Childless couples win the right to pay surrogate mothers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/children_shealth/8190131/Childless-couples-win-the-right-to-pay-surrogate-mothers.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/children_shealth/8190131/Childless-couples-win-the-right-to-pay-surrogate-mothers.html)
A senior family court judge allowed a British couple to keep a newborn child even though they had technically broken the law by giving more than "reasonable expenses" to the American natural mother.
Mr Justice Hedley said the existing rules on payments were unclear, and that the baby's welfare must be the main consideration. Only in the "clearest case" of surrogacy for profit would a couple be refused the necessary court order to keep the baby.
There is a lot of confusion over this issue, largely cause by the likes of the Christian Legal Centre and others, who seek to twist and distort things to suit themselves. (Honesty is what they say it is!)
The point of the law is that, when a woman has carried and given birth to a baby, other than in the most extreme cases, where it can be demonstrated to the courts, that the woman is clearly unfit to be a mother, she must have the automatic right to keep and care for that baby. However it was concieved.
This is a recognition of the most basic bioligical reality of a mother. A woman who has given birth is generally, emotionally and intellectually, a very different person that when she first concieved. These are biological imperitives, part of basic humanity. The law cannot outlaw, basic humanity.
English law, in particular, has a number of common law provisions, dating back to medivel times, recognising that a woman who has given birth is a very special case, legally.
If the woman chooses to give the baby to another couple, it is an adoption. But she must never be forced to give up a baby she has carried and given birth to, because of a commercial contract.
The notion of expenses was termed to allow a woman, who decided she must keep the baby, to do so. If the payements were defined as a fee, then a commercial contract would exist. And there can be no commercial contract for events that are unforseen.
The limitation of reasonable was included to reduce the possibility of women demanding increasingly huge sums to desperate couples.
But I am very curious about who brought this case and the motivation behind it.
Quote from: spacial on December 08, 2010, 06:07:13 PM
But I am very curious about who brought this case and the motivation behind it.
Em, *point to linked article*.
QuoteIn the current case, the unnamed British couple had made contact with a woman in Illinois, where no restrictions on payments to surrogate mothers apply. Her baby had been allowed to enter Britain on temporarily on a US passport, but the judge granted a Parental Order so it can now stay in the country with its new parents.
Setting a prescient for buying babies is the worst idea I've ever heard. Don't believe me? Try this. I'm only going to pay for girl babies. See the problem?
We used to call this slavery.
Quote from: Keroppi on December 08, 2010, 06:31:21 PM
Em, *point to linked article*.
Understand. Thank you for your response.
Seems a little strange that the issue of expenses was raised in a case about nationality and adoption. If the expenses had been found to be excessive, would the baby have been returned to sender?
Still, probably the Telegraph trying to whip up an issue where there was none,.
Quote from: spacial on December 08, 2010, 07:23:58 PM
Seems a little strange that the issue of expenses was raised in a case about nationality and adoption. If the expenses had been found to be excessive, would the baby have been returned to sender?
Still, probably the Telegraph trying to whip up an issue where there was none,.
Well, 10 years back this rich male-male couple went to US for pay surrogates and fought and won the rights for the children to stay already so it was a question whether a parental order was going to be granted. In that case, I think the judgement meant the couple ended up as legal guardian rather than parent in the eye of the law, and the child(ren) did not inherit their parent citizenship.
It's not actually strange for issues of payments to come up as it's an important criteria in the law regarding parental order. There's various other criteria that has to be meet for parental order like time from birth of the child (there's a initial waiting period where you can't apply for one, and then there's a maximum time limit), the surrogate mother have to volunteering agree to it (i.e. she can say no).
Quote from: tekla on December 08, 2010, 07:02:27 PM
Setting a prescient for buying babies is the worst idea I've ever heard. Don't believe me? Try this. I'm only going to pay for girl babies. See the problem?
We used to call this slavery.
I agree with all of this. It's amazing how many things that are going on at the moment are things that we 'used' to call slavery!
babies should be openly sold to try end the number of babies living awful lives with people who can make babies but lack the mental ability to bring them up but buying such a poor child to give it a better life is a total no-no thanks to the hypocrisy surrounding babies.
once babies have a price the spectre of legalised breeding to order arrives and also the matter of unsuitable babies comes up as presumably most people will want a baby that fits well in their life?
Quote from: lilacwoman on December 09, 2010, 01:58:50 AM
babies should be openly sold
Ladies and gentlemen, the humanitarian of the year award goes to.................. :o
I really can't work out whether you are being sarcastic or not? ???
And blonde female white babies will fetch what kind of price as opposed to overweight ethnic males?
Quote from: Keroppi on December 08, 2010, 07:57:53 PM
Well, 10 years back this rich male-male couple went to US for pay surrogates and fought and won the rights for the children to stay already so it was a question whether a parental order was going to be granted. In that case, I think the judgement meant the couple ended up as legal guardian rather than parent in the eye of the law, and the child(ren) did not inherit their parent citizenship.
It's not actually strange for issues of payments to come up as it's an important criteria in the law regarding parental order. There's various other criteria that has to be meet for parental order like time from birth of the child (there's a initial waiting period where you can't apply for one, and then there's a maximum time limit), the surrogate mother have to volunteering agree to it (i.e. she can say no).
Thank you for this aditional information.
However, none of it appears to pertain to the Telegraph report.
Nowhere in the Telegraph reports is there any mention of a 10 year old case, nor a gay couple, rich or not, nor guardianship.
I'm sure you are referencing a reliable source, but will be grateful if you would say what it is.
