Guardian - “Couples who pay surrogate mothers could lose the right to raise their child” by Denis Campbell

Childless couples who acquire a baby using a surrogate mother abroad risk not being recognised as its parents in Britain if they flout British law by paying fees, fertility lawyers have warned.

Such payments, which can be as high as £30,000, could lead to those who have made them being refused permission by the high court to become the child's legal parents, specialist solicitors say.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 allows couples entering into deals with a surrogate mother overseas to pay her only what is allowed here – "expenses reasonably incurred", such as compensation for time off work, medical bills and living expenses.

But lawyers handling such cases have told the Guardian a growing number of couples are embarking on international surrogacy in places such as India, the US and Ukraine, and that many of them are in effect flouting the law by paying whatever is needed to get a child. This could cause serious problems for them and the children as the high court may not grant a parental order.

"The risk couples face if they pay a disproportionate amount in expenses is that the high court may refuse to authorise those expenses. That could result in the parental order application failing and in turn they would have no status as parents under English law," said John Randle, a leading surrogacy lawyer.

More couples have sought legal advice about international surrogacy in the past two years, fertility lawyers say. Finding a surrogate in the UK is difficult, and many see surrogacy abroad as their last chance, said Miranda Baker, a lawyer in the field.

Lawyers predict that more people will pursue such deals after tomorrow, when the law changes to allow unmarried and same-sex couples to apply for parental orders.

Last November Mr Justice Hedley heard that a Mr and Mrs A had paid $23,000 (£15,000) to acquire twins from a surrogate mother in California. Mr A was the biological father. His sperm had been used to fertilise an egg from an anonymous donor and embryos were implanted into the surrogate. It was clear that "a significant element, although it is difficult to specify exactly what, of the $23,000 represents a payment contrary to the [law]", he said.

Among matters of public policy the case raised was that "the court should be astute not to be involved in anything that looks like the simple payment for [in effect] buying children". Despite that, Hedley granted Mr and Mrs A a parental order.

Hedley took the same view in 2008 in the case of X and Y – the first international surrogacy case the high court ruled on. A married couple whose repeated attempts to become parents had failed had twins known as X and Y using a Ukrainian surrogate. They also paid more than was "reasonable" to the woman, who used the money to put down a deposit on a flat, but obtained an order.

Sam King, a family law barrister specialising in assisted reproduction, warned couples having a baby through surrogacy abroad not to assume the high court would retrospectively endorse an arrangement that was "obviously commercial". "They are taking a chance [by paying large sums]. Not all judges may be as generous as Mr Justice Hedley has been so far. All you need is one family to be denied a parental order because too much money has been paid for the whole thing to be thrown into confusion."

Natalie Gamble, a lawyer who acted for the parents in both those cases, said: "If you don't get a parental order the English couple aren't seen as the child's legal parents and you are committing an offence if you are caring for a child that's not yours. You have to tell social services if you're doing that."

Randle had 21 inquiries in 2008 about surrogacy overseas, 30 in 2009 and has had five so far this year – 56 in all. Three clients are pursuing a surrogacy deal in America and two in India. Many couples Randle advises are married, London-based professionals in their 30s or 40s for whom surrogacy if their last hope of having a child. But a growing number are gay or unmarried. Two male civil partners in their late 30s expect twins from a surrogate in Texas in May, and two other gay men aged 30 and 34, who cohabit but are not civil partners, plan to use a surrogate in India.

"This is a growing phenomenon," said Randle. "As it becomes better known that this is a way of childless couples getting a child, and they learn how to overcome the legal complications in surrogacy abroad, I think the number of people who apply for parental orders will go up fairly dramatically over the next five years."

International surrogacy is hugely controversial. "It's unethical and exploitative because the trade is all one-way," said Breedagh Hughes, a Royal College of Midwives spokeswoman, on the ethics of childbirth. "It reduces babies to the level of commodities."

Jonathan, a 32-year-old nurse, tells how he and his civil partner, Colin, 33, a financier, spent $150,000 (£98,000) on surrogacy to become the parents of Harriet, who was born in California last year. They live in London.

"We began discussing having a child in 2006, when we were deciding to become civil partners. I was feeling broody, and had always wanted to have my own biological child. We opted to pursue surrogacy in California because we would get legal custody there of the child before it was born and the surrogate would have no legal relationship to the baby.

"My sperm was introduced to eggs left by an egg donor: they were fertilised in an IVF clinic in Los Angeles and two of the embryos were implanted into the surrogate. She simply carried the child for nine months.

An agency in LA found both the egg donor and the surrogate. We never met the egg donor or knew who she was, but knew her medical history, results of her genetic tests, what she looked like and so on. We did meet and get on well with the surrogate, who was called Jennifer. She had two daughters of her own and had been a surrogate once before. There was no coercion. We had a contract, and Jennifer specified things in that like that she wanted back massages and a big hotel room for her family to stay in when she was giving birth.

Agencies in California quote a price of $100,000 to $150,000 to do everything relating to a child. The whole process wasn't too difficult, and cost us about $150,000. We paid the embryologist $60,000, though that included the harvesting of the donor's eggs, the IVF and the transfer of the embryos into the surrogate. It was $40,000 for the surrogate and $10,000 for the egg donor, plus $10,000 to the agency, who supplied the donor and the surrogate. Then there was $10,000 for our lawyer, $5,000 for the medical and psychological screening and another $5,000 for medication for both the donor and the surrogate, to ensure they were in cycle at the same time.

"Bringing Harriet into the UK nine months later was incredibly difficult, though, and we engaged lawyers to help us. She had to come in as an immigrant on a US passport on a six-month tourist visa. When we later filled in a form to get her British citizenship, we put 'not known' in the section headed 'mother'. She now has dual nationality and is legally ours under Californian law. If we do apply, it could be an issue that we paid well over the 'reasonable expenses' limit – that is, we paid a fee. That's illegal in this country, but allowed under Californian law.

"We shouldn't have to seek a parental order. She was conceived and born in California as our child, and her birth certificate says who her parents are, so the courts here should respect Californian law.

Having to apply for a parental order, where there'd be an assessment of Harriet's welfare and Colin would have to prove that he's no danger to her, is an inequity. Anybody else can go out, get drunk, get pregnant, bring up a child appallingly and face no intervention or legal barriers.

I resent people saying that British couples who resort to surrogacy are buying babies abroad. We didn't buy Harriet: she's not picked off a shelf. She's not a 'designer baby'.

We had our own child and had a great team to help us. All we did was rent a woman to carry her. We paid for the services of an embryologist and an incubator who walks and makes good babies – but we didn't buy a baby. She's my daughter biologically, and she's our baby.

