Pride Angel

The High Court has backed a council’s decision to bar a couple from fostering children because they oppose homosexuality.

Pentecostal Christians Eunice and Owen Johns, of Derby, were told by the city council in 2007 that a fostering panel had rejected them because of their views.

They told a social worker that they could not tell a foster child that homosexuality was acceptable.

They applied to the High Court to clarify policies on foster parents who have “traditional” views on sexuality. Today, the court agreed with the council’s decision.

The Johns, who were supported by the Christian Legal Centre, say they do not recognise sex before marriage, or the validity of civil partnerships.

Mrs Johns said in November: “The council said: ‘Do you know, you would have to tell [children] that it’s OK to be homosexual?’

“But I said I couldn’t do that because my Christian beliefs won’t let me. Morally, I couldn’t do that. Spiritually I couldn’t do that.”

Stonewall chief executive Ben Summerskill said: “We’re delighted that the High Court’s landmark decision has favoured 21st century decency above 19th century prejudice. In any fostering case the interests of the 60,000 children in care should override the bias of any prospective parent.

“Thankfully, Mr and Mrs Johns’s outdated views aren’t just out of step with the majority of people in modern Britain but those of many Christians too. If you wish to be involved in the delivery of a public service, you should be prepared to provide it fairly to anyone.”

Article: 28th February 2011 www.pinknews.co.uk

Read more about gay and lesbian parenting.

Gay father Barrie Drewitt Barlow revealed how six gay couples are in a "huge panic" over India's recent ban of surrogacy to gay couples.

Mr Drewitt Barlow, who runs the British Surrogacy Centre with his partner Tony have said “embryos had been transferred to women acting as surrogate, but the men fear they will never see their children”.

The Essex father-of-five, whose children were conceived through US surrogate mothers, warned all Britons against using surrogacy in India. He claimed pimps in India are forcing prostitutes into surrogacy, and families sell their daughters into the service.

"We think ethically it's not the place to carry out surrogacy because women are being exploited," he said. "Most couples go there because it's a cheap option. We discovered the squalor some of these surrogate mothers were living in, it was disgraceful.”

"I've heard of two virgins, both 19, sold by their parents. These girls have recently given birth for two German couples. Both are now pregnant again.”

"I've had at least five emails today from clinics in Mumbai and Hyderabad wanting me to send them English couples who need surrogates. Remember, surrogacy in India is very big business."

Read more about the British Surrogacy Centre and arranging surrogacy within the US.

India is to ban gay couples from using surrogate mothers. As part of reforms to the country’s surrogacy and fertility treatment laws, only heterosexual couples will be allowed to have children by surrogate.

The Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) Regulation Bill 2010 was sent to the law ministry for approval this week. There is apparently nothing in the bill to stop a single gay man from having a surrogate baby, as single men and women will be eligible.

Married and unmarried straight couples who live together will also be permitted to use surrogate mothers. However, women must be able to prove that they cannot have a baby naturally. According to the Evening Standard, a senior Indian official said: “We have to look after the interests of our own citizens as well as handle the tricky matter of the sensitivities of these couples who have not been able to have children in the normal way.

“But above all, we have acted to put some kind of hold on the whole surrogacy issue by banning homosexual couples from coming to India to enter into such deals. India is one of the top destinations for gay and straight couples seeking a surrogate child as it is far more cost-effective than other countries.

In the UK, single people cannot gain full legal rights over their children born by surrogate mother – a problem which affects gay single men in particular. Parental orders are used to extinguish the rights of a biological mother and her husband or partner. However, these can only be granted to couples.

India’s emergence as a surrogacy hotspot has prompted authorities to clamp down on unscrupulous practices, such as the persuading of impoverished women to rent out their wombs. This month, media attention focused on a Spanish gay couple who had twin girls born to a surrogate mother.

The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights ordered the clinic involved to explain its procedures and suggested that the transaction had not been legal. Chariman of the commission Amod Kanth said: “As the Indian laws are yet to approve of a gay marital relationship, the commission shows its grave concern over the issue as to whether the gay foreigner couple have the legal status to assign such surrogacy or having the legal status of adopting parents or otherwise.”

