Page URL:

Switzerland, inter-country surrogacy and public policy

8 June 2015
By Michael Wells-Greco
Partner at Charles Russell Speechlys and Lecturer at Maastricht University
Appeared in BioNews 805

On 21 May 2015 the Swiss Federal Court (1) refused to register a male couple - who are in a civil partnership and living in Saint-Gallen, Switzerland - as the legal fathers of a child born following an inter-country surrogacy arrangement.

The background to this case is that the child was born in California to a gestational surrogate, with one of the intending fathers providing the sperm, which was used to fertilise an egg from an anonymous donor. With the consent of the surrogate, and following a judgment of a Californian court, the intending fathers were named as the legal parents and their names were recorded in the child's US birth certificate. The family returned to Switzerland and took steps to be recognised as the child's legal parents.

A court in Saint-Gallen held, in broad terms, that recognition of the joint legal parentage was in the best interests of the child (2). That court stated that to hold otherwise would leave the child with 'limping' legal parentage, particularly as the second intending father would be unable to establish his legal paternity. Echoing in many ways a decision of the Supreme Court of Germany (3), the court in Saint-Gallen held that non-recognition would have negative long-term consequences for the child. Moreover, the court held that the best interests of the child also required that the genetic origins of the child, as well as details of the surrogate, must be recorded in the civil register.

The Federal Justice Department submitted an appeal on 26 September 2015, challenging the registration of the second parent as father. The Federal Court held that the parentage of the second parent established in California could not be recognised in Switzerland - only the intended genetic father and the surrogate would be registered as the child's parents in the Swiss civil registry. There were a number of reasons for this conclusion. Surrogacy and the use of medically assisted reproduction in the context of surrogacy are prohibited in Switzerland, and second-parent adoption is currently restricted to (heterosexual) married couples. For the Federal Court, recognition of a parental status established in California in circumstances where there was no other connection with the USA (such as residence or American nationality of one of the intending fathers) would be 'fundamentally incompatible with Swiss legal and ethical values ([and contrary to] public policy)' (1) and unlawful.

There is a great deal of conflicting information in the media about surrogacy. It should be stressed that this decision was not about whether or not the Swiss prohibition of surrogacy was lawful. There are some things that ought to be decided by a democratically elected parliament rather than by the courts. Instead, the Federal Court had to consider a classic private international law matter - that is, whether the parental status established abroad could be recognised in Switzerland. An important concept for that analysis is the notion of 'public policy'.

With respect to surrogacy, the protection of health or morals, the prevention of crime, or the protection of rights and freedoms of others (in particular the child and the surrogate) there are legitimate broad objectives in public-policy terms for states in specific circumstances to restrict or deny the consequences of a surrogacy arrangement. Yet, returning to the facts of this decision, there is nothing to indicate that these important public-policy issues were at play. Moreover, any such restrictions concerning the identity of an individual (here the child now aged 4) should be proportional to the objective aimed at and acceptable in an open, free, tolerant and pluralistic society. The lawfulness of the arrangements in the state in which this child was born and the informed consent of the surrogate are arguably very relevant to this proportionality exercise. Seen in this light, non-recognition of the parental status could be seen, to paraphrase the European Court of Human Rights, to 'fly in the face of both established fact and the wishes of those concerned without actually benefiting anyone' (4).

Where does that leave us? An important conclusion is that the Federal Court leaves the door ajar to recognition and, as such, it cannot be assumed that legal parentage established abroad following a surrogacy arrangement violates Swiss public policy. This means that Swiss courts and authorities may - albeit in undefined circumstances - recognise a foreign decision on parentage or a birth certificate. How this is applied in practice is yet to be seen, and it is questionable whether in this delicate matter the best interests of the child are served by solutions on a case-by-case basis. The lack of a legal relationship between the child and a second intending parent or intending mother creates very real disadvantages and uncertainties regarding inheritance rights, child custody, parental responsibility, and other day-to-day parental duties. The extent to which a child's family unit enjoys legal recognition has a considerable impact on that child's day-to-day and longer term enjoyment of his or her rights.

It is now for this family to decide whether to make an application to the European Court of Human Rights on the basis of a violation of their Article 8 ECHR right to respect for their private and family life. And it is now for the Swiss Parliament to find long-term solutions. A balance is needed, placing the best interests of the child as a primary consideration, but also respecting the balance that must be achieved between children, intending parents, the surrogate, gamete providers and the state. Listening to the experiences and views of those most affected in these very real family units is a crucial part of any thoughtful responsive process of law and policy reform.

1) 5A_748/2014
|  1 December 2021
2) Urteil Verwaltungsgericht, 19 August 2014
|  1 December 2021
3) Decision XII ZB 463/13 (Bundesgerichtshof Beschluss XII ZB 463/13)
|  1 December 2021
4) Kroon v the Netherlands (1995) 19 EHRR 263, para. 40
|  1 December 2021
7 September 2015 - by Dr Melanie Levy and Professor Vardit Ravitsky 
Switzerland upholds stricter legislation on assisted reproduction and prenatal genetic testing than most European countries. However, recent regulatory changes demonstrate a possible shift towards a more liberal approach....
3 August 2015 - by Professor Eric Blyth, Dr Marilyn Crawshaw and Dr Patricia Fronek 
Given the complexity of surrogacy practice, we have become concerned that many 'reform' arguments are based on alleged matters of fact: a dangerous state of affairs...
27 July 2015 - by Julianna Photopoulos 
A male same-sex couple have been stuck in Thailand with their baby daughter for the past six months, after the surrogate mother refused to allow them to leave the country claiming they are not 'an ordinary couple'...
15 June 2015 - by Dr Kirsty Horsey 
A working group from Surrogacy UK has devised an online survey seeking views on people's experiences of surrogacy in the UK and opinions on the way it is regulated...
17 February 2014 - by Professor Eric Blyth, Dr Marilyn Crawshaw and Professor Olga van den Akker 
As the surrogacy industry grows, so too do calls from parts of the consumer lobby, fertility industry and others for a loosening of international and domestic restraints on surrogacy arrangements...
3 June 2013 - by Antony Starza-Allen 
A UK High Court judge has said applications for parental orders in international surrogacy cases should be encouraged and made promptly...
5 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....
31 May 2011 - by Natalie Gamble 
More people are crossing borders to build their families than ever before. Prospective parents can easily access information about treatment options in countries where regulations permit treatments outlawed in the UK or where there is little or no regulation at all. But where surrogacy is involved, going abroad raises very difficult legal issues....
14 December 2008 - by Ben Jones 
A British couple this week won custody over a pair of twins born to a surrogate mother in the Ukraine. The twin babies were caught in a legal loophole whereby the expectant British couple were unable to bring the twins into the UK, as they were not...
to add a Comment.

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

Syndicate this story - click here to enquire about using this story.