PET PET
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
Become a Friend Donate
  • About Us
    • People
    • Press Office
    • Our History
  • Get Involved
    • Become a Friend of PET
    • Volunteer
    • Campaigns
    • Writing Scheme
    • Partnership and Sponsorship
    • Advertise with Us
  • Donate
    • Become a Friend of PET
  • BioNews
    • News
    • Comment
    • Reviews
    • Elsewhere
    • Topics
    • Glossary
    • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
    • Previous Events
  • Engagement
    • Policy and Projects
      • Resources
    • Education
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
    • People
    • Press Office
    • Our History
  • Get Involved
    • Become a Friend of PET
    • Volunteer
    • Campaigns
    • Writing Scheme
    • Partnership and Sponsorship
    • Advertise with Us
  • Donate
    • Become a Friend of PET
  • BioNews
    • News
    • Comment
    • Reviews
    • Elsewhere
    • Topics
    • Glossary
    • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
    • Previous Events
  • Engagement
    • Policy and Projects
      • Resources
    • Education
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements
PETBioNewsNewsUK High Court grants parental orders in Indian surrogacy case

BioNews

UK High Court grants parental orders in Indian surrogacy case

Published 23 January 2013 posted in News and appears in BioNews 637

Author

Dr Antony Starza-Allen

Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis

The UK's High Court has granted parental orders to a couple over two children born through an international surrogacy arrangement, ruling that payments made to the Indian surrogates were not 'disproportionate'...

The UK's High Court has granted parental orders to a couple over two children born through an international surrogacy arrangement, ruling that payments made to the Indian surrogates were not 'disproportionate'.

The children, a boy known as X and a girl known as Y, were born in New Delhi, India, to two different surrogate mothers. Both children were looked after from birth by the intending parents, known as Mr and Mrs A. Mr A is the biological father of both children and the eggs were donated anonymously.

The couple enlisted the services of a company operating from a clinic in a New Delhi hospital to find a surrogate mother, after a British agency said it would not consider couples for another three years due to a shortage of surrogates in the UK.

The surrogacy agreement provided for a payment of 200,000 rupees in 'compensation' to each surrogate, although evidence suggested what was paid in the end was higher at 230,000 rupees (around £3,000). The court heard how one of the surrogates worked as a maid earning 9,000 rupees a month and the other as a housekeeper earning around 11,000 rupees a month.

Mr and Mrs A paid over 2,000,000 rupees to the clinic (around £27,400), which took responsibility for making payments to the surrogates and expenses, both medical and non-medical. The clinic stated the payments to the surrogates represented compensation for loss of earnings over 13 months, although the judge held it 'remains unclear precisely what sums the surrogate mothers actually received and what the monies paid to them actually covered'.

In his reasoning, Sir Nicholas Wall said the critical issue was whether the payments made by Mr and Mrs A fall outside UK law which requires that the court must be satisfied that no money or other benefit — other than for expenses reasonably incurred — was given.

Although the judge said it was likely the payments went beyond 'reasonable expenses', he concluded they were 'not so disproportionate that the granting of parental orders would be an affront to public policy'. He said Mr and Mrs A were acting in 'good faith' and had made no attempt to 'defraud the authorities'.

In deciding whether to retrospectively authorise the payments, Sir Nicholas said it was suggested to the court that the law requires the child's welfare to be the court's 'paramount consideration'. This followed another case in 2010 in which Mr Justice Hedley said that welfare is no longer the court's first consideration but its paramount consideration - although he said the court should still, on the grounds of public policy, scrutinise applications to retrospectively authorise payment.

However, as Mr Justice Hedley pointed out in an earlier case, 'the difficulty is that it is almost impossible to imagine a set of circumstances in which by the time the case comes to court, the welfare of any child (particularly a foreign child) would not be gravely compromised (at the very least) by a refusal to make an order'. Sir Nicholas said he was 'particularly struck' by the passage, which despite a change in the law, he said remained relevant.

The case raises some complex issues. In September, a High Court in Pretoria, South Africa, in outlining guidance for international surrogacy arrangements, expressed concerns that the 'involvement of agencies in the introduction of surrogate mothers can also easily lead to abuse'.

It said with regard to international surrogacy practices, 'it becomes clear particularly in countries such as ours with deep socio-economic disparities and the prevalence of poverty, that the possibility of abuse of underprivileged women is a real and ever present danger'. The judge concluded: 'Ideally the involvement of agencies should be the subject of regulation'.

In another parental order handed down by the UK's High Court in July involving an arrangement with an Indian mother, Mrs Justice Theis sought to emphasise the legal difficulties overseas surrogacy arrangements can create. 'Although the circumstances that have arisen in this case are extremely rare, they bring into sharp focus again, the difficulties that can arise in international surrogacy arrangements', she said.