The bill states that surrogate mothers must be aged between 21 and 35 and cannot give birth more than five times, even if this includes their own children. Would-be parents will be prosecuted if they refuse to accept a baby with birth defects and foreign couples or individuals will have to appoint a local guardian to care for the baby until handed over to them.

Using a surrogate mother in India costs around a fifth of the price of an American surrogate, making the country an attractive option for those interested in the process. While an American surrogacy costs around $70,000, Indian surrogacy costs around $12,000. This is a huge sum in India – equivalent to ten years’ average salary.

Another provision in the bill says foreign prospective parents must have obtained citizenship for their children before bringing them home. Critics say this will be a stumbling block for many would-be parents.

Last year, an Israeli gay man was stranded in India for two months with his twin sons because Israel’s Ministry of the Interior refused to issue a paternity test, which is required for the recognition of all children born abroad.

Read more about surrogacy for gay couples

Would you like to take part in some cutting edge, exciting new research?

Emilie Garvey, an undergraduate Sociology student at Newcastle University, is interested in hearing from lesbian and gay individuals and couples to take part in an exciting project in a new and expanding area of research: Assisted Reproduction and the Alternative Family. The aim of the study is to explore the experiences of same-sex couples in their decision-making processes involved in starting a family of their own with the aid of assisted reproduction technologies. The study also welcomes participation from gay and lesbian individuals who might start a family in the future or who simply would like to offer an opinion or point of view for the research.

Why is the study being done?

Recent changes in legislation have widened the options available for same-sex couples who wish to start a family. Media portrayals of celebrity couples undergoing such processes have also recently increased public awareness of the decision making process, the social stigma that such couples might have to face and have offered a chance to ‘look inside’ the ‘Alternative Family’. This study, however, aims to research the decision making processes involved prior to, and throughout, the process. The researcher also hopes gain an in depth understanding of the obstacles and hurdles which affect same-sex couples in the UK who wish to have a family of their own.

Am I eligible to take part?

If you are a lesbian woman or gay man, single, in a relationship or in a civil partnership, who have experience of assisted reproduction in starting a family, or who would simply like to offer the researcher an opinion on the issues involved, you are eligible to take part in this study.

What does taking part involve?

Choosing to take part in this study would involve you answering a short questionnaire, which the researcher will send to you via email. You can choose to answer any or all of the questions. Alternatively, if you simply wish to offer the researcher some opinions or stories of experiences, this is also greatly appreciated. All participants’ identity will be kept anonymous, all names will be assigned pseudonyms in the discussion of data collected and all data will be kept securely and password protected at all times. As a participant you have the right to withdraw your participation from the study at any time.

What will happen to the finding of the research?

The findings of the research will be written up and submitted as part of an undergraduate dissertation to Newcastle University. They will be read by two examiners at Newcastle University and also be made available to participants of the study who would like to see the complete study are welcome to request a copy from the researcher.

Please contact us for further information or for the questionnaire to be sent to you, any assistance is much appreciated.
Click here to order your questionnaire

A 61-year-old woman gave birth to her grandson in February because her daughter couldn't maintain a pregnancy. Kristine Casey, who may be the oldest woman to give birth to her grandson, volunteered to act as a surrogate after her daughter, Sara Connell, failed to bring two IVF pregnancies to term. Mrs Connell and her husband had also tried to conceive naturally for years without success. Mrs Connell said: 'The idea of having a family member being open to doing this for us was so extraordinary'.

Mrs Casey gave birth 10 years after menopause using the Connells' eggs and sperm thanks to hormone treatments that prepared her uterus for pregnancy. With them, the pregnancy success rate is independent of the surrogate's age. She became pregnant after the second course of IVF and gave birth by caesarean section 39 weeks later. Dr Susan Gerber, the doctor who delivered baby Finnean Connell in Chicago, said: 'The surgery itself was uncomplicated, and the emotional context of this delivery was so profound'.

