International surrogacy agencies cash in on desperation

Companies profiteering from unproven fertility treatments have been around (and tolerated) for decades. What is more novel, and far more dangerous, is the increase – in the UK and Europe – in surrogacy agencies taking money from intended parents desperate for a child, treating them and their surrogates as pawns in a global chessboard, with no care for the legal or ethical consequences for newborns.

A news story this month shows that Ukraine continues to be a popular destination for Irish heterosexual couples seeking surrogacy, despite the ongoing war. Yet many other nationalities remain rightly concerned about commissioning surrogacy arrangements in a war zone, or do not fit the eligibility criteria for Georgia, the last bastion of regulated surrogacy in Europe. This has led to nebulous agencies exploiting opportunities in Eastern European jurisdictions with no surrogacy frameworks.

Intended parents are vulnerable – often years into a family building journey that has cost them many thousands and resulted in dead-ends, desperation and heartbreak. Some are ready to be sold anything that might solve their inability to carry a child. Blind to the logistical and legal complexities, they are walking a minefield.

A gay UK couple reached out to me nine months ago. They were expecting a baby through a company in Northern Cyprus. The agency's website claims that Northern Cyprus has laws legalising surrogacy. No such laws exist. Another of their website's claims is also alluring: Intended parents can 'spend the last three months of pregnancy' with their foreign surrogate in the UK. Yes, the agency claims that it will relocate your surrogate and then 'make the registration process... in accordance with the laws of your country of residence.'

In reality, such women – with no other connection to the intended parents' country - are not granted visas. Furthermore, most countries will not register a child to intended parents following a surrogacy birth. Instead, the intended father needs to pose as the surrogate's partner. But your average single or couple, desperate for family, is told none of this. What they see is a European solution that will accept them regardless of age, marital or health status, at a quarter of the cost of a US surrogacy pathway.

The gay couple from whom I heard had been assigned a surrogate from Kazakhstan. They had just been informed that the birth would take place not in the UK, but in Georgia, despite surrogacy for same-sex couples being illegal there. They panicked. I never heard from them again.

Since then, international surrogacy lawyers from the UK, Ireland, Spain, Georgia and elsewhere have become increasingly alarmed at the rise in intended parents entering shady surrogacy arrangements. One couple's surrogate gave birth in Georgia more a year ago. Because they had entered the agreement in Cyprus and embryo transfer took place there, the infant remains stranded and stateless.

Another case reported recently involved the same agency, engaged by a single man from the UK (see BioNews 1279). Donor eggs were used at a North Cyprus IVF clinic to make embryos. In Cyprus, these embryos were transferred to the womb of a surrogate from Kyrgyzstan, who had been paid to travel for that purpose. The surrogate returned home for the gestation, and the intended father was promised that the birth would take place in a fourth country, the Czech Republic. Instead, at the 11th hour the agency admitted that this was impossible, and instead sent the surrogate to Moldova to give birth.

Trapped in Moldova for months, the hapless UK dad struggled with UK authorities to gain a UK passport for his newborn. Years later, the authorities did eventually award the father parentage under UK law, in the best interests of the child. But this and many other cases underline the naïveté of some who long for family. Mrs Justice Theis notably named the agencies involved, expressing 'enormous concern' over their behaviour (see BioNews 1280).

Still another case reported recently involved a lesbian couple in their late sixties, who had commissioned a surrogacy arrangement in North Cyprus (see BioNews 1278). The couple failed to take any legal advice, and their twins were born stateless. The women were forced to remain in North Cyprus for the next four years, until the UK courts begrudgingly unravelled the mess and allowed the family's return to the UK. In his judgment, Sir Andrew McFarlane warned prospective parents of the dangers of such complex international arrangements.

How are such arrangements allowed to occur? The agency in question, and many others, are registered in far-off jurisdictions. When such cases arise, agencies may be reported to government agencies, including child protection or even Interpol. However, at a time when Europe is deluged with larger problems – such as refugee arrivals, and conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East – perhaps it is no surprise that nothing is done.

Sometimes, as in Spain, authorities have brought charges against a surrogacy operator. But typically, the company in question will simply open up as a new entity. The owner might change his name, or engage a reputation management firm, to erase poor reviews online.

Given the human interest angle, why does the media not name and shame such providers? These are powerful stories of victimhood, but intended parents come away feeling ashamed at their naïveté, and surrogates are hidden from prying eyes. This is starting to change in recent coverage, as judges have taken the opportunity to warn the public of the dangers involved in such arrangements, sometimes naming the agencies involved. A small number of intended parents have spoken to the media, but this has been more about delays in processing UK travel documents than about agency deception (see BioNews 1280). As judges admit, most intended parents never scrutinise court judgements, let alone read publications such as BioNews.

But what about the fertility shows who offer these agencies a platform? Large shows – all run by UK-based companies – roll out every year in London, Manchester, Berlin, Brussels, Sydney, Cologne and Paris. They have two key aims – to attract as many fertility exhibitors as possible, and to attract infertile singles and couples. 'Foot traffic', they call it.

By riding on the back of well-respected providers and professionals at such events, dodgy operators know that they can gain credibility. Taking website claims or presence at fertility shows as a sign of credibility, many intended parents skip over the complexities and potential difficulties, naïvely believing the marketing spiel.

Trade shows continue to take sponsor monies from such operators, despite the track records of their owners, for fertility shows are there to profit and are not in the business of assessing the validity of providers' claims or reputation. What is concerning is the ongoing willingness of some to host certain providers, given increasing complaints.

Growing Families stepped up a decade ago to create a platform which put the rights of intended parents, surrogates and unborn children front and centre. We continue to mitigate against harm by providing accurate online resources and annual conferences, led by parents and surrogates rather than industry. The trouble is, too few are listening.

It's vital that intended parents are well informed before making one of the biggest decisions of their lives.

---

The Growing Families 11th Annual International Surrogacy Conference for UK/EU Citizens will take place in London on Saturday 10 May 2025 in London. Find out more here.

The past, present and future of surrogacy law will also be discussed at the online event 40 Years of the Surrogacy Arrangements Act: What Next for Surrogacy?, on Wednesday 16 July 2025. Find out more here.