To feel sorry for this lady?

[Spanglylycra]

Two of my male friends are having a baby via surrogate due later this year.I know they will make great parents and this isn't an anti-gay thread at all. The baby is via donor egg implanted into the surrogate who has no biological relationship. However (my AIBU) I can't help feeling sad for the surrogate. I know she is a grown woman capable of making her own decision and has gone into this willingly but she doesn't know them and doesn't owe them anything and despite payment being illegal in the UK there is still a very large "expenses" payment made which is well into 5 figures. So despite the fact they will be amazing parents I just feel sad/uncomfortable about the woman's role in this. On one hand they talk positively about her being amazing and selfless and on the other hand refer to her "just carrying it" which makes me sad for women being used as a vessel - it's a bit Handmaid-esque. Their social media posts are also starting to be covered in #dontforgetaboutdads and I just feel like the woman's role is being cut out. Just wondered what others may think am I over thinking this?!

'I agree' was in response to Italian about implications counselling.

There seems to be an awful lot of conflation between UK altruistic surrogacy and commercial surrogacy overseas, on this thread

The scenario in the OP technically comes under altruistic surrogacy but I have an issue with that definition when the OP is talking about a woman with financial difficulties and a 5 figure expenses payment. There is also still plenty of room for exploitation in 'altruistic' surrogacy especially when you are talking about strangers entering an agreement. IMO the only true altruistic surrogacy is doing it for someone with whom you have a close existing relationship, such as a sister or very close friend.

I can even forsee exploitation in altruistic family situations. E.g. an expectation of help. Especially for an infertile women with a very fertile sister.

When we had our problems my sister made it clear she would not be giving me an egg! (She was too old anyway!)

However. I totally respected her decision and would not have wanted an egg from within the family, personally speaking.

That's a good point Italian, depending on the family dynamics I could see that happening. There was a very odd thread a while ago where the OP was upset that one of her daughters wouldn't agree to be a surrogate for her sister in the future.

Italian I posted a link to my blog post on page 5.

IMO the only true altruistic surrogacy is doing it for someone with whom you have a close existing relationship, such as a sister or very close friend.

OK so the very close family friend who has offered to help us (we never asked, would never dream of asking anyone to do so, can't contemplate ever putting someone in that position) would be considered altruistic?

But the friend of a friend who was introduced because said friend knew that her friend really wanted to be a surrogate to help a couple to have a child, and said friend knew that we had been told that my womb was too damaged to sustain a pregnancy, and the only way one of our frozen embryos could ever become a person was if someone else were to nurture them for 9 months and bring them into this world - that wouldn't be OK, because we didn't know each other before being introduced?

Italiangreyhound
My relative was the intended parent and the surrogate was my very very good friend.

I feel this is one of those issues where there is no black or white 'final' position and a need for every voice on the spectrum of opinions to ensure balance - a bit like issues relating to abortion and the age of viability etc. The law should keep up with the reality of what's happening and legislate realistically to protect the most vulnerable in situations that are already happening in the UK. 'Altruistic' surrogacy is on the rise and not going to be made illegal. It's just about to become legal for single people (male or female) to have a parental order granted. We're moving away from a society where the person carrying a baby is always going to be the person bringing up the child. I welcome voices championing the rights of women and do feel a surrogate should be able to change her mind on those very rare occasions where a maternal bond develops.

I think that many posters would be touched and surprised by how many women have an altruistic desire to help other women become parents. There's a tendency to assume they're down-trodden or doing it because they have to - and by all means let's ensure that is never the case. But the women I've met are quite simply some of the kindest people imaginable who love their own children and love the idea of turning around the heartbreak of infertility. Parents who have had a child through surrogacy do feel they've been given a second chance at life. They love fiercely and well. That sentiment doesn't negate all the other issues that have been mentioned. But we are talking about children who are very loved and (according to the research I've seen) adjust well to the situation. So many surrogates choose to do this two or three times which suggests that the experience is positive for them as well.

Concerning the financial arrangements, there's an interesting piece here from a surrogate site: www.brilliantbeginnings.co.uk/blog/how-much-can-uk-surrogates-get-paid

"it is not (illegal for a surrogate to be paid more than expenses in the UK) - although this is a common misconception. It is illegal for anyone to arrange surrogacy for profit but this does not apply to surrogates or intended parents. That means that intended parents and surrogates can agree anything they like about payments without breaking the law"

"If more than 'reasonable expenses' has been paid to the surrogate, the court has to authorise the payments ... The court has never refused to authorise payments since ultimately that would not be in the best interests of the child"

Not being a legal expert I've no idea how accurate all this is, but it certainly seems to raise questions around whether babies really are being "sold" in the UK

GovUK states this:
It’s illegal to pay a surrogate in the UK, except for their reasonable expenses.

www.gov.uk/rights-for-surrogate-mothers

Natalie Gamble specialises in surrogacy law. She is probably picking up on the fact that the laws around surrogacy in the UK at the moment are vague, usually because they were written for a completely different situation and are being applied ad hoc. It is a mess. Hence the need for clarity and reform.

