Subscribe to the BioNews newsletter for free

Login
Advanced Search

Search for
BioNews


Print Page Follow BioNews on Twitter BioNews RSS feed

Like the Progress Educational Trust on Facebook



King's College London - Health: More than a medical matter






Lies, damned lies and surrogacy

13 August 2012

By Richard Adams

Senior Associate at Wedlake Bell LLP

Appeared in BioNews 668

What is the law to do when people deceive each other about their intentions as parents? In what is thought to have been the first case of its kind, the UK's High Court in G v G [2012] has rejected a father's application to reverse an order transferring legal parenthood of a child from a surrogate to his wife (1). The man alleged that his wife, who had left him shortly after the original order was granted, had concealed her intention of not wishing to remain in the marriage.

In making the decision against the father, Mr Justice Hedley agreed that while the wife had misled the court as to the true state of their marriage, the bar to overturn a parental order was set very high. Importantly, the child had been under the care of the intending parents from birth until their separation, after which the wife had assumed primary care. A decision to overturn the order would have meant that the only mother the child knew would, in effect, become a legal stranger. This would have undermined the welfare of the child principle, which following a recent change in the law is now paramount in all such cases.

In this case, the surrogate, who was also the child's biological mother, apparently would have asked for the child to be returned to her, and so there would have been little practical benefit for the father in overturning the order.

The decision in G v G is consistent with previous rulings relating to deception and surrogacy arrangements. The most usual deception is by biological mothers who had backed out of surrogacy agreements and the ensuing disputes were concerned with who the child should live with, rather than overturning any parental order (which anyway cannot be made in the absence of the biological mother's agreement).

In the case of Re TT (Surrogacy) [2011], a woman met a couple via the internet and entered into a surrogacy arrangement with them. During the course of the pregnancy, however, the relationship deteriorated and she refused to hand the baby over once it was born (2).

The court ordered that the child should live with the surrogate, who was the biological mother, rather than the intended parents. It decided that undue weight should not be given to her change in mind, as she had entered into the agreement in good faith. Unlike in G v G, the child had remained in the surrogate's care since birth and had formed an attachment with her. Therefore to remove the child would cause a measure of harm.

However, in an earlier case of Re P (Surrogacy: Residence) [2007] the court decided that the child should live with the intended parents, rather than the surrogate biological mother, after she had lied to them about having a miscarriage in order to keep the child (3).

Rather disturbingly, this was not the first time she had lied to a couple about having a miscarriage in order to back out of a surrogacy agreement. The court said she was not capable of meeting the child's long term emotional needs given her behaviour and the child was more likely to develop into a more balanced person living with the intended parents.

What is consistent throughout these cases is that the deception itself is not the key issue, but rather it is what the deception indicates about the ability of the various parents to meet the child's needs. In G v G, it seems unlikely that it would have ever been in the best interests of the child to overturn the parental order given the length of time the child had lived with the wife, even if there had been a deliberate deception.

Evidence of deception would probably prove damaging in any dispute as to who the child should live with, however. Mr Justice Hedley commented that it would be intolerable that one parent should be, or even appear to be, marginalised in light of the original agreement. An intention to deceive one parent from the outset would raise serious concerns of the willingness of the other not to marginalise them.

Readers will be aware that this is a developing area of case law following the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 and recognising this, Mr Justice Hedley granted permission for the father to appeal, if he wants, as it would be in the public interest for the Court of Appeal to provide further guidance.

Until such clarification has been provided, couples intending to enter into a surrogacy arrangement should make sure they are aware and understand all of the implications of the process and the law surrounding it.

 

SOURCES & REFERENCES
| 11 May 2012
 
| 21 January 2011
 
3) Re P (Surrogacy: Residence)
|
 

RELATED ARTICLES FROM THE BIONEWS ARCHIVE

22 October 2012 - by Natalie Gamble 
Consent requirements for surrogacy were created in 1990 and sought to discourage surrogacy, to make it a perilous undertaking that few would brave. With more experience behind us, we now know that surrogacy is not something to be quite so afraid of... [Read More]

05 March 2012 - by Daniel Malynn 
Hosted by 7 Bedford Row chambers, this intellectually stimulating event highlighted the uncertainty and lack of consensus around surrogacy law. However, such was the emphasis on surrogacy the event title was never formally answered. Yet I nevertheless came away with the feeling that some key issues in surrogacy, applicable to the wider agenda of assisted reproduction, were thoroughly explored. Moreover, it established some momentum to press for law reform in the area.... [Read More]
20 February 2012 - by Natalie Gamble 
The family court has been making law on known donors, with a number of recent disputes between known sperm donors and lesbian mothers... [Read More]
16 January 2012 - by Dr Rebecca Robey 
Acting as a surrogate does not negatively affect the psychological wellbeing of the surrogate's own children, according to a new study from the Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge.... [Read More]
13 December 2010 - by Antony Blackburn-Starza 
The UK's High Court has granted legal parenthood to the parents of a child born using a surrogate in the United States to allow them to keep the child in the country.... [Read More]

HAVE YOUR SAY
Be the first to have your say.

You need to Login or Register to add comments.

By posting a comment you agree to abide by the BioNews terms and conditions

 


 

- click here to enquire about using this story.

Printer Friendly Page

Published by the Progress Educational Trust
RISK ASSESSMENT:
BREAST CANCER, PREDICTION AND SCREENING
FREE public event in central London, 6.30pm on Thursday 8 May 2014 - find out more HERE

ANNIVERSARY APPEAL
Please donate HERE, so that the Progress Educational Trust can continue throughout 2014 (and beyond) while keeping BioNews FREE for you to read

The Progress Educational Trust was shortlisted for the Charity Times Awards 2011

Advertise your products and services HERE - click for further details

Good Fundraising Code

Become a Friend of PET HERE, and give the Progress Educational Trust a regular donation