A lot of heterosexual couples in the UK spend a lot of money having many cycles of IVF at £5,000 a time – is that not buying a baby?"

Only first names have been given to protect the family's identity

[Source: Original Article]

Read More

The Guardian – UK - “New surrogacy law eases the way for gay men to become legal parents” by Robin McKie

This is not a specifically Australian related story relating to same-sex parenting, but it is relevant for surrogacy dads with a UK background.  Read on….

Changes to legislation will recognise growing trend for same-sex couples to become parents, say campaigners:

Gay male couples will be able to use a fast-track route to become the legal parents of surrogate children from next week. On 6 April, changes to the law will permit two men to be named as parents on a child's birth certificate for the first time in British history.

The transition will take effect following the implementation of the final piece of the 2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. This last section is aimed at helping same-sex and unmarried couples who seek to have surrogate children and will allow them to secure legal parenthood in a new, simplified manner. At present, only married, heterosexual couples can use this route.

"These changes bring the law up to date with the realities of modern 21st-century life and recognise that increasing numbers of same-sex and unmarried couples are having children together," said Natalie Gamble, of the fertility law firm Gamble and Ghevaert.

Surrogacy has become increasingly common and offers couples an alternative route to parenthood if all other methods, including IVF treatments, fail. Current legislation allows heterosexual, married couples to get a parental order to give them a birth certificate for a child born to a mother with whom they have entered into a surrogacy agreement. But gay, lesbian and unmarried couples cannot do this. The surrogate mother has to be named on the birth certificate. If she is married, her husband is legally considered to be the father.

An example is provided by the story of Steven Ponder and his partner, Ivan Sigston. Both are police officers. Last year, they became one of the first gay couples to father a baby in Britain when Ponder's married sister, Lorna Bradley, gave birth to a boy, William.

Crucially, however, Lorna Bradley's name appeared on the birth certificate, which made her a legal guardian of the child. Ponder and Sigston could have applied to adopt the baby. If successful, they would have been given an adoption certificate to replace his original birth certificate. But adoption is complex and involves the intervention of social workers and other professional groups.

The new system is far more streamlined. Provided that a court is satisfied that two men are in a stable relationship; that no fees, other than expenses, are paid to the surrogate mother; and that it is in the child's best interest, then it will award a parental order for a birth certificate to be drawn up with both men named as parents, and therefore legal guardians. "Lesbian couples and unmarried couples usually have other routes available to them if they want to have children, but surrogacy is particularly important to gay men, so they will get most out of this change in legislation," said Gamble.In effect, the law has now opened the doors in order to make it easy for a gay man and his partner to have children.

This point was backed by Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, the gay rights campaign group: "We are delighted that the reality of people's family lives is being recognised at last, that both lesbian and gay couples no longer have to go through the unpleasantness of an adoption procedure."

Gamble warned, however, that while the new legislation would make it easier for gay couples to have children, the rules governing surrogacy in the UK remained badly out of date.

"There are particular pitfalls for single parents and those going abroad. In the latter case, a couple returning to England with a surrogate child find that the law does not recognise their right to parenthood. It can cause immense distress. There are a lot of aspects of surrogacy that now need to be addressed urgently."

[Source: Original Article]

Read More

The Age - “Beyond the straight and narrow” by Jacqueline Tomlins

I HAD been expecting it - it would have been naive of me not to - but when it happened, it sent me reeling.

I was reading a bedtime story to Corin, my seven-year-old son, when he came out with it, no warning, no context, just a bald statement: ''When I say I have two mums at school, some kids tease me.''

It came like a blow to the stomach and it took my breath away. Corin, and his two younger sisters, were conceived using an anonymous, identity-release donor through IVF, a path we took because it provided clear legal certainty in relation to parentage: we are the parents, the donor is not. But it also ensured that, when the time came, we would be able to provide information to our kids about their genetic background, something we knew from the experience of adopted children was important.

As it turned out, we met our donor, David, fairly early on when Corin was still a baby; a remarkable meeting that was warm and generous and positive. David is happy to provide information - medical or otherwise - that we might need over time, and is comfortable with the kids knowing who he is. But he is clear, too: he is not their father, he is their donor.

Our kids have two parents who I believe are capable of meeting all their needs, but that doesn't mean we don't want men in their lives. Quite the contrary. Our kids have granddads, uncles, cousins and male family friends and we are fortunate to have many great dads in our social circle with whom the kids spend a lot of time. Pretty much every same-sex family I know goes to great lengths to involve men in the lives of their children.

But none of this, of course, changes Corin having two mums and, in that, he is different from many of his peers.

''Hey, that's not good, sweetheart,'' I say. ''That happen today?''

Today and a couple of other times, it turns out. He is specific: ''Not my friends, not kids who know me. Other kids,'' and he mentions one by name and grade.

I am relieved by that at least. My partner, Sarah, and I have always believed that the best way to overcome prejudice is to be out, open and honest. We try to make it easy for people to ask questions and are always happy when they do. We don't take offence.

When Corin started school, we had playground discussions about same-sex families, and were commonly asked by other parents how they might explain Corin's situation to their children.

All families are different, we say, lots have a mum and dad, some just live with their mum or their dad, and others with dad and his new girlfriend and her children and so on. Kids take things at face value: Corin has two mums and no dad. People are happy with this, we find, and always relieved that they don't have to talk about homosexuality or sex. It will get more complicated as they get older, of course, but for now this works.

What has helped us, too - and what we hope helps the kids - is being involved in our community as much as possible. And so Sarah is chairwoman of the management committee of our day care centre, we attend every school barbecue, camp-out, concert and campaign meeting, and we always end up inviting ridiculous numbers of people to the kids' birthday parties.

We would probably do all this anyway, but it is a quietly calculated strategy, too. The hope is, of course, that it makes it just a little bit harder for people to dislike us and, more importantly, harder for others' kids to tease mine.

Someone once said that you change the world one person at a time.

''So what do you think would be a good way to handle that, sweetheart,'' I say, ''if it happens again?''

It's a good conversation. We rule out fighting - it's not his inclination and we agree it's a rubbish way of sorting out a problem anyway - and we talk about better ways of fighting, of sticking up for yourself: using words, laughing, walking away.

As an out and very public same-sex family, we have had an easy time of it in many ways. The people in our community whom we encounter every day - childcare workers, shopkeepers, parents and teachers - have always been more than accepting. We live in a nice, leafy, inner suburb with a highly educated demographic and that helps. We chose it for a reason and we know it is not like that everywhere.

What we have in common with other families with young children binds us so much more than our same-sex status separates us. We fit in. We are one of a crowd. We are ordinary.