Media reaction has varied with some finding story unsettling while others have welcomed the birth. Margaret Somerville in the Globe and Mail wrote an article titled 'When granny gives birth to her grandson, there's something wrong' in which she says 'my gut reaction was that this was ethically wrong'. Josephine Johnston, a bioethics researcher at The Hastings Centre, New York, however, said: 'It seems like an unquestionably loving and generous thing for a family member to do. It's one of those situations where outsiders might wonder if it's OK or healthy. But the experience of that child and his family will be that it's good'.

Article: Bionews 596 21st February 2011

Read more about surrogacy within the UK at www.prideangel.com

VICTORIA Australia is so short of sperm donors that some women are flying interstate for IVF treatment, prompting calls to ease restrictions on importing sperm.

Fertility doctors say demand for sperm has surged since laws giving single women and lesbians access to IVF were brought in last year, with some patients waiting up to nine months.

The removal of anonymity has also made some men reluctant to donate, and restrictions that mean they can only give sperm to 10 families have also increased the need for more donors.

With just 184 registered sperm donors left in Victoria, fertility doctors say some patients are resorting to DIY inseminations using unscreened sperm, which carries the risk of infection.

Importing sperm is prohibited in Victoria unless approved by the Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority, which last year granted permission in just three cases. But states without specific reproductive legislation such as Queensland are routinely importing sperm, often from American sperm banks.

Melbourne IVF director John McBain said the regulator was being too strict with the rules.

''The shortage is as bad as it's ever been and when the wait is so long to get access to a donor it just pushes it underground again and people seek their own remedy using uncounselled, unconsented donors and unquarantined sperm,'' he said.

''The worrying risk of that is chronic viral illness infection with either hepatitis B or HIV because a lot of single women tend to source gay men as their donors.

''One of the main things … is that we have minorities here in Australia who would quite like the child to look like its parents but no one has any Indian, Asian or Arabic sperm donors.''

Melbourne mother Lee, who did not want to use her real name, went to the City Fertility Centre but was told there would be a six to nine-month wait for sperm.

The clinic, which has only six donors on its books and has launched a website to attract more, referred the couple to a sister clinic in Brisbane, which uses samples from the US. Lee became pregnant on her first attempt with donor sperm and now has twin two-year-old girls.

''It was so simple. We could look at all their profiles on the internet and see baby pictures of them or in some cases what they look like as adults,'' she said. ''We wanted someone who had blond hair and blue eyes because my husband has Dutch in his background and it was important that the girls look like him.

''We were fortunate we had the finances to fly to Queensland, but it would be great if they could get more donors in Victoria by importing sperm.''

Louise Johnson, chief executive of the Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority, which regulates fertility treatment, said decisions on importation were based on complex legal requirements and the welfare of the child.

Federal laws prohibit paying donors for sperm, although reimbursing costs is allowed. Clinics often differ in what they interpret as reasonable costs. State legislation also requires donors to be counselled by a Victorian counsellor before giving sperm.

''It's not just a simple matter of saying there's a shortage of donor sperm let's import a whole batch,'' Ms Johnson said. ''The guiding principles of the act are that the welfare of persons born as a result of treatment is paramount, and they have a right to information about their genetic parents. ''There would be no regulatory body in the US ensuring that their donor's details are kept up to date because there is no central register like there is in Victoria.

''There's a growing body of evidence that young people want to have the choice to obtain information about their donor when they become adults, so it not just the matter of supply.''

Adnan Catakovic, of Brisbane's City Fertility Centre, said his centre's US supplier exceeded Australian standards.

Men interested in donating sperm can visit spermdonorsaustralia.com.au

Article: 19th February 2011 by www.theage.com.au

Read more about donating sperm by personal arrangement at www.prideangel.com

The following recent article by the Daily Mail highlights the risks both physically and emotionally of sleeping with a sperm donor met online. As a single woman any donor would be classed as the child’s legal father and could be held financially responsible. For this reason many donors may try to conceal their true identity, which adds a greater risk for the recipient, of not having adequate identification for CRB checks and health screening tests. Not to mention the importance of any child not being able to trace their biological routes when they are older.

