Surrogacy does not conflict with the  Hindu religion . [ 81 ]   Surrogacy and other scientific methods of assisted reproduction are generally supported within the Hindu community.
While Hindu scholars have not debated the issue extensively,  T. C. Anand Kumar , an Indian reproductive biologist, argues that there is no conflict between Hinduism and assisted reproduction. [ 88 ]  Others have supported this stance with reference to  Hindu faith , including a story in the  Bhagavata Purana  which suggests the practice of gestational carrier-hood: [ 81 ]


Kamsa , the wicked king of Mathura, had imprisoned his sister Devaki and her husband Vasudeva because oracles had informed him that her child would be his killer. Every time she delivered a child, he smashed its head on the floor. He killed six children. When the seventh child was conceived, the gods intervened. They summoned the goddess Yogamaya and had her transfer the fetus from the womb of Devaki to the womb of Rohini (Vasudeva's other wife who lived with her sister Yashoda across the river Yamuna, in the village of cowherds at Gokulam). Thus the child conceived in one womb was incubated in and delivered through another womb. [ 81 ]


Additionally, infertility is often associated with  karma  in the Hindu tradition and consequently treated as a pathology to be treated. [ 89 ]  This has led to general acceptance of medical intervention for addressing infertility amongst Hindus. [ 89 ]  As such, surrogacy and other scientific methods of  assisted reproduction  are generally supported within the Hindu community. [ 89 ]  Nonetheless, Hindu women do not commonly use surrogacy as an option to treat  infertility , despite often serving as surrogates for Western commissioning couples. [ 81 ] [ 89 ]  When surrogacy is practiced by Hindus, it is more likely to be used within the family circle as opposed to involving anonymous donors. [ 89 ]


For Muslims, the Qur'anic injunction that "their mothers are only those who conceived them and gave birth to them ( waladna hum )" denies the distinction between genetic and gestational mothers, hence complicating notions of lineage within the context of surrogacy, which are central to the Muslim faith. [ 90 ]


Jain  scholars have not debated the issue of surrogacy extensively. Nonetheless, the practice of surrogacy is referenced in the  Śvētāmbara  tradition of Jainism according to which the embryo of Lord  Mahavira  was transferred from a  Brahmin  woman Devananada to the womb of  Trishala , the queen of  Kshatriya  ruler Siddharth, by a divinity named  Harinegameshin . [ 91 ]  This account is not present in  Digambara  Jain texts, however.


Other sources state that surrogacy is not objectionable in the Jain view as it is seen as a physical operation akin to any other medical treatment used to treat a bodily deficiency. [ 92 ]  However, some religious concerns related to surrogacy have been raised within the Jain community including the loss of non-implanted embryos, destruction of traditional marriage relationships, and  adulterous  implications of gestational surrogacy. [ 92 ]


In general, there is a lack of consensus within the  Jewish community  on the matter of surrogacy. Jewish scholars and  rabbis  have long debated this topic, expressing conflicting views on both sides of the debate.


Those supportive of surrogacy within the  Jewish religion  generally view it as a morally permissible way for Jewish women who cannot conceive to fulfill their religious obligations of procreation. [ 93 ] [ 94 ]  Rabbis who favour this stance often cite Genesis 9:1 which commands all Jews to "be fruitful and multiply". [ 93 ]  In 1988, the  Committee on Jewish Law and Standards  associated with the Conservative Jewish movement issued formal approval for surrogacy, concluding that "the  mitzvah  of parenthood is so great that ovum surrogacy is permissible". [ 93 ]


Jewish scholars and rabbis which hold an anti-surrogacy stance often see it as a form of  modern slavery  wherein women's bodies are exploited and children are commodified. [ 93 ]  As Jews possess the religious obligation to "actively engage in the redemption of those who are enslaved", practices seen as involving human exploitation are morally condemned. [ 93 ]  This thinking aligns with concerns brought forth by other groups regarding the relation between surrogacy practices and forms of  human trafficking  in certain countries with large fertility tourism industries. Several Jewish scholars and rabbis also cite ethical concerns surrounding the "broken relationship" between the child and its surrogate birth mother. [ 93 ]  Rabbi Immanuel Jacovits, chief rabbi of the  United Hebrew Congregation  from 1976 to 1991, reported in his 1975 publication  Jewish Medical Ethics  that "to use another person as an incubator and then take from her the child that she carried and delivered for a fee is a revolting degradation of maternity and an affront to human dignity." [ 93 ]


Another point of contention surrounding surrogacy within the Jewish community is the issue of defining motherhood. There are generally three conflicting views on this topic: 1) the ovum donor is the mother, 2) the gestational carrier is the mother, and 3) the child has two mothers—both the ovum donor and the gestational carrier. [ 94 ]  While most contend that parenthood is determined by the woman giving birth, a minority opt to consider the genetic parents the legal parents, citing the well-known passage in  Sanhedrin  91b of the  Talmud  which states that life begins at conception. [ 94 ]  Also controversial is the issue of defining Judaism in the context of surrogacy.  Jewish Law  states that if a Jewish woman is the surrogate, then the child is Jewish. [ 94 ]  However, this often raises issues when the child is raised by a non-Jewish family and approaches for addressing this issue are also widely debated within the Jewish community. [ 94 ]


Some countries, such as the United States, Canada, Greece, Georgia and Mexico are popular surrogacy destinations for foreign intended parents. [ 95 ]  Ukraine, Belarus and Russia were also destinations before the  Russian invasion of Ukraine . Eligibility, processes and costs differ from country to country. Fertility tourism for surrogacy is driven by legal restrictions in the home country or the incentive of lower prices abroad. Previously popular destinations, India, Nepal and Thailand have all recently implemented bans on commercial surrogacy for non-residents. [ 96 ]  China is also a famous destination, even though surrogacy is legally banned. [ 2 ]


In July 2014, a Thai woman, Pattaramon Chanbua, hired as a  surrogate mother  by an Australian couple, David John Farnell and Wenyu Wendy Li, sought to raise money for her critically-ill surrogate son, Gammy. The infant had been in her care since December 2013, when the  biological parents, Farnell and Li, had left  Thailand  with baby Gammy's twin sister Pipah. [ 1 ]


When ultrasound results seven months into the surrogate pregnancy indicated that Chanbua was carrying twins and that one of the twins, a boy, had  Down syndrome , Farnell and Li requested that she abort him, and that they would keep only the child's twin sister. [ 2 ] [ according to whom? ] [ disputed  –  discuss ]  Chanbua refused, citing her  Buddhist beliefs , and instead opted to raise the boy (named Gammy) on her own. Thai  surrogacy laws  dictate that a child's legal mother is its birth mother. [ citation needed ]  The Farnells returned to Australia in December 2013, bringing baby Gammy's twin sister Pipah with them. [ 3 ]


After the story broke to media, donors amassed a fund of more than  A$ 250,000 to help baby Gammy. [ 4 ]


The incident raised questions about the ethics of gestational surrogacy. The fact that David Farnell is a convicted sex offender (he was sentenced to three years in prison in 1997 for molesting two girls aged 7 and 10) has also caused controversy. [ 5 ]  There were also rumours that the Farnells believed that Gammy had died, but this was not true; it was David Farnell's adult daughter who claimed that Gammy died and she did so because she thought it would be easier to explain it to her friends. [ 6 ]


In response to the controversy, Thailand authorities reportedly banned surrogate babies from leaving the country with their parents. Hundreds of foreign couples were reported to have been affected. A law was also drafted making paid surrogacy a criminal offense in Thailand. [ 7 ] [ 8 ]


In response to the controversy, since July 30, 2015 Thailand has banned foreign residents from commercial surrogacy contract arrangements, under the  Protection of Children Born from Assisted Reproductive Technologies Act . Only opposite-sex married couples as Thailand residents are allowed to have a commercial surrogacy contract arrangement. In past Thailand was a popular destination for couples seeking surrogate mothers. [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]


A charity involved in the case has stated that David Farnell has tried to access the funds raised for Gammy. [ 12 ]  However, an inquest into Farnell and Li's contact with his daughter by Australian authorities found that there was no evidence to suggest Farnell ever attempted to access the funds set aside for Gammy.   [ 13 ]   Additionally, it was found Farnell and Li had attempted to bring Gammy home, but the surrogate mother initially had objections and had intended to adopt Gammy without Farnell and Li, so they had left Gammy behind in a mix-up of cultural and language barriers. [ 14 ]


It was ruled Pipah is not allowed to be alone with David Farnell and the agreement that she must be read a photobook with age-appropriate language every three months for the foreseeable future that explains her father's offenses. [ 15 ]


Gammy was later granted Australian citizenship on Chanbua's application on the basis that Gammy's biological father David Farnell was Australian. [ 16 ]


David Farnell died in July 2020, reportedly from an asbestos-related illness. [ 17 ]


A.G.R. v. D.R.H & S.H.  (also known as  Robinson v. Hollingsworth ) is a ruling by the Superior Court of New Jersey,  Hudson County Vicinage , and is the first precedent regarding gestational surrogacy in  New Jersey . [ 1 ]  The ruling was handed down by Judge Francis Schultz on December 23, 2009. [ 2 ] [ 3 ]


Donald Robinson and Sean Hollingsworth [ 2 ]  were married in a civil ceremony in  California  and moved to New Jersey. They later decided to seek out a  surrogate mother  in order to have children of their own. In 2005, Robinson's sister, Angela Robinson, after falling on hard times and had moved to New Jersey to be near her brother, agreed to be a surrogate for the couple. Robinson later gave birth to twin girls in 2006. [ 2 ]  Sean supplied the sperm and an anonymous donor supplied the egg. [ 2 ]  Before the embryo was implanted, Robinson signed a contract stating she would carry the pregnancy to term and relinquish her parental rights in favor of her brother and Hollingsworth.


However, after the birth, Robinson claimed she was coerced into entering into the agreement and she felt uncomfortable with Robinson-Hollingsworth and Hollingsworth raising the children due to her religious beliefs against  homosexuality . In 2007, she sought custody and challenged the agreement in court, arguing that gestational surrogacy contracts are invalid in New Jersey. [ 2 ]


Judge Schultz ruled in favor of Angela Robinson, expanding the  Baby M  precedent beyond a genetically related surrogate mother and declaring gestational surrogacy contracts to be a violation of public policy. As noted by legal scholar  Jonathan Turley , this ruling creates a split between those states that honor gestational surrogacy and those that do not. [ 4 ]


Attorney Harold Cassidy, who had represented both Robinson here and Mary Beth Whitehead in the  Baby M  case, praised the ruling and described gestational surrogacy contracts as "the exploitation of women." [ 1 ]


Despite finding that Angela Robinson was the legal mother of the twins, a 2011 ruling confirmed that the children's best interests would be served by awarding their father full legal custody - which was also the outcome in  Baby M . The twins will continue to reside with Sean and his husband. [ 5 ]


All in My Family  is a 2019 American  short   documentary film  directed by  Hao Wu . The film follows a traditional heterosexual family where the son is a gay Chinese man who has chosen to have children via surrogates with their same-sex partner, Eric. This documentary provides raw footage between Hao and their family's reaction to their sexual orientation, reckoning of kinship, and parenthood. The documentary highlights the obstacles that come with traditional cultural practices for minority LGBTQ-identifying people who struggle to find a way to express themselves and start a family. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ]


The documentary was released on  Netflix  on May 3, 2019.