But every now and again - such as when Corin tells me he is being teased - I am reminded that we are different and that while we may have found a safe, quiet corner to raise our family, there is a big, bad world out there waiting for my kids. And that worries me.

A few days after this incident I relate the story to some parents and one of them asks if I reported it to the school. It's a fair question and I think they are surprised when I say no. There may come a time when I need to, but that's not now. I don't want to blow this out of proportion, and there is a danger that I may make it more difficult for Corin. And, sadly, he needs to develop the skills and confidence to defend himself at times - the times when I'm not there in the playground to do it for him. And as things turned out, it was the right decision.

In the midst of all this I take a trip overseas. My closest friend, Ian, and his partner, Nick, are getting married, a civil partnership in South London where they live. I have known Ian forever and I am honoured to be his ''best lesbian''.

Britain came on board with legal recognition of same-sex relationships in 2005, soon after Canada legalised gay marriage. Now, some form of legal recognition exists in close to 20 countries in Europe, and in such diverse nations as South Africa, New Zealand, Argentina and a number of American states.

Sarah and I got married in Canada in 2003 on a trip home to visit her parents. It's seven years now and it's a strange thing, I can tell you, to be married in some places and not in others. Now you're married, now you're not. When we go back to Canada to visit my in-laws, the gay marriage thing is all a bit old hat; the same when we see friends in Britain. But here at home, of course, things are different. All of a sudden this ring on my finger doesn't mean anything any more and I am ticking the ''single'' box on official forms.

As I hover outside the registry office at Ian and Nick's civil partnership, I am struck by how normal it all feels: a legal ceremony bringing together two people who love each other - two people who just happen to be the same sex - and it seems crazy to me that this still threatens people so much.

Inside, the celebrant conducts the service with professionalism and humour and, as at all the best weddings, we laugh and we cry. But what strikes me most as I listen - ''This place in which you are now met has been duly sanctioned according to law … Nick and Ian have chosen to pledge themselves to each other by committing to a legally binding contract … '' - what really hits home, is that this is a legal process, that the parliament of this country, elected by its people, changed the laws to make this happen, and that blows me away.

And for the first time I see the whole issue of gay marriage with a blinding clarity. The overriding feeling in the room is respect, for Ian and Nick, and for their relationship. Our being in this room says that their relationship is as good, bad or indifferent as yours. And it says that they are as good, bad or indifferent people as you. They are the same. I am the same. I am no less than you because I am gay.

When Sarah and I returned from Canada after getting married, we were unsure of our legal status here and decided to test it in the Family Court. It was this process that led the Howard government to change the law to specifically exclude us. That change sent a clear - opposite - message. It said: Your relationship is not the same as mine You are not the same as me. You are less than me because you are gay.

It is time for this to change.

Back home I am sitting in the playground at pick-up time waiting for the bell and thinking about Corin. I know that he is as sure of himself and his family as any other kid in his class. He understands he has two mums and that that's different. He understands that donor Dave gave us sperm and that you need eggs and sperm to make a baby. He knows lots of his friends have a mum and dad, and lots have two mums. He's cool with all that. What he doesn't know yet - and what I would give anything to shield him from knowing - is that some people think his family is not just different, but worse. Less. Bad.

As the bell goes and the kids spill out on to the oval, I see the grade 6 girl I have noticed a few times reading her book on the bench. There is something about her - the way she sets herself apart from her peers, her dress, her manner - that sends me spinning back to the playgrounds of my youth. She is me, and my heart goes out to her. I don't want her to feel awkward, or alone, or afraid. I want so much for it to be different for her, for it to be easier.

And then there are the boys; there's always one or two - how hard it will be for them - even today, even in the city. Every gay man I've ever known says he knew he was different well before he reached high school, and even by conservative estimates one kid from each of these classes may turn out to be gay.

I cannot pretend that life for me is hard because I am gay. It isn't and it hasn't been for a long time. And the recent legal changes at state and federal levels have removed most discriminatory laws and practices. But for the children in Corin's playground it is a different story. Young, gay people are still extremely vulnerable and if they are going to be OK - and if the children of gay parents are going to be OK - things need to be different.

What you say about same-sex marriage, what you say about gay people, filters down to your children and gets played out in the schoolyard. My schoolyard with my son in it, or another schoolyard with another kid in it, a kid who knows he's different. Maybe your kid, even.

Corin finally emerges from his classroom and bounds up to me with a boy I've not seen before. ''Can my friend Stephen have a go on my scooter?''

Hmm. Would that be the ''Stephen'' in the teasing story, I wonder?

''Sure, sweetheart.''

Later, when I ask him, he says: ''Oh, it's OK now, Mum. He didn't know me, but he does now. He gets it. It's fine.'' And as he disappears across the playground, I can't help but smile. I am relieved, proud; we cleared the first hurdle.

And when, a few weeks later, he comes out with his next announcement I am not quite so taken aback. '' Rebecca in my class says two girls can't get married.''

I take a deep breath. ''No, sweetheart, not here in Australia.'' That's true.

I think about our wedding, about Ian and Nick's civil partnership. I think that a society that treats all its members the same in law sends a message that it respects all its members equally.

I think if my marriage to Sarah was legally acknowledged, it would send a message that our family is as valid as anyone else's. I think that laws are changing in many countries around the world and that there is no reason why those laws can't change here. And by the time I work out how to explain all this to Corin, he has - fortunately - disappeared into the garden and is bouncing on the trampoline.

In the end, all I can really do is try to make his immediate environment as safe as possible, equip him with the skills to defend himself if need be and, maybe, chip away at the attitudes that make him vulnerable in the first place. I know that - as much as I would like to - I can't be in the schoolyard to fight his battles for him, but like I said: there's more than one way to fight a battle.

I do, I do: Now you're married, now you're not

AUSTRALIA: Same-sex marriages are currently not permitted under Australian federal law. The federal government has legislated to remove discrimination against same-sex couples in tax, health, welfare, aged care and superannuation entitlements.

Victoria, Tasmania and ACT allow same-sex couples to register their relationships.

UNITED STATES: Same sex marriages are allowed in five states and one federal district.

Massachusetts became the first state to legalise gay marriage, in November 2003; same-sex couples also may marry in Vermont, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire and District of Columbia.

UNITED KINGDOM: Same-sex civil partnerships allowed.

CANADA: Legal same-sex marriage.

Jacqueline Tomlins is a Melbourne writer and a member of the Rainbow Families Council.