Erika from Pride Angel states ‘ There are many advantages for personally meeting a sperm donor and having them involved in their child’s life’ ‘Making sure that both parties have the same views regarding their parenting and level of involvement is imperative to any successful arrangement’

‘It is also important to consider the risks, getting legal advice and full health screening tests before attempting to conceive’ ‘Using a regulated clinic is the only real way of being certain about any health risks and gaining fertility treatment through a clinic also clarifies the legal position for both the donor and the recipient’ .

For these reasons Pride Angel unlike many other websites, has strict terms and conditions regarding donors not donating by natural insemination, no payments being offered and anonymous donation is strongly discouraged. Profiles are monitored constantly and users are able to ‘Report’ any concerns they have regarding other members.

Article: Frances Benning, 29 has chosen to conceive with a sperm donor. She has scheduled the event meticulously; planned every detail with military precision — for her sole purpose is to become pregnant. But the man she has chosen to be the father of her baby is neither her husband, nor her partner nor, even, a long-term friend. In fact, he is Toby, a sperm donor she met for the first time just a few hours ago.

Toby, 30, who is affluent and handsome with a glamorous job in the film industry, and Frances — attractive, articulate and privately-educated — were introduced via a website that matches potential sperm donors with would-be mothers. After she singled him out as a prospective father, they corresponded before arranging to meet.

No money would change hands but, at the end of their brief encounter, Frances fervently hoped, Toby would have bestowed on her the priceless gift of life.

After that, she planned to embark on life as a single mum. She figured she could manage perfectly alone: she is resourceful, financially secure and owns her own house outright. But as is often the case with even the best-laid schemes, Frances’ went awry. For a start, she failed to factor emotions into her plan, and had not reckoned on the impact of seeing the father of her future child face-to-face.

‘When I first met Toby I thought, “Wow!”,’ she recalls. ‘He is 6ft 5in, dark-haired and blue-eyed with lovely broad muscular shoulders. He looked even better than he did in his photos. Under different circumstances Frances, a legal secretary, and Toby, whose job as a researcher takes him round the world, could have been made for each other.

They enjoyed an afternoon of sightseeing then dinner together; chatted amicably and shared a few drinks. And even though she had convinced herself the intimate act that would ensue would be nothing more than a clinical, emotionless contract, Frances found herself fantasising about a future with Toby.

‘It crossed my mind what an idyllic family life we could make,’ she admits. ‘But I tried to force these thoughts away. I kept reminding myself that this was a transaction. I told myself it was a bonus that I got on so well with him and found him attractive and interesting. I took consolation in the fact that our baby would have such good genes.’

In these days, when the traditional nuclear family is fast becoming a rarity, Frances’ decision to become pregnant by sperm donor is no longer exceptional. Perverse as the idea may seem, Frances believes her baby — she is now four months’ pregnant with a daughter — will be happier knowing she was conceived ‘naturally’ rather than artificially.

‘I wanted to be able to tell my child that I did share an intimate moment with her father. That was important,’ she says. ‘I think donor children find it far harder to grapple with the idea that they were conceived by IVF, in a petri-dish, as if they were somehow the product of a mere scientific process. ‘She’ll also know she was very much a loved and wanted baby, which cannot often be said for babies who are born as a result of one-night stands. ‘Some of my friends asked me why I didn’t just go out and get pregnant by someone I met at a bar. But I felt it was dishonest and unfair to impose fatherhood on a man who hadn’t chosen it.’

Short-lived: Frances and Toby, who she did not want to identify, arranged to meet to conceive naturally and then fell in love. But he later decided he did not want a relationship

To many of us, it may sound shocking that you can go online and, seemingly, with one click find not just a man willing to donate sperm, but that men and women are willing to meet and have conceive naturally with strangers solely to fulfill this desire to be a parent. Donors on the site — primarily used by lesbians — offer women the option of artificial or natural insemination, in other words sex. But why did Frances, an attractive and intelligent young woman who was not encumbered with fertility problems, take such a contentious route to parenthood? Why not, instead, simply find a man she loved and share the joy and responsibilities of raising a family with him? She had, she explains, been unlucky in love and her urge to have a child was pressing; too urgent, it seems, to wait for a man she loved to come along and pursue the conventional route to parenthood.

