Surrogacy laws to be overhauled under new reforms – benefitting the child, surrogate and intended parents - Law Commission proposals

[IwantToRetire]

The Law Commissions’ report and draft legislation, the culmination of a detailed review, outlines a new regulatory regime that offers more clarity, safeguards and support – for the child, surrogate and parents who will raise the child (“the intended parents”).

Under the reforms, a new system governing surrogacy agreements, “the new pathway”, would come into force – the first time that the law has introduced a route for surrogacy where scrutiny of arrangements starts pre-conception.
Overseen by non-profit organisations operating under a regulatory body, the Commissions’ new pathway would ensure rigorous pre-conception screening and safeguarding. If the right conditions are met, it would allow intended parents to become the legal parents of the child from birth, subject to the surrogate’s right to withdraw her consent.

The new system would improve the current process, which involves a sometimes complex and lengthy journey through the courts after the child has been born, resulting in some couples waiting up to a year after birth before they become legal parents of the child.

https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/surrogacy-laws-to-be-overhauled-under-new-reforms-benefitting-the-child-surrogate-and-intended-parents/

Really only posting to make others aware of this report (I couldn't find a thread about it so hope its not a duplicate).

Article (from a man's perspective!) https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/women-are-being-ignored-again-in-the-surrogacy-debate/

Response from Nordic Model Now https://nordicmodelnow.org/2023/04/01/ask-your-mp-to-say-no-to-commercial-style-surrogacy-in-the-uk/

Thus the findings of the present phase of the study add to the growing body of literature indicating that the quality of family relationships has a greater influence on children’s psychological wellbeing than the presence or absence of a biological connection between the mother and the child.

To be fair the 'inferred consent' point only relates to surrogacy arrangements on the proposed new pathway. If they are on this pathway the process is regulated and involves e.g. legal advice for all involved, health screening, counselling etc. This means that there should have been informed consent before the pregnancy starts. The Law Commission are suggesting that it should be possible to assume that consent is continuing unless the mother withdraws it.

I am not necessarily saying it's the right approach but they are not simply saying that the'll assume consent if there's not objection. They are inferring the continuation of consent from a previous informed and express agreement to consent.

Yet courts give tremendous amount of value to contact with birth parents, even if the relationships are very much less than ideal, based on research about the problems of children with identity, mental health and growing up in general when these connections are severed.

Isn't it funny how different research props up different things according to the agenda instead of forming one coherent picture?

It's utterly bizarre isn't it @nilsmousehammer. Courts will only remove children from their birth mother as a last resort. Unless someone else has paid for the baby

And the person paying is powerful, affluent and with political clout. And male. This has really gathered speed since it became about men's rights to children.

Then suddenly it's all about consumer rights and everything we know about child protection is suddenly all wrong, regressive and stupid.

My God this all reminds me of trans activism. Women are just walking resources, bodily autonomy is everything when it serves the needs of oh look, the same group of affluent, politically powerful male people, children can consent to absolutely everything an adult wants, and everything is oh so nicely dressed up and spun but in fact is using women and children's bodies to service men's wants.

Isn't it funny how different research props up different things according to the agenda instead of forming one coherent picture?

Someone who is against surrogacy posted one item from a study that supports their agenda and omitted to post other findings and the conclusion that went against their agenda. In fact courts can and do rule that children will be taken away from birth mothers and adopted before that child is even born. Of course the courts will do this as a last resort if the woman who gave birth to the child wants to raise the child. You are talking about the mental health effects on children having their connections severed with those who rejected the child or had them taken away against their will. That is not what happens with surrogacy and while I don't think a planned surrogacy with a woman who does not want to have contact with the child is at all good for that child, which is one of the reasons I don't support commercial surrogacy, it's simply ridiculous to suggest that courts would do everything they could to keep a child with a birth mother who does not actively want to be with the child and who has not nurtured the child from birth.

Surrogacy is mainly used by heterosexual couples. No need to make this about trans rights activists.