This article about a short documentary film is a  stub . You can help Wikipedia by  expanding it .


The  Assisted Human Reproduction Act  ( French :  Loi sur la procréation assistée ) is law enacted by the Parliament of Canada. [ 1 ]  Its purpose is to regulate assisted human reproduction (AHR) and related research.  It is one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation in the world concerning reproductive technologies and related research. [ citation needed ]  It was introduced and passed in 2004 and was fully in force by 2007.


The  Act  was meant to provide Canadians with a system of licensing, monitoring, inspection and enforcement of activities relating to AHR in order to protect and promote Canadians' health, safety and values. It identifies prohibited activities, as well as controlled activities, which are AHR activities that can be performed in Canada but require a licence and adherence to the regulations. [ 2 ]  However, a 2010 Supreme Court case that ruled that certain sections of the Act exceeded the federal government's legislative power means that the scope of the Act's regulatory framework was significantly reduced (see below).


On December 22, 2010, the  Supreme Court of Canada  declared some sections of the  Assisted Human Reproduction Act  unconstitutional. [ 3 ]  It was ruled that the sections listed below exceeded the  legislative jurisdiction  of the  Parliament of Canada  under the  Constitution Act, 1867 :


Prohibited activities, defined in sections 5 to 9 of the  Act , are AHR activities that Parliament has determined to be ethically unacceptable or incompatible with Canadian values, or to pose significant risks to the health, safety and values of Canadians. These activities are not allowed in Canada. Prohibitions include: [ citation needed ]


This last prohibition prevents the "commercialization" of human reproduction in Canada. While the  Act  currently allows donors and surrogate mothers to be reimbursed for legitimate expenses,  Health Canada  is developing specific regulations about what constitutes a legitimate expenditure. [ citation needed ]


Controlled activities, set out in sections 10 to 12 of the  Act , are AHR activities permitted if performed in accordance with regulations and by a licensed clinic or individual in licensed premises. However, section 10, which addressed the "use of human reproductive material," and section 11, which addressed "transgenics," were ruled  ultra vires . Section 12, which addresses the "reimbursement of expenditures" for providing gametes and surrogacy services, is  intra vires  but is not yet in force. [ citation needed ]


Baby M  (born March 27, 1986) was the  pseudonym  used in the case  In re Baby M , 537 A.2d 1227, 109 N.J. 396 (N.J. 1988) for the infant whose legal parentage was in question.


In re Baby M  was a  custody  case that became the first American court ruling on the validity of  surrogacy . William Stern entered into a surrogacy agreement with Mary Beth Whitehead, arranged by the Infertility Center of New York ("ICNY"), opened in 1981 by a Michigan attorney, Noel Keane. [ 1 ]  According to the agreement, Mary Beth Whitehead would be inseminated with William Stern's sperm (making her a  traditional , as opposed to  gestational , surrogate), bring the pregnancy to term, and relinquish her parental rights in favor of William's wife, Elizabeth. Mary Beth initially relinquished the child to the Sterns per the contract, but returned the next day, threatening to kill herself if she could not see the infant. The Sterns, not wanting to risk Mary Beth's life, agreed to let her see the baby for an additional day or two. Instead of returning to the Sterns, Mary Beth and her husband Richard kidnapped Baby M for 87 days. [ 2 ]  The Sterns turned to the courts, who issued an  ex parte  order for the child to be returned to New Jersey, where the matter would be discussed in court, and temporary custody was awarded to the Sterns. [ 3 ]


In March 1984, Mary Beth Whitehead responded to an ad placed by the Infertility Center of New York in the  Asbury Park Press  seeking women willing to help infertile couples have children. She was a high school drop-out who had married Richard Whitehead, a truck driver with whom she had two children. At roughly the time of her pregnancy with Baby M, Richard was in an accident. He failed to notice that a trailer carrying a full-sized bulldozer had detached from the large dump truck he was driving, as he passed through South Jersey's largest traffic circle. [ 4 ] [ 5 ]


Elizabeth Stern was not infertile, but had  multiple sclerosis  and she and her husband William Stern were worried about the potential health implications of pregnancy, including temporary paralysis. [ 6 ]  While in vitro fertilization of harvested eggs, followed by implantation of a blastula/embryo, was an available technology, Elizabeth Stern feared the then-totally-unknown genetic risk factors, the choice repeatedly subject of the Court's questions to Stern and his counsel. In court, Bill Stern testified that having a child who was related to him by blood was of particular importance because he is the last survivor of a family wiped out by  the Holocaust  in Nazi Germany. [ 7 ]


The Sterns and Mary Beth Whitehead entered into a surrogacy contract, according to which Whitehead would be artificially inseminated with Stern's sperm, and relinquish her parental rights in favor of the Sterns, in return for $10,000, and possibly expenses.


On March 27, 1986, Whitehead gave birth to a daughter. She managed initially to get a birth certificate, naming the infant Sara Elizabeth Whitehead. [ 8 ]  Three days after the birth, the infant was handed to the Sterns, who renamed her Melissa Elizabeth Stern. The very next day, Whitehead went back to the Sterns and demanded that the baby be given back to her. She told them that she could not live without her baby, that she must have her, even if only for one week, that thereafter she would surrender her child. The Sterns, concerned that Mrs. Whitehead might indeed kill herself, not wanting under any circumstances to risk that, and in any event believing that Mrs. Whitehead would keep her word, turned the child over to her. [ 9 ]


The Whiteheads claimed that Mary Beth was suffering a debilitating post-partum bladder infection at the time, but in fact they kidnapped Baby M and fled from New Jersey for Florida. The Sterns’ counsel applied for, and the county prosecutor issued, warrants for their arrest.


While on the run, Whitehead made contact with the Sterns via telephone. William Stern, on the advice of counsel, recorded these conversations. Tapes were later introduced as evidence during court proceedings. In one 45-minute-long conversation, Mrs Whitehead threatens to kill Baby M multiple times: "I gave her life. I can take her life away," and "Forget it, Bill. I’ll tell you right now, I’d rather see me and her dead before you get her." [ 10 ]


On March 31, 1987,  New Jersey Superior Court  Judge Harvey R. Sorkow formally validated the surrogacy contract and awarded custody of Melissa to the Sterns under a " best interest of the child analysis ". Judge Sorkow enforced the contract (signed by both parties before the child was conceived) and terminated the parental rights of the birth mother. He based the custody decision on the best interests of the child, taking into account testimony on the stability of Whitehead and Stern and their respective family situations, and also found that the surrogate parenting agreement was valid and enforceable. [ 11 ]  Whitehead's parental rights were terminated and Elizabeth Stern was taken into chambers immediately after the ruling was read to formalize the adoption. [ 12 ]


Whitehead appealed the decision. While on appeal, the Supreme Court of New Jersey continued the visitation schedule as it was during the initial trial while they considered their ruling. Whitehead took several actions either to claim the child, or incite the Sterns, including returning her wearing a hand-lettered shirt saying "I have a brother and sister." [ 13 ]


On February 3, 1988, the  Supreme Court of New Jersey , led by  Chief Justice   Robert Wilentz , invalidated surrogacy contracts as against public policy but  in dicta  affirmed the trial court's use of a "best interest of the child" analysis and remanded the case to  family court . The Court held the contract to be unenforceable and restored Whitehead's parental rights, leaving the terms of her visitation rights as noncustodial parent to be established by the trial court. [ 14 ]


On remand, the lower court awarded custody to the Sterns and Whitehead was given visitation rights. [ 15 ] [ 16 ]


The case attracted much attention as it demonstrated that the possibilities of  third party reproduction  raise novel legal and social questions about the meaning of parenthood and the possibility of contracting around issues of pregnancy and childbirth. Among other points of contention, feminists argued about whether a woman's basic human right to make decisions about her own body implied the ability to contract away parental rights to a child born to her, or whether recognizing such a right would entail too great risks of exploitation. [ 17 ]


The New Jersey court's finding that no contract can alter the legal position of a woman who bears a child as that child's mother seemed to settle the question of the status of surrogacy contracts in America, at least until technological advances permitting gestational surrogacy—in which a woman can bear and give birth to a child to whom she has no genetic relation—reopened the question in many jurisdictions.


At least in New Jersey, however, the Baby M. ruling continues as precedent. In 2009, New Jersey Superior Court ruled that  In re Baby M  applies to gestational surrogacy as well as traditional surrogacy cases, in  A.G.R. v. D.R.H & S.H. . The intended parents were a homosexual male couple. They created an  embryo  using an anonymous donor ovum and the sperm of one of the husbands. The sister of the other husband carried the embryo to term and originally delivered the child to her brother and his husband, but a year later asserted her own parental rights even though she was not a genetic parent to the child. Judge Francis Schultz relied on  In re Baby M  to recognize the gestational mother as the child's legal mother. However, a later ruling in 2011 awarded full custody to the biological father. [ 18 ]


The Whiteheads divorced and Mary Beth married Dean Gould. The couple had two children. [ 5 ]


Mary Beth and her ex-husband Richard sued ICNY and its founder, Noel Keane, claiming they committed fraud in the Baby M contract. The suit questioned whether Mrs. Whitehead Gould was properly counseled before becoming a surrogate mother. The parties settled out of court and the agreement, signed by Judge Pierre N. Leval of the Federal District Court, dismissed the case without costs or lawyers' fees but does not reveal terms of the settlement. It has been reported Keene and ICNY agreed to pay the couple $30,000 to $40,000. [ 19 ]


Mary Beth Whitehead Gould wrote a book about her experience in 1989. [ 20 ]


The Sterns continued to shun media attention. After reaching the age of maturity in March 2004, Melissa Stern legally terminated Mary Beth's parental rights and formalized Elizabeth's maternity through adoption proceedings. "I love my family very much and am very happy to be with them," Melissa told a reporter for the  New Jersey Monthly  in 2007, referring to the Sterns. "I'm very happy I ended up with them. I love them, they're my best friends in the whole world, and that's all I have to say about it." [ 5 ]


