whose eggs were used, and it shouldn't be possible to sign those rights away.
That would mean that non-profit surrogacy would still be possible, or even for-profit surrogacy - but a woman could always get her baby back by going through the courts, just as any other woman who gave birth to a baby.

The safeguards you mention should be in place in any IVF clinic as an addition to that.

"I do think there should be an impartial assessment though - I think leaving it to recipients to assess competency is bound to cause issues."

It may have changed as my youngest surrogate child is over 10 now but it always used to be that to have fertility treatment in a registered clinic in the UK you needed to have the case go through an ethics committee which included all those involved having an in depth interview with a specialist psychologist. Maybe this is why this couple chose to go abroad.