No one said it was about transactivism @Londisc

Yes, I posted one worrying outcome from a study which reached a conclusion that totally overlooked that outcome. I found that really odd. And with no follow up after children were 7 years, it doesn't tell us anything about long term outcomes. In fact, I can find no studies about the long term outcomes of children who have been gestated for other people to raise. I don't suppose that will happen as there are a lot of people who have a vested interest in suppressing any negative outcomes.

The creeping commercialisation of women's reproductive capabilities is something all women should be concerned about n

That's the Tories for you.

Personally, I think the real issues here are anonymous/absent donors and surrogates who don't want to maintain contact with the child and its family even (and it is not easy to find women who want to commit to lifelong involvement)

The thing is many of the commissioning parents DON'T want the surrogate mother in their lives forever. There are plenty of articles about how they promise this before the baby is born (or even conceived) to persuade the SM to choose THEM but drop her like a hot potato as soon as the baby is born.

This is what lead to one SM succeeding in overturning the Parental Order in a legal first last autumn, as the CPs, FAMILY FRIENDS, did not want her to have ongoing contact with her child (it was her egg - her child in every way).

I'm late for work and will post some links later.

This comes under "just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do it". And the more I've thought about it, the more I think Kirkup's attention to this is right. I can't get away from the idea that "ongoing consent" could begin to make its way into the lexicon and onto statute. This is a really important issue to keep focused on and to write to MPs about.

The law changed to "presumed consent" for organ donation. I opted out when the law change and encouraged my family to do the same. They know my views and are welcome to offer up my kidneys if I'm ever in that situation but I won't have the state presume they can take what they want. Especially now that there is a push for womb transplants to men and use of ovaries however the technology currently allows. I would never allow my daughter's reproductive organs to be used for some man with a fetish.

Yes, I posted one worrying outcome from a study which reached a conclusion that totally overlooked that outcome. I found that really odd. And with no follow up after children were 7 years, it doesn't tell us anything about long term outcomes

The same research team from age 1, 2, 3 and 7 have continued at 10 and at 14. Ages 1, 2, 3 more positive in surrogate families. Then at 7 less positive, consistent with findings with regard to adopted children, then at 10 no difference, again consistent with findings with regard to adopted children.

At 14: Overall, the findings of this longitudinal study of children born through egg donation, donor insemination, and surrogacy did not indicate raised levels of mother-adolescent relationship difficulties or adolescent adjustment problems compared with natural conception families.

However: "Although it is essential to stress that the scores for both mothers and children in egg donation families are indicative of high levels of maternal acceptance and family functioning, inspection of the mean scores shows the donor insemination families to be similar to the natural conception comparison group whereas the egg donation families show less positive scores.

"In contrast, it appears that the absence of a gestational link between mothers and their children does not have an adverse effect on the quality of mother-child relationships at adolescence"

IANAL but the concept of "ongoing consent" sounds like how rape used to be legal in marriage. And is definitely sounds like an incel / MRA wet dream. Changed your Facebook status to "in a relationship"? Not rape! You've consented on an ongoing basis.

It's got huge ramifications and has to go straight in the bin.

The thing is many of the commissioning parents DON'T want the surrogate mother in their lives forever. There are plenty of articles about how they promise this before the baby is born (or even conceived) to persuade the SM to choose THEM but drop her like a hot potato as soon as the baby is born

Yes, as you say there are plenty of articles about it and I think it's widely known. What was a surprise was to discover how difficult it was to find women who DO want lifelong involvement, which as I said was one of the reasons I am not in favour of commercial surrogacy.

@EndIessTea
a family created by two people falling in love, conceiving, feeling that primal profound commitment that comes with her pregnancy, then going on to mother and father a child who they fiercely cling to, protect, support and guide for as long as they live

This may be your ideal vision of the world but it's not reality is it?

I loved my feeling of pregnancy so much I looked into becoming a surrogate in the future whilst I was pregnant.

That changed when I went through a risky birth. It made me think I'd be willing to take on that risk for my own family but not for a stranger.

I'm interested in this argument I hadn't heard of it before.

Also, a mother nurtures her child in the womb and the two share and exchange more than we think, they are literally a part of each other. I know there are plenty of babies that get removed from their birth mother for very sad reasons, but to actually manufacture that? I'm not sure of the ethics for the baby.

you feel that frisson... right, so it's about your feelings.