Melissa is a graduate of  George Washington University  with a degree in religion. [ 21 ]  She completed her master's degree at  King's College London , authoring a dissertation entitled 'Reviving Solomon: Modern Day Questions Regarding the Long-term Implications for the Children of Surrogacy Arrangements'. [ 22 ]


An  ABC  Network miniseries, simply titled  Baby M , was broadcast in May 1988. The miniseries starred  JoBeth Williams  as Mary Beth Whitehead,  John Shea  as William,  Bruce Weitz  as Mary Beth's husband Rick,  Robin Strasser  as Elizabeth and  Dabney Coleman  as Gary Skoloff. The miniseries received seven Emmy nominations, [ 23 ]  including Outstanding Miniseries, [ 24 ]  which it did not win. Williams, Shea, Weitz, and Coleman all received nominations for their performances, but only Shea won. Williams also was nominated for a  Golden Globe  for her performance. [ 25 ]


In 1989, Mary Beth Whitehead published her own book about her experiences,  A Mother's Story: The Truth About the Baby M Case . [ 26 ]


In 1988, artist  Martha Rosler  made the video "Born to be Sold: Martha Rosler Reads the Strange Case of Baby M". [ 27 ]


Mary Beth Whitehead is referenced in the  Seinfeld  episode " The Bottle Deposit ", when Jerry's mechanic (played by  Brad Garrett ) steals Jerry's car after he feels that Jerry is not caring for it properly. [ 28 ]


The case is mentioned in the 2018 film  Private Life .


The  Children's Act, 2005  (Act No. 38 of 2005) is an  act  of the  Parliament of South Africa  that consolidates and reforms the law on matters related to children. [ 1 ]  It deals with topics including the  age of majority ,  paternity ,  custody ,  child support ,  guardianship ,  parenting plans ,  children's courts ,  circumcision ,  day care ,  child protection ,  foster care ,  group homes ,  adoption ,  surrogacy ,  child abduction , and  trafficking of children .


Due to large support, the South African government decided on a set of rules and regulations regarding the country's  Minors . This was introduced to the public eye in June 2006. Because of the division of powers between the national and  Provincial governments , the statute was enacted in two parts. The original act, which was promulgated on 19 June 2006, contained only the provisions dealing with matters falling within the exclusive responsibility of the national government. [ 2 ]  The Children's Amendment Act, 2007, promulgated on 18 March 2008, amended the act to insert provisions dealing with matters for which the national and provincial governments share joint responsibility. Some provisions of the act, including the reduction of the  age of majority  from 21 to 18, came into force on 11 July 2007, [ 3 ]  while the rest came into force on 1 April 2010. Currently, all revisions have been made and are fully in force. [ 4 ]


In long text, it is an act to give effect to certain rights of children as contained in the Constitution; to set out principles relating to the care and protection of children; to define parental responsibilities and rights; to make further provision regarding children's courts; to provide for partial care of children; to provide for early childhood development; to provide for the issuing of contribution orders; to provide for prevention and early intervention; to provide for children in alternative care; to provide for foster care; to provide for child and youth care centres and drop-in centres;  to make new provision for the adoption of children; to provide for inter-country adoption; to give effect to the Hague Convention on Inter-country Adoption; to prohibit child abduction and to give effect to the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction; to provide for surrogate motherhood; and to create certain new offences relating to children; and to provide for matters connected therewith. [ 5 ]


Circle Surrogacy  is a US-based  surrogacy  agency headquartered in  Boston ,  Massachusetts . [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ]  Circle Surrogacy carries an audited success rate for intended parents having a baby at 99.3%. [ 4 ] [ 5 ]


Circle Surrogacy was founded in 1995 in  Boston ,  Massachusetts . Prior to establishing the agency, founder John Weltman and his husband had children through surrogacy. [ 6 ]


Circle Surrogacy's first baby was born to a heterosexual couple from Massachusetts. [ 7 ]  Circle Surrogacy serves both intended parents and surrogates, touting various financing options, support for international parents in over 70 countries, and a careful vetting and matching process, in which surrogate applicants participate in screenings with a social worker and complete psychological testing. [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ]  In 2010, Circle moved its headquarters to the current location in downtown Boston. More recently, the agency has opened regional offices in several U.S. cities, including  Washington, D.C. ,  New York  and the  San Francisco Bay Area , as well as their first international office in  London . [ 11 ] [ 12 ]  As of 2019, Circle has facilitated the birth of over 2000 babies via surrogacy and egg donation. [ 13 ]


Circle Surrogacy provides services for intended parents & gestational carriers from the application and screening process through post-birth. [ 14 ] [ 15 ]  As a full-service agency founded by a lawyer, Circle Surrogacy also provides legal services for clients in any of the surrogacy programs the company provides. [ 16 ]


Beginning in 1995 to 2000, Circle Surrogacy began to help people find egg donors for pure egg donation. [ 14 ]  Over the next two decades, the company discovered a need for a transparent, comprehensive resource for pure egg donors, intended parents, and their families. It was this realization that inspired the creation of Everie Egg Bank in 2023, with a proprietary Mutual Match™ system to foster ideal outcomes for donors and parents alike. Similarly to Circle, the company is headquartered in Boston, with parent company NorthStar Fertility Partners overseeing all related organizations. [ 17 ]  Everie's offerings include a guide to donor qualification and compensation, various testimonials from real donors, a browsable database, and more. [ 18 ]


In the early 21st century, Circle Surrogacy began to notice that many surrogate mothers felt more comfortable having a former surrogate help them prepare for the surrogacy process. With this in mind, Surrogacy.com was launched on November 14, 2023. The site purports to be a destination for candid, honest information about the surrogacy process, and operates a member-only community for new surrogates, experienced surrogates and their loved ones to share stories, advice, and answer questions about surrogacy in a safe and friendly environment. [ 19 ] [ 20 ]


Surrogacy is an arrangement, often supported by a legal agreement, whereby a woman agrees to bear a child for another person or persons, who will become the child's parent after birth.  [ 21 ] [ 22 ]  The surrogacy industry originally started as early as 1978, when the first baby was successfully conceived through an  IVF  transfer. [ 23 ]


In 1980, an establishment for a “compensated-surrogacy” was concluded, reporting a successful transition, outlining an agreement between the two parties (traditional surrogate and the intended parents) rewarding a total of $10,000 to successfully carry and deliver a baby for the intended couples/parents. [ 24 ]


Technological advancements led to increased surrogacy methodologies. The number of surrogacy agencies increased, providing surrogacy services for both females and males, regardless of their sexual preferences or orientation. [ 25 ]


Alexander M. Feskov  (born 17 February 1959 in  Alchevsk ,  Ukraine ) is a Ukrainian physician, reproductive scientist, and ultrasonographer who specialises in  reproductive technology  and  fertility treatment .


Feskov is one of the most well-known  reproductive technology [ 1 ]  and  surrogacy  specialists in  Ukraine , [ 2 ]  and has over 100 academic publications. [ 3 ]  Other notable physicians who have done related research include  Yury Verlinsky ,  Lars Johanson , and  Norbert Gleicher .


He is a member of the  European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology  (ESHRE), and is also a member of the board of Ukrainian Association of Reproductive Medicine. [ 4 ]


Born in  Alchevsk ,  Ukraine , Feskov was an intern in  obstetrics and gynecology  at the 1st City Clinical Hospital in  Kharkiv , Ukraine. He then went on to graduate from the Faculty of Medicine at Kharkov Medical Institute in 1990. [ 5 ] [ 6 ]


Feskov has been working in the field of  reproductive medicine  for more than three decades. [ 7 ]  He specialises primarily in  obstetrics and gynecology ,  endoscopy , and  ultrasonography . [ 2 ]


Feskov has done extensive medical research on  sperm  fertility, [ 8 ]   in vitro fertilization , [ 9 ]  and various other reproductive technologies and treatments. He has 3 Ukrainian patents, as well as various U.S. patents relating to  reproductive technology . [ 10 ]  Feskov is currently based in  Kharkiv ,  Ukraine [ 11 ]  as the founder and manager of Feskov Human Reproduction Group, one of Ukraine's largest and most notable  surrogacy  agencies. [ 12 ]


Feskov is a member of: [ 13 ]


Feskov is the author of more than 160 scientific papers. Some of his selected papers are listed below. [ 14 ]


Louisa Maria Ghevaert  (born September 1974) is a  solicitor  of the Senior Courts of England and Wales .


Louisa Ghevaert read BA Degree in History (Hons) at the  University of Bristol , before undertaking the Common Professional Entrance (CPE) and the  Legal Practice Course  (LPC) at the College of Law in Guildford. [ 1 ] [ 2 ]


Ghevaert specialises in fertility,  surrogacy , donor conception,  posthumous  conception, adoption and family law, working on landmark legal cases for changes and improvements to fertility, children law, and  family law  for families in the UK. She is the founder of specialist fertility and family law firm Louisa Ghevaert Associates. [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ]  In 2008, Ghevaert acted for British intended parents in Re X and Y (foreign surrogacy) 2008 EWHC 3030 (Fam), being the first case in UK legal history to test the law for British parents conceiving through an international commercial surrogacy arrangement in  Ukraine . [ 6 ]


In 2009 Ghevaert acted for Melanie and Robert Gladwin saving their  frozen embryos  from destruction, following which the Department of Health issued a change to embryo storage law in the UK for surrogate pregnancies, for which she was named  The Times  Lawyer of the Week. [ 7 ]  In 2010, Ghevaert acted for British intended parents who conceived a child with a US surrogate in Re L (a minor) [2010] EWHC 3146 (Fam). The ruling resulted in a precedent that the welfare of the child is decisive over the public policy ban of commercial surrogacy except in the clearest cases of abuse of public policy. [ 8 ]


Ghevaert acted for Donna and Dean Marshall in 2011, helping them win a rare legal battle for  IVF  funding on the NHS against their local hospital authority. [ 9 ]  In 2012, she acted for Andrea Heywood, who aged 24 was denied  NHS  funding for IVF by her local hospital authority for being too young. [ 10 ]  In 2014, Ghevaert acted for the intended father in a UK surrogacy dispute about a child’s care and parentage in  JP v LP & Ors [2014] EWHC 595 (Fam) . The legal ruling highlighted the risks of informal agreements and established a legal framework for cases where criteria for a parental order cannot be met following marital breakdown and divorce. [ 11 ] [ 12 ]