As this case stands, the issue appears to be one of adoption. The issue of payments seems to be an irrelevancy brought up for reasons of politics.
Quote from: spacial on December 09, 2010, 06:33:45 AM
I'm sure you are referencing a reliable source, but will be grateful if you would say what it is.
As this case stands, the issue appears to be one of adoption. The issue of payments seems to be an irrelevancy brought up for reasons of politics.
In 1999, Barry and Tony Drewitt-Barlow went to the US where they paid a surrogate to carry a baby conceived using donor egg. Made legal history when 1) got the US Supreme Court to agree to register them both as fathers on the birth certificate and not listing any mother; 2) bought the 2 children back and managed to get the Home Secretary to grant them unrestricted length of stay in Britain but not the couple parentship or the children UK citizenship. I have no idea if they have since gone through long formal adoption procedures, but it is known they have had a few more kids since 2000.
In general (
this is not legal advice, IALAL etc.) UK surrogacy law mean the intended parent want to / should get a parenteral order. A parenteral order like an adoption order reassign parenthood status to the intended parent but is set up to be much quicker without all the extra screening, assessment, and hurdles of adoption. In English (& Scottish & NI?) law, at birth a child legal mother is the surrogate mother, and the other parent is the surrogate legal partner (if one), else one of the intended parent can be named on the original birth certificate if he or she is present at the child birth registration.
To obtain a parental order, the intended parents must be over 18, married or in a civil partnership, one of whom is domiciled within the UK. The child was conceived out of artificial means, genetically the child of one of the intended parent. And importantly, for the purpose of this story, only reasonable expenses was paid by the intended parent to the surrogate. The application can only be made after the child is 6 weeks old, and before 6 months. The child at this point should be living with the intended parent, and the surrogate and her partner must voluntarily agree to the order being made.
The whole point of the newspaper story here is that at some point during the review process, the court noticed and concluded that there were more than "reasonable expenses" paid by the intended parent, which given the letter of the law would mean that a parental order cannot be granted. The judge here is granting that parental order despite that hence the story. If that wasn't the case, the intended parent would have had to in this case first fight for the right for the child to stay in the country longer than their entry under US passport grant them, and then go through a lengthy fight for adoption, special guardianship or a residence order.
The conditions of stay granted in 1999 would have been based upon the law as it stood then,
As for the points in the last paragraph, with respect, these don't make much sense. The purpose of the regulations is to prevent women making a living from hiring their womb because that would constitute a business agrement.
This case could only have arisin if someone had contested the amount paid to the woman who carried the child. The defination of reasonable expenses has never been defined, I understand, simply because it wasn't necessary. As long as any payment is expenses then no commercial contract can exist. Such a contract, with its obligations, would violate common law.
The ruling, reinforced the existing law, by stating that there are no guidelines for what equates to reasonable. Not an innovation at all.
But for the matter to have been raised, someone must have contested the amount.
Still, we could argue this till the cows come home and get no-where.
I was brought up in a poor working class part of town and then did work where I had to spend time in these homes and now my work involves contact with the unwanted children of casual sex and broken relationships and I have to say that basically unwanted babies should be sold at birth rather than sticking them in orphanages or with short term foster parents during their most important formative years. Sell them to people who can 'apparently' give them a good life from the start.
On the other hand of course the simple fact is that people will naturally choose pretty babies and ignore the unpretty problem ones.
Then again no-one seems to be thinking ahead and wondering where the money will come from to keep lots of the unpretty problems ones alive and housed in the years to come.
As the Judge has ruled that the baby's welfare must be the main consideration then obviously new babies would be better with settled families rather than with poverty stricken unmarried mothers or bad parents who have no idea of raising children.
Quote from: lilacwoman on December 12, 2010, 03:57:25 AM
I was brought up in a poor working class part of town and then did work where I had to spend time in these homes and now my work involves contact with the unwanted children of casual sex and broken relationships and I have to say that basically unwanted babies should be sold at birth rather than sticking them in orphanages or with short term foster parents during their most important formative years. Sell them to people who can 'apparently' give them a good life from the start.
No. 'sold at birth'. Just .... no.
It really isn't a huge leap from your argument to 'Lets sterilise the poor'.
As Pixiegirl has said, no, just no!
payments of up to $23,000 can be made to a surrogate in UK and as we have the free NHS that must be seen as the cost of a baby or in fact the profit on the deal.
what I also thought interesting was that a foreign fertilised egg can be transplanted and accepted by the surrogates womb.
I don't really see why it's a problem Woman provides service (incubator) to couple in exchange for money.
Of course there is a more critical problems with pepole renaging on such deals or backing out unlike say a cowboy doing a dodgey job on a car. Hence why violations of such contracts on either side ought to be treated VERY harshly. Presumably the woman wouldn't sign upto contracts that specify that she must only carry a specific gender of a child to term specifically as the risk on her side of the deal would be much too high to make that worthwhile.
Appropriate payment of these women will make the deal much more appealing and make the risk of defaulting and retaining the child and the money not such an issue as is currently the case where the surrogate is just expected to be a damn saint about everything. (It's twisted... in the same way that egg donation is twisted in the UK and you can't be paid for it) hence the massive deficit and why they have to engage in complicated immigration protocalls hiring surrogates overseas.
As for the issue of genetic preference... that might be the the case but not usually Either they use IVF from ovums fertilized by the parents... Or they will use Egg and sperm donors who look alot like them or are donated from a relative thus it is to some extent thiers.
Why would you do it otherwise? just adopt it neither parent contributes DNA.
So yeah I guess I disagree with all of you on this issue.