[Source: Original Article]

Read More

Australian Gay and Lesbian Law Blog –“Surrogacy: Family Court Guide” by Stephen Page

Stephen Page, who is one of the best GLBTI legal bloggers around continues his excellent series of posts relating to  Surrogacy in Australia (and for Aussies heading overseas for Surrogacy).  This posting by Stephen relates to the Family Court cases relating to Surrogacy in Australia, and is a great read (albeit full of legal aspects).  Stephen’s blog can be found here (http://lgbtlawblog.blogspot.com)

In 2008 there were amendments to the Family Law Act to recognise children born in Australia as children of the parties under the Family Law Act, but only if there were State or Territory laws allowing a parenting order, and that order had been made. It should be noted at this point that different rules may apply in Western Australia to the rest of Australia. As seen below, there have been some nightmare cases involving surrogacy.
As Justice Crisford stated in the Family Court of Western Australia:

In recent years the use of artificial insemination procedures has risen dramatically, both here and overseas. They were once procedures of last resort for infertile heterosexual married couples. They have now become a mainstream solution for various reproductive challenges including absence of a heterosexual partner. New groups such as single women seeking to raise a child alone, same sex couples and gay men who have arranged for a mother to carry their child have used these procedures.

Whilst technology has grown and the ambit of artificial insemination procedures has expanded the legal system lags behind. This can lead to complicated child custody disputes between the parties.

Some of the cases refer to leave to adopt. Getting leave to adopt is a first step in the adoption process. Leave can only be obtained form the Family Court.

The cases I have written about are from the Family Court. I was unable to find any Federal Magistrate Court cases.

Re Evelyn (1998) - the nightmare case, where two couples agreed that the wife in one couple would be the surrogate for their friends. One couple lived in South Australia, where surrogacy was illegal. The other couple lived in Queensland, where it was also illegal. Re Evelyn is the classic demonstration as to the benefits of extensive regulation and counselling with surrogacy. This is because the surrogate mother decided to keep the child, and not hand her over. Ultimately the Family Court considered that this was in the best interests of Evelyn.

Re Mark(2003)
In 2003, Mr X and Mr Y approached the Family Court for orders concerning their child, Mark. They were a gay couple who lived in Victoria. At the time, it was illegal in Victoria to engage in commercial surrogacy, and the ban extended outside Victoria (including overseas).
This ban didn't stop Mr X and Mr Y. They went to a commercial surrogacy clinic in California, and ultimately Mark was conceived and born. It was gestational surrogacy agreement: the sperm was Mr X's, but the egg was not the surrogate's but that of an anonymous donor.
In accordance with Californian law, the surrogate relinquished all rights, and Mr X and Mr Y were deemed to be the parents. A court order was made in California that Mr X was the father. By virtue of that order, and Mr X's DNA, Mark was an Australian citizen by descent, and therefore able to migrate and live, as an Australian citizen here.
Mr X and Mr Y were granted joint parenting orders by the Family Court. Justice Brown said that the fact that the surrogacy agreement would be  illegal in Victoria was "irrelevant".

Cadet and Scribe (2007)
A gay couple, Mr Cadet and Mr Camden, again apparently from Victoria, where it was an offence to enter into surrogacy, including outside Victoria, went to a clinic in Ohio. A child was born through a surrogacy agreement. An order was made in an Ohio court that the child was that of Mr Cadet. The child was considered to be an Australian citizen by descent.
The matter came before Justice Brown, who made an order for joint parental responsibility.

Raines and Curtin (2007)
Mr Raines and Ms Banner had a child through an altruistic surrogacy arrnagement with Ms Curtin. The arrangment was illegal in Victoria. The child was conceived from the sperm of Mr Raines and the egg of Ms Curtin. Justice Brown made an interim order granting parental responsibility to Mr Curtain and Ms Banner. Her Honour also indicated that she would make final orders to allow them leave to adopt.

Justice Brown stated:
The court has an obligation to make it clear that surrogacy agreements are not able to be enforced pursuant to the laws of Victoria. That is a matter within State law. I say nothing further on that subject. The court’s jurisdiction is to make parenting orders in respect of children, on application by a parent, grand parent or other interested party. I am satisfied the applicants have the status to bring the application and the court the jurisdiction to make the orders sought....On the evidence now before me, there is no reason to doubt the bona fides of all the parties to this application. No doubt each will understand that the court must ensure it is not being used to “rubber stamp” inappropriate arrangements, which may not be in the best interests of the children involved.

G and G (2007)
This was strictly a surrogacy case, but shows some of the complications that can arise when mixing IVF and family breakdown. Mr and Mrs G had split up. Before they split up, Mrs G's embryos had been stored at an IVF clinic. By the time they got to the Family Court of Western Australia, Mr G sought ownership of the eggs. He wanted them to be donated to an infertile couple or used in a surrogacy. At the time, surrogacy was illegal in Western Australia. Mrs G wanted them discarded. The dispute got ugly:

Mrs G] says that ...she had a telephone conversation with [Mr G] in which he told her words to the effect that he will agree to the destruction of the embryos if she agreed to give him 80% of the assets. [Mr G] denies this.
[Mr G] was also cross-examined on several remarks he has made in relation to the embryos. He admits that at a barbeque he told one female, in response to her offer to be surrogate, that he preferred her other friend because she had big hips and would be able to carry triplets. He inferred that for this purpose all six embryos should be implanted in the woman. This comment shows [Mr G] ignorance in relation to issues surrounding implantation of the embryos. [Dr P] gave evidence that in a woman under 35 years only one embryo would be implanted at a time. In a woman over that age two embryos would be implanted. He also admits that he left a message on [Mrs G]’s phone threatening that he would send the “right to lifers” over to her work in attempt to change her mind about allowing the embryos to succumb.
In my opinion [Mr G] has enjoyed the notoriety which has arisen as a result of the dispute over the embryos. I have serious doubts about his motives in seeking, at all costs, that the embryos not be destroyed.
In cross-examination [Mrs G] admits that she did at one point reluctantly agree with [Mr G] that she would donate the embryos but only because [Mr G] threatened her that he would take the matter to the Supreme Court. [Mrs G] says that after reading the donation form and the conditions she did not want to go through with donation.

The effect of the agreement with the IVF clinic was to ensure that Mrs G became pregnant. Mrs G did not want to become pregnant. Justice Penny ordered that the embryos were not property, and that sole decision making about the embryos was vested in the wife.

King and Tamsin (2008) involved the Family Court making an order for joint parental responsibility for a child born by a friend acting as a surrogate. The case was decided in Melbourne, where surrogacy was illegal, but it is unclear if the parties came from Victoria, or whether the child was born in Victoria.

Re Michael (2009) - another nightmare case, which demonstrated that an altruistic surrogacy in NSW did not lead to an adoption, due to the failure of NSW to properly regulate altruistic surrogacy. (It would not have prevented a Re Mark type order, if that had been sought, but apparently it wasn't.)