From 2014 to 2018, Ghevaert was a member of the cross-organizational Surrogacy UK Working Party on Surrogacy Law Reform [ 13 ]  and contributor to the report on surrogacy in the UK  Myth busting and reform (2015) . [ 14 ]  This informed parliamentary debate on surrogacy law reform and policy in The House of Lords in 2016 and subsequent work on reform of surrogacy law in the UK. [ 15 ]  She was part of the wife’s legal team in  Y v A Healthcare  NHS Trust  & The  HFEA  & Ors 2018 , a first-of-its kind legal ruling from the Court of Protection to extract and store sperm from a fatally injured man for use in posthumous fertility treatment. [ 16 ] [ 17 ]  Ghevaert was awarded a place on The Lawyer Hot 100 List 2018 for her legal work on cases regarding the family, fertility and medical sectors. They described her "as an influential figure when it comes to ensuring fertility laws are fit for purpose in the 21st century". [ 18 ]


Through 2018, 2019 and 2020, Ghevaert’s expert legal evidence in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court resulted in further legal rulings for a woman rendered infertile following a delay in detecting cancer in smear tests and biopsies, enabling for the first time recovery of damages for commercial surrogacy, donor conception and fertility treatment in the US,  XX v Whittington Hospital NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 2832 [ 19 ]  and  Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX [2020] UKSC 14 . [ 20 ]


Ghevaert is a specialist contributor on surrogacy law in practitioner reference book  The International Family Law Practice . [ 21 ]  She also contributed to the book  Legal and Regulatory Risks to Patients: The UK Context . [ 22 ]


The  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990  (c. 37) is an Act of the  Parliament of the United Kingdom . It created the  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority  which is in charge of human  embryo  research, along with monitoring and licensing fertility clinics in the United Kingdom. [ 1 ]


The Authority is composed of a chairman, a deputy chairman, and however many members are appointed by the UK Secretary of State. They are in charge of reviewing information about human embryos and subsequent development, provision of treatment services, and activities governed by the Act of 1990. [ 1 ]  The Authority also offers information and advice to people seeking treatment, and to those who have donated  gametes  or embryos for purposes or activities covered in the Act of 1990. Some of the subjects under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990 are prohibitions in connection with gametes, embryos, and  germ cells . [ 2 ]


The Act also addresses licensing conditions, code of practice, and procedure of approval involving human embryos. [ 3 ]  This only concerns human embryos which have reached the two cell  zygote  stage, at which they are considered "fertilised" in the act. [ 2 ]  It also governs the keeping and using of human embryos, but only outside a woman's body. The act contains amendments to UK law regarding termination of pregnancy, surrogacy and parental rights. [ 2 ]


The Human Fertilization and Embryology Act 1990 regulates ex-vivo human embryo creation and the research involving them. This act established the  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority  (HFEA) to regulate treatment and research in the UK involving human embryos.  In 2001, an extension of the Act legalized embryo research for the purposes of "increasing knowledge about the development of embryos," "increasing knowledge about serious disease," and "enabling any such knowledge to be applied in developing treatments for serious disease." The HFEA grants licenses and research permission for up to three years, based on approval of five steps by the Research License Committee. [ 4 ]


HFEA policies are reviewed by specialists in the field regularly. After research and literature are reviewed, and open public meetings are held, the summarized information is presented to the Human Fertilisation Embryology Authority. [ 4 ]


Donors must meet certain criteria in order to be eligible for sperm, egg, or embryo donation. The donor can donate for research purposes or fertility treatment. Donors should find a HFEA licensed clinic, or can go through the  National Gamete Donation Trust . [ 5 ]


The HFEA is carrying out a detailed review to determine the best way to reduce the risk of multiple pregnancies with  in vitro fertilization  (IVF). For example,  Nadya Suleman  (or "Octomom") is publicly known for giving birth to  octuplets  after IVF treatment.


This policy allows for the use of techniques which alter the mitochondrial DNA of the egg or an embryo used in IVF, to prevent serious mitochondrial diseases from being inherited.


The policies reviewed by HFEA cover everything from human reproductive cloning to the creation of human-animal hybrids, and include subjects such as ethics with scientific and social significance.


Sperm, eggs and embryos received in the donation process are currently tested for many medical conditions, and also quarantined for six months to reduce the risk of complications to the mother and child. Other than a screening for genetic disorders, donors are tested for  HIV ,  hepatitis B , and  hepatitis C . [ 6 ]


Embryos must be donated by a woman between the ages of 18 and 35 years old, who has also undergone a medical screening and given informed consent (which can be revoked at any point up until the embryo is used). [ 6 ]


"Welfare of the Child" review (multiple pregnancy), for people seeking IVF treatment. While there is always a risk of having a multiples pregnancy after receiving IVF treatment, HFEA is reviewing policies which will reduce this dangerous possibility. No more than two eggs or embryos can be legally implanted in a woman in an IVF treatment. There is a 25% success rate of this procedure per treatment cycle. [ 6 ]


Includes safety procedure regulations at fertility clinics; includes safe  cryopreservation  of eggs and embryos. Eggs and embryos are stored for ten years after the initial treatment. If the patient decides not to pursue another pregnancy, the eggs and embryos can be donated for research or to another couple for fertility treatments. [ 6 ]


In donor-assisted conception, the donor may not receive any monetary compensation (in the UK), although they may have related expenses covered. [ 7 ]


Sperm, eggs and embryos are stored in  liquid nitrogen  using cryopreservation (defined as the freezing of cells or whole tissues to sub-zero temperatures—the boiling point of liquid nitrogen). [ 8 ]
This method preserves living organisms in a state where they can be restored to how they were before freezing. [ 8 ]


A cryoprotective compound (a liquid called cryopreservation medium), along with carefully controlled cooling and warming cycles ensure that minimal damage is done to the cells. [ 9 ] [ 8 ]


However, the freezing process is still somewhat damaging. Therefore, men wishing to donate sperm or have it stored for future use must make six sperm deposits for every one child they wish to have, due to the 50% survival rate of the sperm in each deposit. [ 8 ]  The sperm is then put into straw shaped vials, and placed in a storage tank of either liquid nitrogen, or liquid nitrogen vapor. The sub-zero temperatures of the liquid generally range from -150 degrees Celsius, to -196 degrees Celsius.


According to HFEA, the storage period for both human gametes and embryos cannot exceed ten years. [ 9 ]  HFEA requires a full informed consent from each party that has any relation to the egg, gametes, or embryo, all of which must be stored in accordance with their consents. [ 9 ]


Exceptions to the informed consent of gamete storage:


The act states that it is legal to "take" gametes or accept those provided, and store them without a person's consent, if the person is considered incapable, or until they "acquire such capacity." [ 9 ]


However, under paragraphs 9 and 10 of HFEA 1990, a person's gametes cannot be legally stored in the UK after their death. [ 9 ]


In July 1982 the Warnock Committee Inquiry was established. It was "to consider recent and potential developments in medicine and science related to human fertilisation and embryology; to consider what policies and safeguards should be applied, including consideration of the social, ethical, and legal implications of these developments; and to make recommendations." [ 10 ]


The Warnock Report was published on 18 July 1984. The report stated that a regulator was needed due to the 'special status' of embryos. [ 10 ]


In 1985 the Interim Licensing Authority was created. It was supposed to regulate work and research regarding human in vitro fertilisation until a permanent government legislation was passed. It remained the only authority until 1990.


The Unborn Children Protection Bill was also created in 1985. It was written by Enoch Powell and prohibited embryonic research. The Health Secretary would only have been allowed an embryo to be kept and implanted if it was for the sole purpose of assisting a named woman to bear a child. No other reason was allowed. This bill was not passed. It was reintroduced in 1986, where it again failed to pass. This was repeated again 1989. [ 10 ]


The  Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985  was the first law that governed surrogacy arrangements. It criminalized commercial surrogacy arrangements. [ 10 ]


In 1987 the framework for human fertilisation and embryology was created. A white paper was published in regards to the recommendations of the Warnock Report. [ 10 ]


In 1990 the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 was passed. The  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority , HFEA, officially started work August 1, 1991. [ 10 ]


The act covers several areas:


Within the act an embryo is defined as a live human embryo where fertilisation is complete, complete is defined as the appearance of a two cell zygote.


The act states that eggs, sperm, and embryo can only be stored for a finite amount of time in very specific conditions that are regulated by the  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority . [ 11 ]


Research on human embryos can only be performed for specifically defined purposes that must be considered 'necessary and desirable' by the  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority . Research can only be performed on an embryo for a maximum of fourteen days or until the primitive streak appears. The genetic composition of any cell within the embryo cannot be altered during the embryo's formation for research. [ 11 ]


The act defined several purposes: [ 3 ]


Section 37 [ 12 ]  of the Act amends the  Abortion Act 1967 . The section specifies and broadens the conditions where abortion is legal.


Women who consider abortion are referred to two doctors. Each doctor then advises her whether abortion is a suitable decision based on the conditions listed below. An abortion is granted only when the doctors reach a unanimous decision that the woman may terminate her pregnancy. An abortion that is performed without this decision or under any other circumstances is considered unlawful.


Abortion may be granted under one of the following circumstances: [ 12 ]


The registered medical practitioner that performs the abortion will continue to act in accordance with the  Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 . [ 12 ]


In 1991 the statutory storage period and special expeditions sections were revisited. Regulations were extended storage periods for eggs and sperm. Licensing rules for egg and sperm storage were also clarified. [ 10 ]


A Disclosure of Information Act was created in 1992. This allowed the  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority  to disclose information to others with the patient's consent. for example, information could be shared with their general practitioner.


The  Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994  added section 156. This prohibited the treatment of cells from aborted embryos. During the same year the Parental Orders regulations allowed parental orders to be made in surrogacy cases. [ 10 ]


In 1996 the permitted storage period for embryos was extended.


The  Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Deceased Fathers) Act 2003  amended section 28 in 2000. [ 13 ]


Sperm may be taken from a deceased male to fertilize an egg if the corresponding man and woman were:


In 2001 the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Regulations were added. These regulations extended the purposes that an embryo can be created for in regards to research. [ 11 ]


In addition, the  Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001  was passed. This essential made human reproductive cloning illegal by outlawing the implantation of research embryos.


As of 2004 the Disclosure of Donor Information Regulations were formed. Any sperm or egg donors registered after April 1, 2005, were required to pass on name and last address given to the offspring. [ 10 ]  During this time Parliament began reviewing the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. [ 14 ]


Licensing of all establishments handling gametes for treatment was required as of 2007 in the Quality and Safety Regulations.