In the present case, Sir Nicholas noted: 'Mr and Mrs A did not consult solicitors in the UK about the legal implications of an international surrogacy arrangement before flying to India though they were aware of some of the legal difficulties they might encounter'.

Related Articles

Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
News
6 March 2015 • 2 minutes read

Man who used his own mother as surrogate adopts child

by Dr Antony Starza-Allen

A single father has adopted his biological child born to his mother in a surrogacy arrangement using donor eggs...

Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
News
3 June 2013 • 2 minutes read

International surrogacy arrangements need parental orders, says UK judge

by Dr Antony Starza-Allen

A UK High Court judge has said applications for parental orders in international surrogacy cases should be encouraged and made promptly...

Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Comment
5 March 2013 • 5 minutes read

The Indian surrogacy industry — and why we need to reform UK surrogacy law

by Natalie Gamble

Indian surrogacy is a hot media topic, with several stories over the past week about couples being stuck in India waiting for British passports for their biological children. As far as we are concerned, this isn't really news — it is the shared experience of every British parent who has had a child through surrogacy in India, and something we deal with on a daily basis....

Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
CC0 1.0
Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
News
5 March 2013 • 2 minutes read

Britons paying up to £25,000 for Indian surrogate babies

by Jess Ware

Around half of the 2,000 babies born to surrogate mothers in India last year may have gone to British parents, an investigation by the Sunday Telegraph has revealed....

Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
News
25 January 2013 • 2 minutes read

Ireland: Can surrogate mother be removed from birth certificate?

by Nina Chohan

An Irish couple has brought a legal challenge against the State for refusing to remove the surrogate mother from their children's birth certificates and to register the genetic mother as a legal parent...

Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
News
10 January 2013 • 3 minutes read

South African court sets out guidelines for surrogacy arrangements

by Dr Antony Starza-Allen

A High Court in South Africa has set out guidelines for judicial approaches to surrogacy arrangements in light of new family law legislation which came into force last year....

Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
News
21 November 2012 • 2 minutes read

Dead father granted parenthood in surrogacy case

by Dr Antony Starza-Allen

The UK's High Court has awarded legal parenthood to a deceased father of a child born through a surrogacy arrangement in India....

Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
News
13 December 2010 • 2 minutes read

Child's welfare is ruled 'paramount' in surrogacy case

by Dr Antony Starza-Allen

The UK's High Court has granted legal parenthood to the parents of a child born using a surrogate in the United States to allow them to keep the child in the country....

Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
News
9 June 2009 • 2 minutes read

High Court rescues surrogate twins from international custody limbo

by Ben Jones

A British couple this week won custody over a pair of twins born to a surrogate mother in the Ukraine. The twin babies were caught in a legal loophole whereby the expectant British couple were unable to bring the twins into the UK, as they were not...

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

« Sperm donor told to halt production by US regulator

Data-Label The UK's Leading Supplier Of Medical Labels & Asset Labels

RetiringDentist.co.uk The UK's Leading M&A Company.
easyfundraising
amazon

This month in BioNews

  • Popular
  • Recent
13 June 2022 • 2 minutes read

Drop in diversity of blood stem cells leads to old-age health issues

6 July 2022 • 1 minute read

Frozen embryo transfers linked to high blood pressure in pregnancy

5 July 2022 • 1 minute read

Anorexia in pregnancy linked to increased risk of complications

5 July 2022 • 2 minutes read

Pregnancy after breast cancer treatment does not increase risk of recurrence

5 July 2022 • 1 minute read

No difference between fresh and frozen sperm for IUI

4 July 2022 • 2 minutes read

Shorter IVF protocol reduces risk of OHSS

Subscribe to BioNews and other PET updates for free.

Subscribe
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS
Wellcome
Website redevelopment supported by Wellcome.

Website by Impact Media Impact Media

  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements

© 1992 - 2022 Progress Educational Trust. All rights reserved.

Limited company registered in England and Wales no 07405980 • Registered charity no 1139856

Subscribe to BioNews and other PET updates for free.

Subscribe
PET PET

PET is an independent charity that improves choices for people affected by infertility and genetic conditions.

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS
Wellcome
Website redevelopment supported by Wellcome.

Navigation

  • About Us
  • Get Involved
  • Donate
  • BioNews
  • Events
  • Engagement
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us

BioNews

  • News
  • Comment
  • Reviews
  • Elsewhere
  • Topics
  • Glossary
  • Newsletters

Other

  • My Account
  • Subscribe

Website by Impact Media Impact Media

  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements

© 1992 - 2022 Progress Educational Trust. All rights reserved.

Limited company registered in England and Wales no 07405980 • Registered charity no 1139856