Rusken and Jenner (2009) was the first case of a couple who had had a child by surrogacy, and had then split up. Mr Rusken and Ms Jenner were married and lived in South Africa. They entered into a commerical surrogacy agreement with Ms Woedene, paying her 50,000 to 60,000 Rand. It was unclear, ultimately (and it appears no one did a DNA test) as to whether the egg that was fertilised that resulted in the birth of the child was Ms Jenner's or Ms Woedene's. Mr Rusken and Ms Jenner were shown on the birth certificate.
Mr Rusken, Ms Jenner and the child subsequently migrated to Australia, and later split up. Ms Woedene had contacted South African authorities to ensure that the birth certificate was altered to ensure that the father was changed to "unknown" and that she was shown as the mother. Justice Bell had to determine whether Mr Rusken was the father. He had no doubt that he was. He treated Ms Jenner as the mother.
Justice Bell stated:

 

It is not Ms Woedene’s rights which may be fair under the South African law. It is not here. We have jurisdiction. We apply our laws. It has been set as long ago as 1979 in Gronow that being a mother does not give you a preferential position. It is a factor, an important factor but it does not give the mother a preferential position. The Court has to consider all matters, an important factor which is the mother. That leads me then on to Ms Woedene.
Ms Woedene was paid to become pregnant. She indicated to me she received some 50,000 to 60,000 rand. I have not been informed of the exchange rate but it is something like 6 or 5 rand to the Australian dollar. That is on the bank rate. She was paid something like nine to $10,000. She indicates that, as a result of that, as a result of her being the birth mother, the child should return to South Africa, should be wrenched away from his father, should be wrenched away from the environment which he has known since 2002, even though he was only a baby at the time, be wrenched away from his emotional mother, his emotional father, be wrenched away from his school, from whatever friends he has, and returned to South Africa where Ms Woedene has four children of her own, all of whom are adult and has fostered two other children. She runs a shop.
She has not put before me one jot of evidence which would convince me that the child’s welfare would be advanced by his being wrenched away, not from Australia but from his present environment and I cannot, for one moment, accept that that would be to his benefit. In fact, I reject her claim totally. It may be I might be persuaded to allow her to be able to contact the child when he is with his mother but not otherwise.

Justice Bell made an order for the child to live with Ms Rusken, spend time with Ms Jenner, and that a copy of the orders be sent to South African authorities.

Hutchens and Franz (2009)
Mr and Mrs Hutchens entered into an altruistic surrogacy agreement with Ms Franz, resulting in the birth of a child. The child was conceived by Mr Hutchens' sperm, and Ms Franz' egg. All parties lived in South Australia, where altruistic surrogacy was illegal and void. Justice Strickland ordered that Mr and Mrs Hutchens, who had cared for the child since it was 2 days old have leave to start adoption proceedings. An order had previously been made giving Mr and Mrs Hutchens parental responsibility.

[Source: Original  Article]

Read More

Australian Gay and Lesbian Law Blog “Federal Government hasn't warned about surrogacy risks” by Stephen Page

The Federal Government in its how to websites has not warned Australians that they might risk prosecution in Australia  for engaging in overseas surrogacy arrangements.

The risk of prosecution was highlighted again a week ago when Queensland passed new surrogacy laws, which criminalise those ordinarily resident in Queensland from accessing overseas commerical surrogacy clinics.

Similarly, if residents of the ACT access overseas commerical surrogacy clinics, they also commit an offence and are at risk of being prosecuted.

No doubt because these are the countries that Australians go to the most for commerical surrogacy, the Federal Government has set up websites at theAustralian Embassy in Washington and the Australian High Commission in New Delhi containing  how to guides for those contemplating overseas commercial surrogacy.

On neither of the sites is there any mention that it is an offence for a resident of Queensland or the ACT to engage in a commerical surrogacy agreement overseas, nor whether the Department of Immigration and Citizenship will refer people to Queensland or ACT authorities for prosecution. The Department in its Australian Citizenship Instructions likewise makes no mention that ACT or Queensland residents accessing commercial surrogacy clinics overseas commit offences in the ACT or Queensland respectively, nor whether these residents will be referred by Departmental officials to ACT or Queensland authorities for investigation and/or prosecution. 

Australian Embassy, Washington DC

This is what the Australian Embassy says. It makes no mention of possible criminal charges or of whether ACT or Queensland authorities will be notified:

Children born through surrogacy arrangements applying for Australian Citizenship by Descent 
Information about applying for Australian Citizenship by Descent 
Please access our website for information and instructions related to Australian citizenship by descent.

Please access our checklist for instructions for how to lodge an Australian citizenship by descent application in Washington.

Children born through surrogacy arrangements 

Anyone considering entering into a surrogacy arrangement outside Australia is urged to exercise extreme caution. They should make sure they are well informed of the Australian legislative requirements for registering such a child as an Australian citizen by descent, and should ensure they are aware of the legal status of surrogacy in the country in which the arrangement is to occur. 

Australia is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, which include obligations to ensure the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in relevant actions, and aim to prevent the abduction, sale and trafficking of children. 

Applications for Australian citizenship by descent for children born outside Australia as a result of surrogacy arrangements are assessed according to legal requirements set out in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (the Citizenship Act), and the policy guidelines set out in the Australian Citizenship Instructions. 

Under these guidelines, a child born overseas as a result of a surrogacy arrangement may be eligible for Australian citizenship by descent if at least one of the biological parents is an Australian citizen who has been granted full parental rights by a court of law. 
In addition to the general documents required for applications for Australian citizenship by

descent, applications for Australian citizenship by descent for children born as a result of surrogacy arrangements need to be accompanied by: 
• evidence that the child is the biological child of the intended parent; and 
• evidence that this parent is also recognised as the legal parent of the child and that the surrogate mother and her husband or partner (if applicable) has relinquished all parental rights over the child. 

Evidence of the above must be in the form of: 

A statement from the doctor to the court stating clearly that genetic material from one or both of the intended parents has been implanted in the surrogate mother (note: the court may require DNA tests to confirm the genetic material of all parties); AND
a confirmation of the doctor’s statement regarding the person/s donating the genetic material; AND
court documentation stating clearly the legal custody of the surrogate child and waiving the rights of the surrogate mother and her husband or partner (where applicable).
This office may request that a client undergo DNA testing to confirm parentage. Please DO NOT undergo DNA testing prior to having it been specifically requested by this office. Further information regarding the procedures and arrangements will be provided by a case officer.

If you require additional information, please contact the Information Service for Australian Visas.