‘I’d been engaged three times and none of the men were what I wanted for myself, let alone to be the father of my child,’ she says. ‘They’d been duplicitous, unfaithful and unreliable. Yet, for years, I’d wanted to be a mum, and the yearning became very strong after the break-up of my last engagement.

‘I had a miscarriage without even realising I was pregnant. This broke my heart and I realised that I wanted a child more than ever.’ So, impelled by the ticking of her biological clock, she convinced herself time was running out. She told herself, too, that she would rather raise a child alone than in an unsatisfactory relationship — she is, herself, the only child of divorced parents — and she resolved to detach herself emotionally from the whole business of finding a father for her child.

‘I decided to find a donor who wanted little or no contact with the child,’ she explains. ‘My idea was to find someone who would be happy to receive photographs at birthdays, maybe have the odd visit. I was hoping I could treat him as an uncle figure until the child was old enough to have his role explained.’

She concedes the process was fraught with huge risks: ‘It felt like a strange version of internet dating. As with all such meeting sites, you do encounter a lot of weirdos. There were men who were at best rude and barely literate, and others who were downright perverts. ‘Some were clearly in it to make money. I worried, too, about the risk of encountering sex offenders. ‘Then there were married men whose wives were infertile; you name it, every kind of aberration was there.

‘There was also no guarantee, either, that the men were even fertile; or that they did not have sexually transmitted diseases. I encountered one man who had apparently fathered more than 20 children, yet when I asked if he could prove he was not carrying any STDs, he told me no clinic would issue a certificate since, as a prospective sperm donor who frequently had sex with strangers, he could become infected at any time.’

All of which, of course, begs the question: why wasn’t this enough to deter Frances from this emotionally hazardous and potentially physically dangerous method of conception? There are a multitude of well-regulated IVF clinics with carefully vetted donors supplying sperm that has been screened for STDs.

But this is her explanation: ‘I worried about the failure rate of IVF and how traumatic it is to go through. ‘Besides, I wasn’t keen on the fact that you never got to meet the donor. And it was important for me to do so; especially as my child would have the legal right to meet him on reaching the age of 18.

Unusual conception: Frances said she will tell her daughter, pictured here at the first scan, where she came from when she's old enough ‘I didn’t want someone with a glowing paper reference who in real life was an anti-social, inarticulate geek. Let’s face it: anyone can write themselves a good reference. But to me the issue of personality was vitally more important than what eye colour the child might inherit.’

Small wonder, then, when she spotted a donor as personable as Toby — a man who not only possessed all the physical and intellectual attributes of an ideal father, but was also altruistic enough to donate his sperm for nothing and even meet their hotel expenses — Frances decided she had struck gold.

Toby, it emerged, had volunteered to give sperm when his GP, assessing him as an ideal candidate, told him there was a dire shortage of suitable donors in the UK. Rather than donate his sperm through the NHS, though, Toby decided he would rather be a more hands-on father, and for that reason, he’d registered on this website — originally planning to help a lesbian couple. ‘That reassured me that he wasn’t just on the site looking for sex,’ Frances explains.

But when his first attempt to impregnate Frances failed, frankly, she welcomed the chance to meet him again. This time they went away to spend a week together in Yorkshire. Slowly their mutual resolve to be detached and businesslike was evaporating.