In reality, the amount that judges have been signing off on as expenses has been creeping steadily up. Three years ago the top figure was £15 000. Now it's higher I believe. But certainly, the guardian appointed by the judge sees it as their role to establish very clearly that the payments were for expenses and are 'reasonable'. Sometimes they ask to see receipts, sometimes not.

It is a mess. Hence the need for clarity and reform

Yes, so it seems {hmm] I looked on Natalie Gamble's site and also found this:

"It is a common misconception that it is illegal for parents to pay a UK surrogate more than her reasonable expenses. In fact, there is no such offence in UK law. The issue of payments is simply a consideration for the family court, which must authorise payments of more than reasonable expenses before it can make a parental order"

"There is no definition of reasonable expenses (nor a fixed amount as to what is allowed), so the court must decide what is reasonable in each case and in practice often takes quite a relaxed approach. There is also now a history of the High Court retrospectively authorising payments of more than expenses in international commercial surrogacy cases. The court always wants to know that things have been handled responsibly, and there has been no exploitation or attempt to circumvent child protection law. However, there has never been a case where the court has refused to make a parental order because too much was paid"

So despite gov.uk's rather simplistic one-line statement, it seems - not for the first time - that it's one thing insisting something shouldn't be done and quite another making sure it isn't

Which all seems to back up claims that babies are, in effect, currently being "sold" in the UK

I read a court judgement a while ago that was linked on a MN thread, where a surrogate was allowed to keep the baby against the wishes of the IPs who were a gay couple. It was clear that she had been horribly exploited in this 'altruistic' deal brokered on FB, and was quite an upsetting read. But I also remember that there were also concerns with their previous child's birth involving a different surrogate. IIRC the surrogate was no longer in the picture and so the parental order was granted despite concerns on the basis that the baby was now here and needed parents and a home. I wonder if stealth commercial surrogacy through large expenses is being overlooked for similar reasons- because the baby is here now and what else can they do? That's why if surrogacy is going to remain then I believe there should be strict oversight and assessment prior to conception, instead of attempting to assess the suitability of arrangements retrospectively.

twisted
I know the case you mean. Experienced surrogates in the surrogacy community will tell you that she is repeatedly telling an incredibly inaccurate story and social services made completely the right call.

I've just found the judgement, it's long but an interesting read.

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/34.html

I don't think we are talking about the same case, in this case the surrogate mother was allowed to keep her baby and the ruling is pretty scathing about how the IPs treated her.

Oh yes, apologies.

I wonder if stealth commercial surrogacy through large expenses is being overlooked for similar reasons- because the baby is here now and what else can they do?

Looking again at the second paragraph I quoted from the Brilliant Beginnings site, it seems that could well be the case. Given the pressures on Social Services, it's unlikely they'd welcome having to step in for children who already have a loving home over an issue of money, no matter what rules had been broken

Obviously surrogate agencies and prospective parents will be well aware of this, so what follows when folk are desperate perhaps isn't such a surprise ... even though that doesn't make it right

I've just realised I got the bit about the first surrogate mixed up with a different case- rereading it, it seems in this case the parental order with the first surrogate was agreed with the provision that there would be continued contact which didn't happen. They treated that surrogate terribly, there are claims she had financial troubles and they paid her £12,500 and then within 48 hours of the order being granted they were trawling the internet for the next one- who was a woman with learning difficulties. And no laws were broken in these cases. This is legal altruistic surrogacy in the UK.

I have already agreed to be a surrogate (and possibly egg doner) for my brother should be meet the right guy.
You don’t know this lady’s mindset and how it works in her head, but I know for me that’s the best thing - handing that little baby over to someone who will really, truly love him or her. And that’s why I will do it!

Here are the POV of three surros from the UK surro community on why they decided to be surrogates

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/mums-become-surrogatesukk_58bea153e4b0d8c45f466173/

I don't know this particular woman, but she also wrote about her experience of why she decided to become a surro for this year's national surrogacy week

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/what-its-like-to-be-surrogateukk_5b684e33e4b0b15abaa53b8b

No twisted that's a very mixed up lady.

Intended parents are generally terrified that the PO won't be granted. They're not law breakers. In some cases a PO isn't applie for even though rules have been kept because the parents are terrified they've broken a rule without realising it.

I don't know what woman you are referring to as mixed up, the woman in the judgement was clearly vulnerable, lacked capacity to understand fully what was going on and was exploited by two pretty unpleasant IPs whose own communications proved they didn't give a toss about her welfare.

I popped back to page 5 to read Peachmelba's blog.

@bananafish81 on 17/08/2018 at 15:32 you wrote about adoption you were explaining how adoption is not always a solution for childless people, and I agree.

You had a long lost of friends who had been turned down for adoption. You paint a very bleak picture and I just wanted to assure any readers that the picture is not always that bleak.