Australian High Commission, New Delhi

This is what the High Commission says. It also makes no mention of possible criminal prosecution in the ACT or Queensland, nor whether there willbe a referral to ACT or Queensland authorities:

Children born through Surrogacy Arrangements applying for Australian Citizenship by Descent 
Information about applying for Australian Citizenship by Descent 

For general information on Australian citizenship by descent, please see: http://www.citizenship.gov.au/applying/how_to_apply/descent/. 
For information on how and where to lodge an Australian citizenship by descent application in India, please see:www.india.embassy.gov.au/ndli/vm_citizen.html

Children born through surrogacy arrangements in India 

Anyone considering entering into a surrogacy arrangement outside Australia is urged to exercise extreme caution. They should make sure they are well informed of the Australian legislative requirements for registering such a child as an Australian citizen by descent, and should ensure they are aware of the legal status of surrogacy in the country in which the arrangement is to occur. 

Indian legislation in respect to surrogacy is limited and Indian laws are expected to change in response to the growing demand for surrogacy arrangements. 

Australia is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, which include obligations to ensure the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in relevant actions, and aim to prevent the abduction, sale and trafficking of children. 

Applications for Australian citizenship by descent for children born outside Australia as a result of surrogacy arrangements are assessed according to legal requirements set out in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (the Citizenship Act), and the policy guidelines set out in the Australian Citizenship Instructions. 

Under these guidelines, a child born overseas as a result of a surrogacy arrangement may be eligible for Australian citizenship by descent if at least one of the biological parents is an Australian citizen who has been granted full parental rights by a court of law. 

In addition to the general documents required for applications for Australian citizenship by descent, applications for Australian citizenship by descent for children born in India as a result of surrogacy arrangements need to be accompanied by: 
•evidence that the child is the biological child of the intended parent; and 
•evidence that this parent is also recognised as the legal parent of the child and that the surrogate mother and her husband or partner (if applicable) has relinquished all parental rights over the child. 

Evidence of the above can be given in the form of: 
(a) court documentation OR 
(b) DNA testing and written advice confirming legal parentage 

Further information on (a) and (b) is given below. 

(a) Court documentation 
This evidence must be in the form of: 
•a statement from the doctor to the court stating clearly that genetic material from one or both of the intended parents has been implanted in the surrogate mother (note: the court may require DNA tests to confirm the genetic material of all parties); 
•a confirmation of the doctor’s statement regarding the person/s donating the genetic material; and 
•court documentation stating clearly the legal custody of the surrogate child and waiving the rights of the surrogate mother and her husband or partner (where applicable). 

(b) DNA testing and written advice confirming legal parentage 
Where a client is unable to obtain the court documentation listed in (a) above, they will be requested instead to undergo DNA testing and to provide an independent legal advice confirming the validity of their surrogacy contract and their status as the legal parents of the child. More information on these requirements is given below. 
DNA testing – Surrogacy cases – Australian citizenship by descent - general information 
The child and the Australian citizen biological parent will be requested to undergo DNA testing. In this regard, please note: 
• You will need to meet all costs associated with DNA testing. 
• The Australian citizen biological parent is required to undergo DNA testing in Australia. Processing delays will result if the Australian citizen biological parent undertakes DNA testing while in India. 
• In India, DNA tests for the child must be carried out by specified Panel Doctors in New Delhi or Mumbai (more details below). 
•Only those Panel Doctors are authorised to carry out the DNA test. You should not make appointments for a DNA test with any other Panel Doctor, as the results will not be acceptable for the purposes of the citizenship application and will have to be repeated, with consequent delays to processing and extra cost for applicants.

• Whilst the newborn child may undertake their DNA test in Mumbai by an authorised Panel Doctor, the Australian citizen biological parent will need to travel at their own cost to New Delhi to undergo DNA testing so that it may be witnessed by an Australian Government official.

• Travel costs associated with the DNA tests are at the applicant’s own expense. 
• Panel Doctors are required to use specific testing kits, which must be provided to them via a DNA laboratory in Australia with which arrangements are in place to do DNA testing for immigration and citizenship purposes. Details of these laboratories are copied below. 
• If the DNA test will be carried out in New Delhi, an appointment with a Panel Doctor will be arranged by the Australian High Commission in New Delhi. The DNA test must be witnessed by an Australian Government official from the Australian High Commission in New Delhi. You must give the Australian High Commission at least three working days’ notice to arrange an appointment. 
• If the DNA test (for the newborn child only) will be carried out in Mumbai instead of New Delhi, you may arrange an appointment directly with Dr Jayant Rele whose contact details are athttp://www.immi.gov.au/contacts/overseas/i/india/panel-doctors.htm. 
• The DNA sample and completed forms will be couriered to the DNA laboratory in Australia for assessment. 
• Fact Sheet 1259i 'Information about DNA testing for visa and citizenship applicants' contains further information on DNA testing. This fact sheet is available online at:http://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/pdf/1259i.pdf . 
• If you undertake DNA testing, it is your responsibility to contact one of the recommended laboratories to make arrangements for the testing (further details below). 
• Once you have selected and contacted a DNA laboratory, you must advise the Australian High Commission in New Delhi of the details of the laboratory you have selected. The Australian High Commission will then liaise with you and the laboratory regarding testing arrangements. We will provide you and the laboratory with a reference number which you should include in any correspondence with the Australian High Commission in New Delhi. 
• More specific information about arranging DNA testing in India is given below. 
• If you choose not to undertake DNA testing the application will be decided based on the information provided. 

Documents in relation to donors of genetic material 

If applicable, please provide copies of any documents or records in relation to donated genetic material (for example, anonymously donated egg or sperm). 

Written advice confirming legal parentage 
Where a client is unable to obtain court documentation stating the legal parentage of the child, as outlined in (a) above, clients will be requested to provide written advice from a lawyer expert in Indian family law and/or contract law that their surrogacy contract is legal and confirming they are the legal parent(s) of the child. 

This advice should include comment on the general legality of the contract (with reference to the provisions of Indian legislation that make it valid) and whether the contract confirms the legal parentage of the child (with reference to the relevant provisions of Indian legislation). It should also include comment on the following elements and state the grounds on which the lawyer is satisfied that these elements are met. 
•whether all parties consent to the contract; 
•whether the contract is legally enforceable; 
•whether the contract gives full legal parental rights to the Australian citizen parent; 
•whether the contract waives the parental or any other rights of any other parties to the contract; and 
•whether the contract includes evidence that all parties are still consenting and still agree to the contract after the birth of the child concerned. 
The lawyer should also state their level of experience and accreditation in the field, and declare any potential conflict/s of interest, such as whether the lawyer or their firm was involved in drafting the surrogacy contract. 