‘We had a lovely time,’ she recalls. ‘We felt as though we were a real couple. In fact, we agreed that we were falling for each other whether we’d planned it or not.’ Meanwhile, Frances had begun to question her naive belief that life would be ‘easier’ if she were a single mum. ‘Originally, I was determined I didn’t want the pressure of an emotional relationship on top of a new born baby,’ she says. ‘But then I found myself falling for Toby and I thought, maybe I could have the fairytale ending, after all.’ So veering away from their original plan, the couple decided to try to have a relationship and see how it worked out. ‘Neither of us wanted to look back and think we could have had a happy family life if only we hadn’t been so stubbornly set on going our separate ways,’ she recalls. When, a couple of weeks after their trip to Yorkshire, Frances discovered she was pregnant, Toby was present at her home in Canterbury, Kent, to share her jubilation. ‘I’d asked Toby to be there when I took the home test, and when it was positive I ran through the house laughing with delight. Toby broke into a huge smile and said: “Wow! It worked!”.’ For a while, it seemed, their relationship would, too.

Indeed, Toby and Frances even made plans to sell their respective houses, pool their resources, and make a home for their baby daughter, like any other conventional couple. ‘Toby did everything he could to convince me he was going to stay,’ she recalls. ‘He told me he loved me and wanted a family with me. It seemed dreams I’d long since given up on were coming true.’

But then, four months into her pregnancy, he had a dramatic change of heart. He decided he wasn’t actually ready for fatherhood; indeed, perhaps he wasn’t even ready for a serious relationship, either. ‘I was devastated when it ended,’ confesses Frances. ‘He didn’t give any kind of explanation, it just seemed he’d got cold feet. ‘It hurts that I trusted him and got burned. I try not to get upset, but this just confirms my belief that you should not follow your heart — in the end you always get hurt.’

Meanwhile, she has resolved to hide no detail from her daughter of the convoluted story that surrounds her conception. ‘When she’s old enough, she’ll be told the truth. I’ll explain that her daddy was a good guy and that both of us love her very much. ‘Toby says he wants to stay in touch, and I’ll never stop him having access to her. I’d love her to know his family, too,’ she says. Frances’ own mother died four years ago; there will be no maternal grandmother to support her, and while her daughter is young, she plans to be a full-time mum.

She takes solace in the fact that her father, a retired financial director — who was initially shocked by her decision to sleep with a sperm donor — has now adjusted to the unusual circumstances of his only grandchild’s conception. ‘Dad was very upset at the start,’ she concedes. ‘What father would wish this for his little girl?’ she asks, with justification. ‘He was worried there was a stigma attached to surrogacy. He said: “Can’t you just meet someone the ordinary way and fall in love?” ’ However, little by little, he has come round. Now she is convinced he will be a doting and financially supportive grandad. ‘Dad paid for my education — I went to a private girls’ boarding school in Kent — and I’m sure he’ll do the same for his granddaughter,’ she says. ‘She’ll probably go to private school, although I’d miss her too much to let her board.’

So what kind of a life is now in prospect for Frances and her much-loved donor baby daughter? Nobody can question that she was very much wanted. And Frances will clearly be a devoted and adoring mum. But will Toby be close at hand or abroad; emotionally detached or involved?

Today little is certain, but Frances remains resolutely philosophical; both about her contentious decision to sleep with her sperm donor, and about her single parent status. ‘I feel I’ve no right to moan. I chose a donor because I’d decided to go it alone,’ she says with irrefutable logic. ‘I’m pregnant with a baby girl I already love. So, in the end, I guess I’ve achieved exactly what I set out to do.’

Article: 17th February 2011 www.dailymail.co.uk

For more information about finding a co-parent or known sperm donor visit www.prideangel.com

Surrogacy has been around for many years and disputes rarely arise. There have only been a handful of published cases in the English courts where a surrogacy arrangement has gone wrong. However, the recently published case of TT (a Minor) [1] received national press and radio coverage, focusing on Mr Justice Baker's warning about the inherent risks of surrogacy, awarding care of the baby to the surrogate mother and yet again putting surrogacy in the media spotlight.

The case of TT (a minor) involved a woman who met a married couple over the internet and agreed informally to become a surrogate mother for them, conceiving by private arrangement using her own egg and the intended father's sperm. The agreement was not set up by one of the UK's not for profit surrogacy agencies and so the parties did not have the benefit of advice, counselling and support that such agencies routinely provide. The arrangement also followed a history of dealings with several internet surrogacy sites, the facts of which were disputed by the parties. The parties' relationship broke down during the pregnancy and the surrogate mother had a change of heart and decided to keep the baby. The intended parents then applied to court for a residence order. The baby girl was five months old when the court gave judgment and the intended parents had had only limited contact with her since birth.