In 2006 a white paper was published regarding a revised legislation for fertility. This led to the  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 , HFE, being passed. This was a major review of fertility legislation, updating and amending the act of 1990. In 2009 the HFE act was passed. This is the current law in the UK. [ 10 ]


The  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008  (c. 22) is an  act  of the  Parliament of the United Kingdom . The Act constitutes a major review and update of the  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 .


According to the  Department of Health , the Act's key provisions are: [ 2 ]


The Bill's discussion in Parliament did not permit time to debate whether it should extend abortion rights under the  Abortion Act 1967  to also cover  Northern Ireland . The 2008 Act does not alter the status quo. [ 3 ]


The Act also repealed and replaced the  Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001 .


The legal aspects of  surrogacy  in any particular jurisdiction tend to hinge on a few central questions:


Laws differ widely from one jurisdiction to another. Of the countries which allow surrogacy, many have  residency  or  citizenship  requirements for the intended parent(s) and/or the surrogate. Countries without such requirements often attract persons from abroad, being destinations for  fertility tourism . In some countries, such as the United States, Canada or Australia, laws vary by state/territory.


Commercial surrogacy, that is, surrogacy where the individual is paid to carry the baby or surrender it to other person(s) is illegal in the European Union, as Article 3 of the  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union  states that "In the fields of medicine and biology, the following must be respected in particular: [..] (c) the prohibition on making the human body and its parts as such a source of financial gain" [ 1 ]


The  Oviedo Convention , ratified by 30 countries, also states at Article 21 "Prohibition of financial gain" that: "The human body and its parts shall not, as such, give rise to financial gain." [ 2 ]


In  Australia , all jurisdictions allow altruistic surrogacy; with commercial surrogacy being a  criminal offense . In New South Wales, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory it is an offence to enter into international commercial surrogacy [ 3 ]  arrangements with potential penalties extending to imprisonment for up to one year in Australian Capital Territory, up to two years imprisonment in New South Wales and up to three years imprisonment in Queensland.


In 2004, the Australian Capital Territory made only altruistic surrogacy legal. [ 4 ]


In 2006, Australian senator  Stephen Conroy  and his wife Paula Benson announced that they had arranged for a child to be born through egg donation and gestational surrogacy. Unusually, Conroy was put on the  birth certificate  as the father of the child. Previously, couples who used to make surrogacy arrangements in Australia had to  adopt  the child after it was registered as born to the natural mother; rather than being recognized as birth parents, however now that surrogacy is more regular practice for childless parents; most states have switched to such arrangements to give the intended parents proper rights. [ 5 ] [ 6 ]
After the announcement, Victoria passed the  Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 , effective since 1 January 2010 to make only altruistic surrogacy legal. [ 7 ]


In 2009, Western Australia [ 8 ]  passed a law to allow only altruistic surrogacy for couples of the opposite-sex only, and to prohibit it for single people and same-sex couples. In 2010, Queensland made only altruistic surrogacy legal, [ 9 ]  as did New South Wales, [ 10 ]  and Tasmania did the same in 2013 with the  Surrogacy Act No 34  and the  Surrogacy (Consequential Amendments) Act No 31 [ 11 ] [ 12 ] [ 13 ] [ 14 ]


In 2017, South Australia passed a bill to allow gay couples equal access to both surrogacy and IVF. The bill received  royal assent  on 15 March 2017 and went into effect on 21 March 2017. [ 15 ] [ 16 ] [ 17 ] [ 18 ] [ 19 ]


In 2022, The Northern Territory passed legislation permitting altruistic surrogacy. [ 20 ]


A Medicare rebate is not available for IVF treatment for surrogacy.


Commercial Surrogacy is banned by Brazilian law, but altruistic surrogacy is allowed. Nevertheless, the practice is performed illegally throughout the country. [ 21 ]


The  Assisted Human Reproduction Act  (AHRC) permits only altruistic surrogacy: gestational carriers may be reimbursed for approved expenses but payment of any other consideration or fee is illegal. [ 22 ]


Surrogacy is forbidden by  Regulation of human assisted reproductive technology law  in the  People's Republic of China . The  Ministry of Health  has established "departmental rules" which prohibit medical professionals from performing surrogacy procedures, with violations punished by fines (but not criminal liabilities). In practice, surrogacy arrangements are common in mainland China with an underground market for commercial surrogacy estimated to encompass between 400 and 500 agencies in 2012. [ 23 ]  Underground surrogacy has grown in the 21st century and has led to significant complications. [ 24 ] [ 25 ]


There are no clear rules in Colombia as of today regarding surrogacy and a loophole persists. The current laws applied are those from a natural childbirth. This means the child must be registered with the surnames of the gestational carrier and her partner or spouse, if she has any. Only through a challenging paternity lawsuit before a judge may the commissioning parents be recognized as legal parents, and it may include genetic tests. [ 26 ]


In July 2016, a right wing political party,  Democratic Center , has introduced for the second time a bill in order to determine the concept of surrogacy and to forbid any types of it. [ 27 ] [ 28 ]


Only altruistic surrogacy is allowed after  referendum  over a new family law passed and is available since September 2022. [ 29 ]


Surrogacy is not legally regulated in the  Czech Republic  and so is generally considered legal. [ 30 ]  The only mention of the phrase "surrogate motherhood" can be found in § 804 of the law n. 89/2012, where the law designates an exception to the ban of adoption by siblings for siblings carried by a surrogate mother. [ 31 ]


All surrogacy arrangements (both commercial and altruistic) have been illegal since 2007. [ citation needed ]  Commercial surrogacy arrangements were illegal even before 2007.


In France, since 1994, any surrogacy arrangement that is commercial or altruistic, is illegal or unlawful and is not sanctioned by the law (art 16-7 of the Code Civil). [ 32 ]
The French  Court of Cassation  already took this point of view in 1991. It held that if any couple makes an agreement or arranges with another person that she is to bear the husband's child and surrender it on birth to the couple, and that she is choosing that she will not keep the child, the couple making such an agreement or arrangement is not allowed to adopt the child. In its judgement the court held that such an agreement is illegal on the basis of articles 6, 353 and 1128 of the Code Civil. [ 33 ]


All surrogacy arrangements (both commercial and altruistic) are illegal. The German  Free Democratic Party  wants to allow altruistic surrogacy. [ 34 ]  According to the German Civil Code, the legal mother is always the woman who gave birth to the child. [ 35 ]


Surrogacy is legally permitted in  Georgia , making it one of the few countries in the region where intended parents can engage in both altruistic and commercial surrogacy agreements. The legislation, established in the early 1990s, explicitly allows surrogacy for both domestic and international intended parents. [ 36 ]


Since 2022, Georgia has absorbed some of the clients from Ukraine, which was the major surrogacy hub in Europe prior to the Russian invasion. [ 37 ]  Many Ukrainian clinics reopened in Georgia, while surrogates moved there to avoid conflict and due to the favorable legislation and costs. [ 38 ]


In 2023, the Georgian government announced some plans to reconsider its stance regarding commercial surrogacy for foreign citizens, however no further action was taken, [ 39 ]  and all forms of surrogacy remain fully legal, including programs involving egg donor programs, shipped embryos and self-cycles. [ 40 ]


Under Georgian law, surrogacy is available to couples that are married or in the domestic relationship for at least one year. [ 36 ]  Additionally, a surrogate cannot be an egg donor at the same time; however, donor materials can still be used in the surrogacy programs.


The legislation stipulates that surrogates have no parental rights over the child born through surrogacy. Once the child is born, the intended parents are automatically recognized as the legal parents, and the surrogate has no claims to parental rights or responsibilities. [ 41 ]


Law 3305–2005 ("Enforcement of Medically Assisted Reproduction")
Surrogacy in Greece is fully legal and is only one of a handful of countries in the world to give legal protection to intended parents.  Intended parents must meet certain qualifications, and will go before a family judge before starting their journey.  As long as they meet the qualifications, the court appearance is procedural and will be granted their application. At present, intended parents must be in a heterosexual partnership or be a single female.  Females must be able to prove there is a medical indication they cannot carry and be no older than 50 at the time of the contract.  As in all jurisdictions, surrogates must pass medical and psychological tests so they can prove to the court that they are medically and mentally fit.  What is unique about Greece is that it is the only country in Europe, and one of only countries in the world where the surrogate then has no rights over the child.  The intended parents become the legal parents from conception and there is no mention of the surrogate mother anywhere on hospital or birth documents.  The intended parent(s) are listed as the parents.  This even applies if an egg or sperm donor is used by one of the partners.
An added advantage for Europeans is that, due to the Schengen Treaty, they can freely travel home as soon as the baby is born and deal with citizenship issues at that time, as opposed to applying at their own embassy in Greece.
The old regime (pursuant to art. 8 of Law 3089/2002), one of the prerequisites for granting the judicial permission for surrogacy was also the fact that the surrogate mother and the commissioning parents should be Greek citizens or permanent residents.
However, the law has recently (in July 2014) changed and the new provisions of L. 4272/2014 foresee now that the surrogacy is allowed to applicants or surrogate mothers who have their permanent or temporary residence in Greece.
With this new law Greece becomes the only EU country with a comprehensive framework to regulate, facilitate and enforce surrogacy, as according to the explanatory statement of the art. 17 of the L. 4272/2014: "The possibility is now extending also to applicants or surrogate mothers who have their permanent residence outside Greece".


Commercial surrogacy is criminal under the Human Reproductive Technology Ordinance 2000. The law is phrased in a manner that no one can pay a surrogate, no surrogate can receive money, and no one can arrange a commercial surrogacy (the same applies to the supply of gametes), no matter within or outside Hong Kong. Normally only the gametes of the intended parents can be used.


In October 2010, Peter Lee, the eldest son and one of the presumed heirs of billionaire  Lee Shau Kee  obtained three sons through a gestational carrier, reportedly from California. Since the junior Lee is single, the news attracted criticism on both moral and legal grounds. A  vicar general  of the  territory's Roman Catholic diocese  was critical. In December the case was reportedly referred to police after questions were asked in  Legco . [ 42 ]  After a 10-month investigation,Department of Justice had been decided to end the probe as there was not enough evidence to show that a criminal offence had been committed in this case. [ 43 ]


All surrogacy arrangements (both commercial and altruistic) are illegal. [ 44 ]


As per the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, only a couple who has been married for 5 years can opt for surrogacy on medical grounds only. The law defines a couple as a married Indian “man and woman” and also prescribes an age-criteria with the woman being in the age of 23 years to 50 years and the man between 26 years to 55 years. The couple should not have a child of their own. Though the law allows single women to resort to surrogacy, she has to be a widow or a divorcee between the age of 35 and 45 years. Single men are not eligible.
Starting 4 November 2015, commercial surrogacy for foreign intended parents is not legal in India. Those commissioned before this date are reviewed on case by case situation; however, no new surrogacies will be started. [ 45 ]


Before 2015, foreign commercial surrogacy was legal in India. [ 46 ]   India was a destination for surrogacy-related  fertility tourism  because of the relatively low cost. Including the costs of flight tickets, medical procedures, and hotels, it was roughly a third of the price compared with going through the procedure in the UK. [ 47 ]  In the case of Balaz v. Union of India the  Supreme Court of India  has given the verdict that the citizenship of the child born through this process will have the citizenship of its gestational carrier. Surrogacy was regulated by the  Indian Council of Medical Research  guidelines, 2005.