Recommended DNA Laboratories 
DNALABS Sydney IVF 
Level 3, 321 Kent Street, Sydney 
NSW AUSTRALIA 2000 
GPO Box 4384, Sydney NSW 2000 
Sydney: phone +61 2 9229 6495 
Melbourne: phone +61 3 8414 0605 
Perth: phone +61 8 9460 0810 
Canberra: phone +61 2 6210 0915 
Brisbane: phone +61 7 3811 0961 
Adelaide: phone +61 8 8220 0786 
Darwin: phone +61 8 8989 0820 
Hobart: phone +61 3 6218 0790 
Fax: +61 2 9221 9272 
Email: dnalabs@sydneyivf.com
Website: http://www.dnalabs.com/

Genetic Technologies Corporation Pty Ltd 
60-66 Hanover Street 
FITZROY VIC 3065 
PO Box 115, Fitzroy Vic 3065, Australia 
Phone: +61 3 9415 7688 
Fax: +61 3 9416 4076 
Email: immigration@gtg.com.au
Website: http://www.genetictechnologies.com.au/
Information pamphlets for these laboratories can be downloaded from their websites. 
DNA testing - procedure for India 

Before you leave Australia 
1. Choose the laboratory you would like to use – DNALabs or Genetic Technologies. 
2. Contact the laboratory and ask about the testing procedure, the expected timeframe for obtaining the results, the cost involved and any other questions you have. The Australian High Commission is unable to provide this information. 
3. Arrange for the Australian citizen biological parent to undergo DNA testing in Australia. 
Note: Australian citizen biological parents should undergo DNA testing in Australia and before travelling to India. Processing delays will result if the Australian citizen biological parent/s undertakes DNA testing while in India. This is because DNA testing of Australian citizen biological parents must be witnessed in New Delhi under the supervision of an Australian Government Official from the Australian High Commission. It is only the newborn child/children that may undertake DNA testing in Mumbai. If the Australian citizen biological parent chooses to be tested in India, then they will need to travel at their own cost to New Delhi to undergo DNA testing so that it may be witnessed by an Australian Government official from the Australian High Commission in New Delhi. 
4. Decide whether you would like your child to undergo DNA testing in New Delhi or Mumbai. 
After you arrive in India 

If the DNA testing will be done in New Delhi: 
1. Contact the Australian High Commission at Citizenship.NewDelhi@dfat.gov.au and request an appointment with a Panel Doctor. You must give the Australian High Commission at least three working days notice to arrange an appointment. 
2. The Australian High Commission will confirm an appointment day and time and send you some forms to complete prior to your arrival at the panel doctor's office. Please bring at least two passport photos for each person being tested. 
3. You will be met at the Panel Doctor's office by an Australian Government official, who will guide you through the testing process. 
4. The Australian Government official will take the DNA sample/s and completed forms back to the Australian High Commission and dispatch by courier on the same day. It will take approximately three working days for the samples to arrive in Australia. 

If the DNA testing (for the new born child/children) is to be done in Mumbai: 
1. Contact Dr Jayant Rele at jayant.rele@releclinic.com or on +91 22 2361 3838 and request an appointment. 
2. If you have not received the required forms for completion, please request these from the Australian High Commission atCitizenship.NewDelhi@dfat.gov.au and complete as much of the relevant forms as possible before your appointment. 
3. Please bring (a) the forms and (b) at least two passport photos for each person being tested to the Panel Doctor’s clinic. 
4. The Panel Doctor will guide you through the testing process.
5. The Panel Doctor will dispatch the DNA sample(s) and completed forms by courier on the same day. It will take approximately three working days for the samples to arrive in Australia. 

What will happen next? 

The laboratory will advise the Australian High Commission once the test results are completed. It usually takes 5-8 working days for the laboratory to provide the test results to this office. 
The Australian High Commission in New Delhi is responsible for deciding all applications for citizenship by descent in relation to children born via surrogacy arrangements in India. 
This means that whether your child/ren have undertaken DNA tests in New Delhi or Mumbai, the application for citizenship by descent must be forwarded to the Australian High Commission in New Delhi for assessment and decision. 
If the child meets all the requirements, the High Commission will grant the child citizenship and provide a citizenship certificate. 

Processing times 
Tips to make the process as quick and easy as possible 
1. Read all the information atwww.india.embassy.gov.au/ndli/vm_citizen.html andhttp://www.citizenship.gov.au/ before contacting this office. 
2. Download form 118 Application for Australian citizenship by descent from www.immi.gov.au/allforms/pdf/118.pdf before your child is born and complete the form as soon as your child is born. 
3. Obtain passport sized photos of your baby as soon as possible. You will need photos for the citizenship application, DNA testing forms and passport application. 
4. Obtain a bank demand draft (bank cheque) for the citizenship application fee. To find out the current fee please go towww.immi.gov.au/allforms/pdf/1298i.pdf . Please note that if you are lodging more than one citizenship application at the same time (for example if you have twins) the fee for the second application is less than the first. To convert the Australian dollar amount to Indian rupees, please use the currency converter at www.immi.gov.au/allforms/990i/converter.htm . Please note that a bank demand draft is the only acceptable form of payment for the citizenship application fee. The demand draft should be made payable to the 'Australian High Commission New Delhi', payable in New Delhi. 
5. You can lodge your child's citizenship application as soon as you have completed it. You do not need to wait for the DNA testing to lodge the application. Seewww.india.embassy.gov.au/ndli/vm_citizen_lodge.html . You do not need to lodge you child's citizenship application in person. You can send the application via our service delivery partner (preferred), by courier or by post. See www.india.embassy.gov.au/ndli/vm_howtoapply.html . If you choose to lodge the application in person you need to make an appointment by sending an email to appointments.newdelhi@dfat.gov.au or calling +91 11 4122 1000. 
6. For any further queries regarding Citizenship or DNA testing which are not covered in the website please contact us by email atcitizenship.newdelhi@dfat.gov.au. 
7. For any further queries regarding passport applications which are not covered in the website please contact the Consular section of the Australian High Commission New Delhi by email atausthighcom.newdelhi@dfat.gov.au.
Contacting the Australian High Commission 
• Please forward ALL QUERIES to Citizenship.NewDelhi@dfat.gov.au. 
• This mailbox is cleared daily and surrogacy queries are dealt with as a priority. Therefore using the mailbox will ensure the quickest possible response. 
• Please DO NOT contact individual officers for information as this will slow the process