The court's decision to award care to the surrogate mother was guided by the paramount consideration of the baby's welfare. This decision was based on the close attachment formed between the surrogate (and biological) mother and the baby, the ongoing breastfeeding and the risk of emotional harm if the baby was moved into the care of the intended parents in the stark manner the intended parents proposed. In particular, the court expressed concern about the intended parents' ability to meet the baby's emotional needs longer term and their lack of insight as to the importance of the baby girl's relationship and close attachment with the surrogate mother. Mr Justice Baker went on to highlight the risk that the '...natural process of carrying and giving birth to a baby creates an attachment which may be so strong that the surrogate mother finds herself unable to give up the child'. It was therefore a fact based decision and does not set a binding precedent, although it will inevitably strike an uncomfortable note amongst prospective intended parents.

The case of TT (a minor) highlights the advent of internet surrogacy sites that make informal surrogacy agreements possible, which leads to the question whether there would have been a different outcome if the parties had received support and advice from a surrogacy agency, together with counselling or some form of regulation earlier in the process. However, the fact that there have been so few published cases of surrogacy arrangements which have gone wrong in the UK is testament to the care and attention with which these arrangements are usually set up and approached by intended parents, surrogates, surrogacy agencies and, where conception takes place at a licensed clinic, by counsellors and medical professionals who have a duty to consider the best interests of any future born child.

Over the last ten years, there have been only two published judgments where the English courts have had to untangle disputed surrogacy arrangements. The case of Re W and B and H (Child Abduction: Surrogacy) [2] involved a surrogacy arrangement between an English surrogate and US intended parents who entered into a binding surrogacy agreement in California. During the pregnancy the surrogate mother had a change of heart and returned to the UK where she gave birth to twins. The court eventually determined that the babies should be returned to California, following international abduction proceedings brought by the US intended parents. The case of Re N (a Child) [3] involved a dispute over a surrogate born child between the surrogate parents and intended parents, where the court eventually awarded care of the then 18 month old child to the intended parents. The outcomes of these cases indicate the wide-ranging and fact based approach taken by the court.

The question of how to treat and regulate surrogacy arrangements raises many issues, and the UK has so far adopted a cautious middle ground approach allowing surrogacy on a restricted basis, banning commercially arranged surrogacy and making it a criminal offence for prospective surrogates or intended parents to advertise. Public policy in the UK also prevents the use of binding surrogacy contracts. Surrogacy arrangements are therefore based on trust and goodwill in the UK and the intended parents must apply to court for a parental order post birth in order to obtain full parental rights for the child. This can only be granted with the full consent of the surrogate mother and, if married, her husband. Other countries take a different approach, with many European countries banning surrogacy altogether, for example France and Italy. However, some US states, India and Ukraine permit surrogacy on a commercial basis where surrogacy contracts are legally enforceable and require the surrogate mother to hand over the baby to the intended parents at birth.

The media coverage of the case of TT (a minor) [1] and growing interest and globalisation of surrogacy brings new challenges for us all to grapple with. There is nothing new about surrogacy, but the increasing numbers of people seeking to create families through surrogacy in the UK and abroad, as well as the power of the internet and celebrity endorsement by the likes of Elton John and Nicole Kidman has inevitably captured public imagination and therefore puts an increasing strain on the current legal system. However, while it remains rare for surrogacy arrangements to end in dispute, there will continue to be occasions where the surrogate mother changes her mind and seeks to keep the baby, which will continue to bring into focus the inherent risks of a UK surrogacy process based on trust and goodwill that was designed over twenty years ago to cater for a small number of altruistic cases involving friends and family.

Article: by Natalie Gamble and Louisa Ghevaert www.gambleandghevaert.com

For more about co-parenting, sperm donation, gay parenting and lesbian parenting visit www.prideangel.com

A leading NHS fertility doctor is making money by sending couples abroad to choose the sex of their unborn baby – a procedure that is illegal in Britain.