There is no law in Ireland governing surrogacy. [ 48 ]  In 2005 a Government-appointed Commission published a report on Assisted Human Reproduction, which made recommendations on the broader area of assisted human reproduction. [ 49 ]  In response to Irish nationals engaging in surrogacy contracts in other nations, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence published guidelines for surrogacy on 21 February 2012. [ 50 ]


A Supreme Court ruling in May 2023 noted the lack of legislation around surrogacy in Ireland. [ 51 ]


In March 1996, the Israeli government legalized gestational surrogacy under the Embryo Carrying Agreements Law. This law made Israel the first country in the world to implement a form of state-controlled surrogacy in which each and every contract must be approved directly by the state. [ 52 ]  A state-appointed committee permits surrogacy arrangements to be filed only by Israeli citizens who share the same religion. [ 53 ]  The numerous restrictions on surrogacy under Israeli law have prompted some intended parents to turn to surrogates outside of the country. [ 54 ] [ 55 ]


In February 2020, the  Israeli Supreme Court  ruled the restriction on same-sex couples from entering surrogacy agreements as discriminatory, thus giving the state one year to change the law. [ 56 ] [ 57 ]  In July 2021, the Supreme Court made a second ruling stating that legislation banning same-sex couples and single men from becoming parents via surrogacy would be null and void within six months. [ 55 ] [ 58 ]  In January 2022,  Health Minister   Nitzan Horowitz  announced that surrogacy would be allowed for same-sex couples, transgender people, and single men starting on 11 January. [ 54 ] [ 57 ]


All surrogacy arrangements (both commercial and altruistic) are legal and popular. Many couples from the Middle East do surrogacy in Iran for legal easiness.


The legalization of surrogacy in Iran is an interplay between religious acceptance, legal interpretation, and societal norms. In a country where religious adherence plays a significant role in governance and daily life, permitting surrogacy was no doubt the same.


Iran’s religious demographic is predominantly Shia Islam, with around 90-95% of its citizens practicing this sect of Islam. Initially, both Shia and Sunni religious scholars and authorities were aligned in the prohibition of third-party reproduction, including surrogacy. This was a stance rooted in traditional interpretations of Islamic law and ethics. [ 59 ]  However, the landscape began to shift in 1999 when Ayaollah Ali Hussein Al Khamene’j, the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran issued a fatwa addressing surrogacy. [ 59 ]


The fatwa was a turning point, providing detailed guidance on the permissibility of assisted reproduction techniques, including surrogacy, within the framework of Shia Islam. [ 59 ]  By issuing this fatwa, Ayatollah Khamene’j provided a sense of legitimacy and security for families considering or participating in surrogacy agreements. [ 59 ]  The weight of his authority as the supreme leader lent considerable credibility to the practice, reassuring both individuals and the broader society.


Central to the acceptance of surrogacy in Iran was the principle of ijtihad, which emphasizes individual religious reasoning and interpretation. [ 60 ]  While, not codified as law, ijtihad holds significant sway in Shia Islam and allows a degree of flexibility and adaption to modern circumstances. [ 60 ]  In the case of surrogacy, Iranian citizens were able to exercise their right to ijtihad, engaging in personal religious reasoning that aligned with their beliefs and values. [ 60 ]


According to the Law Decree no. 40 approved on February 19, 2004, by the Italian Parliament, titled "Regulations concerning medically assisted procreation", any form of selling of  either gametes or embryos, as well as surrogacy, is prohibited and punished with jail time lasting between three months and two years and with a fine ranging between 600,000 and one million euros (article 12, subsection 6). [ 61 ]  This prohibition has been further underpinned by a sentence of the Italian Constitutional Court (i.e. sentence no. 272 of 2017), that stated that "the practice of surrogacy constitutes an unbearable attack on women's dignity and deeply undermines human relations". [ 62 ]


Its legitimacy was confirmed by the  Italian Constitutional Court  in 2019. [ 63 ]  In the same year, the partner of the biological father of a surrogated child asked for the recognition of   birth certificate  which had been registered abroad of Italy, but the  Joint session  of the Civil Sections of the Italian  Supreme Court of Cassation  rejected his legal pursuit. [ 64 ]


In 2023, Prime Minister  Giorgia Meloni  ordered municipalities to follow a December 2021 court decision to stop certifying foreign birth certificates of children born to Italian same-sex couples through use of a surrogate in another country. [ 65 ]


On October 16th 2024, the Italian Parliament passed a law pursuant to which Italian citizens can be prosecuted if they have children through surrogacy abroad.


In March 2008, the Science Council of  Japan  proposed a ban on surrogacy and said that doctors, agents and their clients should be punished for commercial surrogacy arrangements. Other than that, it remains unregulated. [ 66 ]


There is no legal regulations/laws of surrogacy in Kenya. [ 67 ]


Surrogacy in  Mexico  is unregulated in most states and Mexico City as they lack specific legal framework for surrogacy. [ 68 ]  There are two states that have civil codes that regulate surrogacy: the states of  Sinaloa  and  Tabasco . The state of Sinaloa introduced a civil code pertaining to surrogacy in 2013, and it restricted surrogacy to married couples with proven infertility. [ 69 ]  The state of Tabasco introduced surrogacy in its civil code in 1997, and it amended its civil code to exclude international intended parents, LGBT individuals, and singles from accessing surrogacy. [ 70 ]


In 2021, the  Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation  found that the part of civil code of the state of Tabasco that restricted surrogacy to married Mexican couples violated Article 4 of the  Constitution of Mexico  and therefore is unconstitutional. [ 71 ]  The court ruled that surrogacy should be accessible to every individual regardless of sexuality, nationality, or marital status for the purpose of building a family, and that the intended parents who commissioned surrogacy should be deemed the legal parents of the child as procreational will should be the basis of determining the legal parentage, not gestational relationship. [ 72 ]


In regions of Mexico where surrogacy is unregulated,  Amparo trials  regularly take place when intended parents petition the federal court to order the local civil registry to register their baby born through surrogacy with a birth certificate showing only the name(s) of the intended parent(s), and in the majority of cases, a favorable ruling (Amparo) is issued. [ 73 ]


Surrogacy is currently prohibited by fatwa issued by National Council of Islamic Religious Affairs in 2008. [ 74 ]


Altruistic surrogacy is legal in the  Netherlands . [ 75 ]  Commercial surrogacy is illegal in the Netherlands. Although altruistic surrogacy is legal, there is only one hospital taking in couples and there are extremely strict rules to get in. This makes a lot of couples seek their treatment outside the Netherlands. [ 76 ]


In Belgium, surrogacy is not legally regulated, but it is often practiced, including by foreigners. Only altruistic surrogacy is allowed in the country. The future parents pay the surrogate mother only the expenses related to the pregnancy. For example, compensation for food, clothing, medical procedures, and transportation. Usually, parents find a surrogate mother through private contacts or through forums on the Internet.


Since Belgium does not have any specific law regulating the process of surrogacy, in fact, a private agreement between a surrogate mother and future parents has no legal force, and there are no clear requirements for the surrogate mother's health (for example, there is no obligation to undergo medical and mental examinations before entering into the surrogacy process, no age requirements). And more, according to Belgian law, the legal mother of a child at birth is the person who gave birth to the child, even if there is no genetic relationship with the child. The transfer of parental rights to biological parents takes place in court, through adoption.


The surrogate mother must voluntarily transfer parental rights to the child to the biological parents. If the surrogate mother who gave birth to the child does not want to hand over the child to the biological parents for any reason, the law will be on the side of the surrogate mother. There is no guarantee that the court will order the child's forced transfer to the biological parents. In such conditions, the surrogacy process can be complicated and unpredictable.


In such countries as Poland, Italy, France, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, surrogacy is prohibited by law. However, no country in Europe or the world can ban the human right to parenthood, so Citizens are not deprived of the right to use surrogacy services outside their country. [ 74 ]


Altruistic surrogacy is legal.


Surrogacy is unregulated in  Nigeria , [ 77 ]  and surrogacy contracts may be enforceable in Nigerian courts on the basis of simple contracts. [ 78 ]  Gestational surrogacy is currently practiced in Nigeria by a few IVF clinics. The guidelines are as approved by the practice guidelines of the Association of Fertility and Reproductive Health (AFRH) of Nigeria. The ART regulation that is currently being considered by the Senate permits surrogacy and allows some inducement to be paid for transport and other expenses. [ 79 ]


There is no legal framework for  surrogacy  in the Philippines. [ 80 ]  Philippine laws on parenthood renders legal barriers on transferring the rights to the intended parents. [ 81 ]


The Philippine Society of Reproductive Medicine prohibits assisting in the practice of in vitro fertilization and surrogacy through donor sperm and egg cells among its members. [ 82 ]


Surrogacy is mostly unregulated in Poland. [ 83 ]  A 2015 news report estimated there are likely dozens of surrogate mothers in Poland. [ 84 ]  According to the Family Code, the legal mother of a child is always the woman who gave birth to them. [ 85 ]


Heterosexual and lesbian couples could become parents via surrogacy in Portugal since 2016, under certain conditions. [ 86 ]  Yet, some parts of this law were considered unconstitutional in 2018 and it has since been suspended. [ 87 ] [ 88 ]  Traditional surrogacy is illegal in Portugal except for some specific situations that give the right for a surrogate mother to be genetic (for example, if the future adoptive mother is completely barren). [ 89 ]


In 2006, a law was approved that explicitly considered any surrogacy contract to be null and void (Law 32/2006, article 8). [ 86 ]