Australian Citizenship Instructions

The instructions are the administrative basis for deicsions by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. Aside from warning about "extreme caution" about overseas surrogacy arrnagements, the Instructions mention nothing about surrogacy being an offence in the ACT or Queensland, nor whether the Department will refer the matter to Queensland or ACT authorities. This is what the instructions say:

This part comprises:
Is a surrogate child eligible for citizenship by descent?
If there is no genetic link to the Australian parent.
As a party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, Australia is committed to protecting the fundamental rights of children. These Conventions include obligations to ensure that in all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child are a primary consideration. The Hague Convention focuses on the need for countries to work to prevent the abduction, sale, or trafficking of children. The ACIs seek to support Australia’s international obligations in this area.
Extreme caution should be exercised in cases involving surrogacy arrangements entered into overseas to ensure that Australia’s citizenship provisions are not used to circumvent adoption laws and other child welfare laws. Commercial surrogacy arrangements are illegal in Australia at this time.
Section 8 of the Act does not apply to surrogacy arrangements entered into overseas. Section 8 of the Act applies to couples who use artificial conception procedures or surrogacy  arrangements occurring under a prescribed law of an Australian state or territory to become parents to a child.
IS A SURROGATE CHILD ELIGIBLE FOR CITIZENSHIP BY DESCENT?
A surrogate child will generally be eligible for Australian citizenship by descent if at least one of the biological parents is an Australian citizen, who has been granted full parental rights by a court of law.
In the case of a child born as a result of surrogacy arrangements, it is a requirement for registration of citizenship by descent that there be a genetic link between a parent and the child in question and that that parent be recognised on the birth certificate.
Documents required to register a surrogate child as an Australian citizen by descent are:
a statement from the doctor to the courts stating clearly that genetic material from person A
and/or person B has been implanted in person C; and
court documentation stating clearly the legal custody of the surrogate child and waiving the
rights of the surrogate mother. The statement must also confirm the doctor’s statement
regarding the person/s donating the genetic material.
Family situation is not relevant to registration of citizenship by descent, provided at least one
biological parent is an Australian citizen who has been granted full parental rights by a court of law.
When the biological parent is an Australian by descent they will need to meet the requirement to have been lawfully present in Australia for a total of two years before the child can be registered as an Australian citizen by descent.
IF THERE IS NO GENETIC LINK TO THE AUSTRALIAN PARENT
It is possible for a birth certificate to be issued where neither parent has a genetic link to the child but their names are included on the child’s birth certificate. If there is no genetic link with either parent, then in spite of the fact that the birth certificate is in their names, they should be requested to seek an adoption order and sponsor the child for an adoption visa. DNA testing can be considered to establish the genetic link if appropriate documentation is not available.

[Source: Original Article]

Read More

Press Release - “Babies Born to HIV-Positive Growing Generations Surrogacy Clients to Double in 2010” by Growing Generations

This is excellent news for HIV positive Gay and Lesbian Australians wanting to have children.  I am sure Growing Generations is not the only agency offering this service, but it is certainly the only one I am aware of.

Babies Born to HIV-Positive Growing Generations Surrogacy Clients to Double in 2010
Obama Administration's Lifting of Restrictions on Visas for HIV-Positive Foreigners Opens Program to International Clients

LOS ANGELES, Feb. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- The nation's largest surrogacy agency announced today that the number of babies born to HIV-positive clients is expected to more than double in 2010 as its program for HIV-positive men using their own sperm to create embryos continues to expand in the U.S. and abroad.  In 2009, Growing Generations had 5 babies born to HIV-positive parents working with surrogates and in 2010 more than 10 babies are expected.

"It is so amazing for us to see these babies being born to loving, healthy parents who have dreamed of this opportunity for years," said Growing Generations CEO Stuart Miller.  "As the first agency to create a program specifically for clients with HIV, our expertise and guidance of this process is unparalleled."

Participants in Growing Generations' HIV program go through the same process as other clients with the addition of an extensive health screening and preparation process for the sperm which virtually eliminates any risk of exposure to the surrogate or embryo.  Many men with HIV show no material trace of the virus in their semen.  The sperm preparation process has been used for more than a decade in non-surrogacy related pregnancies and, as is the case with all of Growing Generations surrogates and babies, no one has become infected with HIV.

The program is now available not only to citizens of the U.S. but to international clients as well due to the Obama administration's lifting of the restriction on visas for HIV-positive foreigners.  In January of this year, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention removed HIV infection from the list of diseases that prevent non-U.S. citizens from entering the country.

"We are extremely pleased that the Obama administration has removed a restriction that should have been removed a long time ago," added Miller.  "Our company has always been at the forefront of fighting against discrimination and our ability to now serve clients with HIV from around the world is something we are very proud of.  We anticipate that as people with HIV learn of this opportunity, we will continue to see more of them choose surrogacy as their family building option." 

To learn more about Growing Generations, please visit www.growinggenerations.com.
About Growing Generations, LLC

Since 1996, Growing Generations has been a company passionately dedicated to the vision of creating life and, in the process, changing the world. Founded by gay and lesbian parents, our mission is simple — to build families of choice for communities around the globe through surrogacy, egg donation, and sperm donation.
SOURCE Growing Generations
RELATED LINKS
http://www.growinggenerations.com

Read More

Brisbane Times – “Surrogacy reforms should not exclude gay couples: group” by AAP

A push to decriminalise altruistic surrogacy in Queensland should not exclude same-sex couples, the Queensland Association for Healthy Communities says.

Queensland MPs will get a conscience vote on Wednesday about whether to follow other states and decriminalise altruistic surrogacy, where a woman has another couple's child for no payment.

Under the proposed reforms, legal parentage of a child born under such an agreement would be transferred from the birth mother to the parent, or parents, who commissioned the birth.

The association, which promotes the health and wellbeing of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Queenslanders, called on MPs to support making non-commercial surrogacy legal for all.

MPs should also agree to legally recognise both parents in same-sex headed families, it says.

"The only test of parenthood should be whether a loving, nurturing and safe environment can be provided for the child, not the gender of the parents," the association's general manager Paul Martin said in a statement on Wednesday.

"Numerous studies from Australia and around the world show that children raised by same-sex couples develop equally as well as those raised by opposite sex couples.

"We call on all members of parliament to be respectful in the debate today."

The opposition is adamant that same-sex couples and single parents must be excluded from any reforms to surrogacy arrangements.

Some church and family groups agree, saying the reforms, as they're currently proposed, will threaten the traditional family model and normalise same-sex parenting.

Queensland is the only Australian state in which altruistic surrogacy is a criminal offence, punishable by a $10,000 fine or three years' imprisonment.

Commercial surrogacy will remain illegal under the bill.

[Source: Original Article]

Read More