A limited gestational surrogacy law proposed by the  Left Bloc  was approved in Parliament on the 13 May 2016, which went through considerable modifications during the five months that it took to get it from project to law (it was discussed in a work group with representatives from all parliamentary groups). [ 90 ]  The law received the favorable votes of the  Socialist Party  (minus two),  Left Bloc  (BE),  The Greens  (PEV),  People Animals Nature  (PAN), and 24 out of 89 members of the  Social Democratic Party  (PSD, including the former party leader  Pedro Passos Coelho ). [ 90 ]  Both  CDS - People's Party  (CDS) and the  Communist Party  (PCP) voted against the proposal. [ 90 ]  The communists justified their vote as being in line with the recommendations of the National Ethics Council. [ 90 ]  President  Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa  vetoed the law as soon as he received it, giving the same justification as the Communist Party. [ 90 ]  The law was once again sent to the Parliament and passed a second time after some changes, on 20 July 2016, with the favorable votes of BE, PS, PEV, PAN and 20 members of PSD. [ 91 ]  Eight members of PSD abstained, including Pedro Passos Coelho. [ 91 ]  The remaining members of PSD voted against, as did all members of CDS and PCP. [ 91 ]


On 22 August 2016,  gestational surrogacy  was legalized in Portugal (Law 25/2016) for the cases in which there is an absence of the  uterus  or, due to lesions or disease, the uterus is unable to successfully carry a pregnancy to term. [ 92 ]  The article 8 of the 2006 law was revoked. [ 86 ]  In such cases, the surrogate mother must willingly enter the contract and accept to renounce any motherhood rights and duties. [ 92 ]  The gestational surrogacy requires a written contract that explicitly deals with the possibility of abortion in certain cases, the  Ordem dos Médicos ' opinion (which does not need to be positive) and the National Council of Medically Assisted Reproduction's (CNPMA) permission. [ 92 ]  The only payment/donation that the genetic parents can make in favor of the surrogate mother is her medical expenses [ 92 ]  and the surrogate mother cannot be economically dependent on the genetic parents. [ 86 ]  No behavioral restrictions can be imposed on the surrogate mother. [ 92 ]


Single men and homosexual male couples cannot have access to gestational surrogacy. [ 86 ]  The law does not explicitly exclude single women, but requires that only one of the members of the couple has to contribute with genetic material, which may be interpreted as restricting the procedure to couples. [ 86 ]


The law does not restrict gestational surrogacy to residents, meaning that Portugal may become a  fertility tourism  destination. [ 92 ]


Adoption of the law caused some debate within several Portuguese Christian Churches, [ 89 ]  though not among the once-dominant Roman Catholic Church. [ citation needed ]  Representatives of Brazilian and US-based evangelical and Pentecostal churches condemn surrogacy and suggest that infertile couples can/must (depending on the Church) pursue conventional adoption (national or transnational even though the later is banned by law). [ citation needed ]


After the 2016 law was approved, a regulatory decree (6/2017) was created on 31 July 2017 to materialize the 2016 law that included, for example, the requirement that the surrogacy mother is accompanied by a psychologist during and after the birth. [ 93 ]


In February 2017, a petition with more than 4000 signatures (the legal requirement for the Parliament to be forced to discuss the matter of the petition), was submitted to Parliament, asking for a  referendum  on gestational surrogacy. [ 91 ]  At the same time, a group of members of CDS and PSD requested that the law was subject to a constitutional inspection. [ 87 ]  In April 2018, the  Constitutional Court  deliberated on the matter and declared that some of the law's articles were in fact unconstitutional. [ 87 ]  The effects of the decision did not apply to any processes that had initiated the therapeutic procedure. [ 87 ]  This meant that a single process was allowed, while a total of eight processes that were in different stages of progress were considered null and void. [ 94 ]


In July 2019, new changes were made to the 2016 law in Parliament in an attempt to revert the Constitutional Court's decisions, but one of the issues raised by the Court (regarding the right of the surrogate mother to choose to keep the baby) failed to make it to the final version of the law. [ 95 ]  The final version had the positive votes of PS, BE (the author of the proposal), PEV, PAN and 21 PSD members, as well as five abstentions from PSD members. [ 95 ]  PCP, CDS, and 63 PSD members voted against it. [ 95 ]  In August 2019, president Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa sent the law to the Constitutional Court for review. [ 96 ]  In September 2019, the 2016 law, after the 2019 changes, was once again considered unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court. [ 88 ]


Gestational surrogacy, even commercial, is legal in  Russia , [ 97 ]  being available to practically all adults willing to be parents. [ 98 ]   There must be one of several medical indications for surrogacy: absence of uterus, deformity of the uterine cavity or cervix, uterine cavity synechia, somatic diseases contraindicating child bearing, or repeated failure of  IVF  despite high-quality embryos. [ 97 ]


The first surrogacy program in Russia was successfully implemented in 1995 at the IVF centre of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Institute in St. Petersburg. [ 99 ]  Public opinion in general is surrogacy-friendly; recent cases of a famous singer and a well-known businesswoman who openly used services of gestational surrogates received positive news coverage. Meanwhile, the Russian Orthodox Church has officially condemned surrogacy. As regards the baptism of the children born through surrogacy, the Russian Orthodox Church holds that a "child born with the assistance of “surrogate motherhood” can be Baptized according to the wishes of the party that will be raising it, if such are either its “biological parents” or its “surrogate mother,” only after they have recognized that, from the Christian point of view, such reproductive technology is morally reprehensible and have borne ecclesial repentance – regardless of whither they ignored the Church's position consciously or unconsciously". [ 100 ]


Registration of children born through surrogacy is regulated by the Family Code of Russia (art. 51–52) and the Law on Acts on Civil Status (art. 16). A surrogate's consent is needed for that. Apart from that consent, no adoption nor court decision is required. The surrogate's name is never listed on the birth certificate.
There is no requirement for the child to be genetically related to at least one of the commissioning parents. [ 101 ]


Children born to heterosexual couples who are not officially married or single intended parents through gestational surrogacy are registered in accordance to analogy of jus (art. 5 of the Family Code). A court decision may be needed in that case. On 5 August 2009 a St. Petersburg court definitely resolved a dispute as to whether single women could apply for surrogacy and obliged the State Registration Authority to register a 35-year-old single intended mother, Nataliya Gorskaya, as the mother of her surrogate son. [ 102 ]


On 4 August 2010 a Moscow court ruled that a single man who applied for gestational surrogacy (using donor eggs) could be registered as the only parent of his son, becoming the first man in Russia to defend his right to become a father through court proceedings. [ 103 ]  The surrogate mother's name was not listed on the birth certificate; the father was listed as the only parent. After that, a few more identical decisions concerning single men who became fathers through surrogacy were issued by different courts in Russia, listing men as the only parents of their surrogate children and confirming that prospective single parents, regardless of their sex or sexual orientation, can exercise their right to parenthood through surrogacy in Russia.


Liberal legislation makes Russia attractive for "reproductive tourists" looking for techniques not available in their countries. Intended parents go there for oocyte donation because of advanced age or marital status (single women and single men) and when surrogacy is considered. Foreigners have the same rights for assisted reproduction as Russian citizens. Within 3 days after the birth, the commissioning parents obtain a Russian birth certificate with both their names on it. Genetic relation to the child (in case of donation) does not matter. [ 104 ]


Religious authorities in Saudi Arabia do not allow the use of gestational carriers, instead suggesting medical procedures to restore fertility and ability to deliver. [ 105 ]


All surrogacy arrangements (both commercial and altruistic) are illegal. A draft of the new civil law is said to allow gestational carriers, but Serbian Assembly still did not adopt this law yet. On 21 April 2017, the Serbian Assembly started a discussion a legislation on assisted reproductive technology that bans all forms of surrogacy. (The legislation is being discussed.)


The  South Africa Children's Act of 2005  (which came fully into force in 2010) enabled the "commissioning parents" and the surrogate to have their surrogacy agreement validated by the  High Court  even before fertilization. This allows the commissioning parents to be recognized as legal parents from the outset of the process and helps prevent uncertainty – although if the surrogate mother is the genetic mother she has until 60 days after the birth of the child to change her mind. The law permits single people and gay couples to be commissioning parents. [ 106 ]  However, only those domiciled in  South Africa  benefit from the protection of the law, no non-validated agreements will be enforced, and agreements must be altruistic rather than commercial. If there is only one commissioning parent, s/he must be genetically related to the child. If there are two, they must both be genetically related to the child unless that is physically impossible due to infertility or sex (as in the case of a same-sex couple). The Commissioning parent or parents must be physically unable to birth a child independently. The surrogate mother must have had at least one pregnancy and viable delivery and have at least one living child. The surrogate mother has the right to unilaterally terminate the pregnancy, but she must consult with and inform the commissioning parents, and if she is terminating for a non-medical reason, may be obliged to refund any medical reimbursements she had received. [ 107 ]


As of mid-2010s, surrogacy was available and mostly unregulated in South Korea. The practice is often morally stigmatized. Surrogacy has declined since mid-2000s, as some aspects of commercial surrogacy became illegal. [ 108 ]


Whereas surrogacy is not legal in Spain (the biological mother's renouncement contract is not legally valid), it is legal to perform the surrogacy in a country where it is legal, having the mother the nationality from that same country. [ 109 ]


Surrogacy is illegal in Swedish healthcare, [ 110 ]  but there are no legal regulations/laws of surrogacy for it and it remains unregulated. [ 111 ]


Surrogacy is regulated in the "Bundesgesetz über die medizinisch unterstützte Fortpflanzung (Fortpflanzungsmedizingesetz, FMedG) vom 18. Dezember 1998" and illegal in Switzerland. Art. 4 forbids surrogacy, Art. 31 regulates the punishment of clinicians who apply in vitro fertilisation for surrogacy or persons who arrange surrogacy. The surrogate mother is not punished by law. She will be the legal mother of the child.


On 24 August 2014, the Administrative Court of the  Canton of St. Gallen  granted parentship to two men of a child born in the USA. [ 112 ]


In response to the controversial  Baby Gammy incident  in 2014, Thailand since 30 July 2015, has banned foreign people travelling to Thailand, to have commercial surrogacy contract arrangement, under the  Protection of Children Born from Assisted Reproductive Technologies Act . Only opposite-sex married couples as Thailand residents are allowed to have a commercial surrogacy contract arrangement. In the past Thailand was a popular destination for couples seeking surrogate mothers. [ 113 ] [ 114 ] [ 115 ]


Ukraine  is a major international surrogacy destination, given its very liberal laws, as well as the fact that prices are more affordable than in the United States. [ 116 ]


Since 2002, surrogacy and surrogacy in combination with egg/sperm donation has been absolutely legal in Ukraine. According to the law a donor or a surrogate mother has no parental rights over the child born and the child born is legally the child of the prospective parents. [ 116 ] [ 117 ]  This is possible because in Ukraine a woman can give birth to a child without being considered the child's mother. [ 118 ]  In other countries a woman automatically becomes the mother of a child by giving birth, even if the surrogate mother is not genetically related to the child she carried. [ 118 ]


In Ukraine the start of the introduction of methods of supporting reproductive medicine was given in the eighties of the preceding century. It was  Kharkiv  where the extracorporeal fertilization method was for the first time successfully applied in  Ukraine , and in 1991 a girl named Katy was born. Kharkiv was also the first city in the former  Soviet Union  to realize surrogacy. Many clinics dealing with surrogacy have been opened in  Kyiv [ 119 ]  and Kharkiv. [ 118 ]


Ukrainian surrogacy laws are very favorable and fully support the individual's reproductive rights. Surrogacy is officially regulated by Clause 123 of the Family Code of Ukraine and the order of the  Ministry of health of Ukraine  "On approval of the application of assisted reproductive technologies in Ukraine" from 09.09.2013 No. 787. You can choose between Gestational Surrogacy, Egg/sperm Donation, special Embryo adoption programs and their combinations. No specific permission from any regulatory body is required for that. [ 117 ] [ 116 ]  A written informed consent of all parties (intended parents and surrogate) participating in the surrogacy program is mandatory. The intended mother has to demonstrate that there is, in fact, a medical reason that makes impossible for her to get pregnant, either because there is a risk for her or for the baby.


However, Ukraine does not support surrogacy for family models different from the heterosexual one, leaving apart single parent families, lesbian couples, etc.


Ukrainian legislation allows intended parents to carry on a surrogacy program and their names will be on the birth certificate of the child born as a result of the surrogacy program from the very beginning. The child is considered to be legally "belonging" to the prospective parents from the very moment of conception. The surrogate's name is never listed on the birth certificate. The surrogate can't keep the child after the birth. Even if a donation program took place and there is no biological relation between the child and the intended mother, their names will be on the birth certificate (Clause 3 of article 123 of the Family Code of Ukraine).


Embryo research is also allowed, gamete and embryo donation permitted on a commercial level. Single women can be treated by known or anonymous donor insemination. Gestational surrogacy is an option for officially married couples only (a man and a woman) if they are able to prove they cannot carry a baby themselves for medical reasons and at least one parent must have a genetic link to the newborn baby. [ 117 ] [ 116 ]  Surrogacy in Ukraine is not regulated in law as commercial, it is more close to altruistic, as the so-called "payment" is not performed to the surrogate mother, it is called a compensation and is not under obligation to pay taxes.


The ongoing war and  Russian invasion of Ukraine  has not stopped the surrogacy industry. [ 120 ]  From the beginning of the invasion in February 2022 to July 2023 more than 1,000 children have been born in Ukraine to surrogate mothers. [ 120 ]  600 children were born at the BiotexCom clinic in Kyiv, one of Europe’s largest surrogacy clinics. [ 120 ]  Foreigners still traveled to Ukraine to collect the babies they had paid for despite the constant threat of  Russian bombardments . [ 120 ]  In March 2022  Ukrainian MPs  proposed prohibiting foreigners from using the services of Ukrainian surrogate mothers during  martial law , but this proposal was voted down two months later. [ 120 ]


In July 2023 the BiotexCom clinic charged  € 40,000 for its services. [ 120 ]  The clinic stated that more than half of that sum goes to the surrogate mothers. [ 120 ]  In March 2022  Deutsche Welle  reported  that all-inclusive packages did cost between €30,000 ( $ 33,000) and €40,000; and that the Ukrainian woman earned about €15,000 to €20,000 for her taking part in the surrogacy program — (that was) several times more than the average annual salary. [ 118 ]


Altruistic surrogacy is legal in the  United Kingdom , however, commercial surrogacy arrangements are not: as they are prohibited by section 2 of the  Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 . [ 121 ]  Additionally, advertisement was made a criminal offense under section 3 of the Surrogacy Arrangement Act, [ 122 ]  however, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 adds an exception, allowing non-profit agency to advertise. [ 123 ]  Whilst it is illegal in the UK to pay more than reasonable expenses for a surrogacy, the relationship is recognised under section 30 of the  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 . However, in the case of parental orders applied for as a result of international surrogacy arrangements, the court has retroactively authorised payment for commercial arrangements when it is in the child's best interest, see  Re L (A Minor)  [2010] E.W.H.C. 3146 (Fam),  J  v  G  [2013] E.W.H.C. 1432 (Fam),  Re X and Y (Parental Order: Retrospective Authorisation of Payments)  [2012] E.W.H.C. 3147 (Fam) and  Re C (Parental Order)  [2013] E.W.H.C. 2413 (Fam). [ 124 ]   ‘It will only be in the clearest case of the abuse of public policy that the court will be able to withhold an order if otherwise welfare considerations support its making.’ [ 125 ]  Regardless of contractual or financial consideration for expenses, surrogacy arrangements are not legally enforceable under section 1A [ 126 ]  of the Surrogacy Arrangements Act; therefore, a surrogate mother maintains the legal right of determination for the child, even if they are genetically unrelated. Unless a parental order or adoption order is made, the surrogate mother remains the legal mother of the child. [ 127 ] [ 128 ]  This is because under section 33 of the  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008  (HFEA 2008) ‘mother’ is the women who has, or is carrying the child. [ 129 ]  Additionally, if the surrogate is married, under section 42 HFEA 2008 their partner becomes the other legal parent, unless it can be shown they did not consent to the surrogate's insemination. [ 129 ]


Legal Parenthood through a parental order can be obtained under section 54 HFEA 2008, [ 130 ]  for two applicants, and section 54A HFEA 2008, [ 131 ]  for single applicants. In order to meet the criteria under section 54 HFEA 2008, an application must be made by two people in an enduring family relationship, and one of their  gametes  were used in the  insemination , subject to section 54(1) and section 54(2). [ 132 ]  In  X (A Child: Foreign Surrogacy)  [2018] E.W.F.C. 15 the couple openly acknowledged they were in a “sham marriage” however, this was unproblematic under section 54: as the court still considered them to be in a lasting relationship. [ 133 ]   Under section 54(3) the application must be made no later than 6 months after the child's birth. [ 134 ]  Under section 54(4)(a) and 54(4)(b) at the time of the application the child must be living with the applicants, at least one of which is  domiciled  in the UK. [ 135 ]  Both applicants when applying must be over the age of 18, as required by section 54(5). [ 136 ]  The surrogate and any other individual with parental rights must give their full and informed consent to the parental order, as required under section 54(6)(a) and 54(6)(b) unless, under section 54(7) they lack the capacity to consent. [ 137 ]  Moreover, under section 54(8) the court must be satisfied the no payment has been given, other than reasonable expenses, unless authorised by the court. [ 138 ]  Under section 54A HFEA 2008, the requirements are the same as under 54, except 54A(1) allows for one applicant, provided the child was not carried by them and their  gametes  were used in the  insemination . [ 139 ]


In the first UK surrogacy case  Re C (A Minor) (Wardship: Surrogacy) (Baby Cotton Case)  [1985] F.L.R. 846. Latey J stated, ‘morals and ethics are irrelevant, what matters is what is in the child’s best interest.’ [ 140 ]   When considering if a parental order should be granted the primary consideration of the court is child welfare, pursuant to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Parental Orders) (Consequential, Transitional and Savings Provision) Order 2010, [ 141 ]  which imports the provisions of section 1 of the  Adoption and Children Act 2002  into section 54 [ 130 ]  of the HFEA 2008. [ 142 ]  The primacy of child welfare has resulted in a more flexible application of section 54(3), to accommodate the child's best interest. In Re  Re X (A Child) (Surrogacy: Time Limit)  [2014] E.W.H.C. 3135 (Fam) Munby P states, excluding parental orders made even a day late is ‘…the very antithesis of sensible; it is almost nonsensical.” [ 143 ]  Munby P states this is because of the large impact on, not just the applicants, but ‘…the innocent child, whose welfare is the courts paramount concern.’ [ 143 ]  This flexible approach was followed in  KB & RJ  v  RT  (Rev 1) [2016] E.W.H.C. 760 (Fam) where a parental order was granted to a two-year-old child. [ 144 ]


Surrogacy and its attendant legal issues fall under state jurisdiction and the legal situation for surrogacy varies greatly from state to state.  Some states have written legislation, while others have developed common law regimes for dealing with surrogacy issues. Some states facilitate surrogacy and surrogacy contracts, others simply refuse to enforce them, and some penalize commercial surrogacy. Surrogacy friendly states tend to enforce both commercial and altruistic surrogacy contracts and facilitate straightforward ways for the intended parents to be recognized as the child's legal parents. Some relatively surrogacy friendly states only offer support for married heterosexual couples. Generally, only gestational surrogacy is supported and traditional surrogacy finds little to no legal support.


States generally considered to be surrogacy friendly include California, [ 145 ]  Illinois, [ 146 ]  Arkansas, [ 147 ]  Maryland, [ 148 ]  Washington D.C., Oregon, [ 149 ]  and New Hampshire [ 150 ]  among others. Both  New Jersey  and  Washington state  commercial surrogacy laws became effective from 1/1/2019.


For legal purposes, key factors are where the contract is completed, where the gestational carrier resides, and where the birth takes place. Therefore, individuals living in a non-friendly state can still benefit from the policies of surrogacy friendly states by working with a surrogate who lives and will give birth in a friendly state.


The variations in policy mean that employee surrogacy benefits, which an increasing number of employers offer, can only be enjoyed in certain jurisdictions. [ 151 ]


Arkansas  was one of the first states to enact surrogacy friendly laws. In 1989, under then-Governor  Bill Clinton , it passed Act 647, which states that in a surrogacy arrangement, the biological father and his wife will be recognized as the child's legal parents from birth, even if his wife is not genetically related to the child (i.e., in a traditional surrogacy arrangement). If he is unmarried, he alone will be recognized as the legal parent. A woman may also be recognized as the legal mother of the surrogate's genetic child as long as that child was conceived with anonymous donor sperm. [ 152 ]  On the other hand, it is unclear how or whether same-sex couples could benefit these laws, since the 2008 ballot measure that made it illegal for unmarried, cohabiting individuals to adopt or provide foster care to minors. [ 153 ]  On 26 June 2015, the 2008 ballot issue is  moot  because of  Obergefell v. Hodges .


California  is known to be a surrogacy-friendly state.  It permits commercial surrogacy, regularly enforces gestational surrogacy contracts, and makes it possible for all intended parents, regardless of marital status or sexual orientation, to establish their legal parentage prior to the birth and without adoption proceedings (pre-birth orders). [ 145 ] [ 154 ]