Gynaecologist Charles Kingsland, clinical director of Britain’s largest NHS fertility unit and a former inspector for the fertility watchdog, refers at least one woman a week to a clinic in Northern Cyprus to be implanted with a selected embryo.

Last night a leading cross-bench peer demanded an urgent inquiry into the ‘enormous moral issues’ after a Mail on Sunday investigation revealed that:

Mr Kingsland uses NHS premises and staff to organise for profit a medical procedure that is illegal in Britain. Couples are paying up to £14,000 for the controversial service – more than four times the cost of standard private fertility treatment. Mr Kingsland tells patients he must cover up his involvement by claiming to be ‘ignorant’ of their reasons for travelling to Cyprus. Mr Kingsland agreed to make the arrangements for an undercover Mail on Sunday investigator to undergo the procedure – even though there was no evidence that she could not conceive naturally.

Normally such a young, healthy woman with no known fertility problems would not qualify for IVF treatment on the NHS until she had spent at least a year trying to get pregnant by natural means.

Mr Kingsland also told her it was ‘better your GP doesn’t know anything’ about the treatment.

Sex selection was made illegal in Britain by the Human Fertilisation And Embryology Act 2008 except on very narrow medical grounds. However, the UK Cypriot Fertility Association (UKCFA), in which Mr Kingsland is a shareholder, is offering it to women who want to choose the gender of their child for purely social reasons.

On its website, the company advertises that the ‘family balancing’ treatment will be carried out at its affiliated clinic, the Cyprus IVF Centre in Famagusta, in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The state – which is not recognised diplomatically by any nation other than Turkey – is the only place in Europe where sex selection is legal.

Our undercover reporter paid £200 for an initial consultation with 53-year-old Mr Kingsland in the Hewitt Centre for Reproductive Medicine, which is based at the Liverpool Women’s Hospital, where he is clinical director. He admitted that the treatment was illegal in Britain, but that many women select the gender of their embryo ‘just because they fancy it’.

However, he said the procedure was ‘perfectly doable’ for a cost of about £11,000 and that he would prepare our reporter for treatment. He suggested he would have to feign ignorance about the real reason for her trip to Cyprus.

Selecting the gender of a baby by sex has provoked intense debate in recent years. Critics claim it is ‘playing God’ and could lead to the creation of ‘designer babies’ where parents map out every detail of their unborn child without having to resort to donor eggs or sperm.

In China and India it is not uncommon to abort female foetuses because of a preference for male children, and it is feared that legalising gender selection in Britain could encourage this bias among some communities.

Although the UKCFA does not directly profit from providing the services carried out in the Cypriot clinic, it makes money by advising and preparing couples for the controversial procedures abroad.

Couples who contact the company are given consultations to determine their fertility and medical history, followed by tests for HIV and hepatitis. Patients are then given injections to control the body’s hormone production and stimulate the ovaries into producing eggs.

A crucial injection is administered 36 hours before flying to Cyprus which prepares the eggs for release. The company says a stay in Cyprus of seven to ten days is necessary. A secretary at the Hewitt Centre, Jackie McGlashan, acts as unofficial travel co-ordinator for the company.

She told our undercover reporter: ‘I’ve worked for the Hewitt for 15 years but two days a week I can do this from home. Let me know your dates and I can help you sort out travel and save you money.’ Recommended hotels include the £44-a-night Salamis Bay in Famagusta, which is a £7.60 taxi ride from the clinic, or upmarket hotels in quiet, picturesque Kyrenia 30 miles away, such as the five-star Mercure hotel and the boutique Bellapais Monastery resort.

At the Cypriot clinic, couples undergo standard IVF to create embryos, which are then screened to identify their gender. Two embryos of the required sex are transplanted back into the womb, with the remaining embryos stored, donated to other couples or ‘allowed to perish’, according to Mr Kingsland. Couples have a 50 per cent chance of a successful pregnancy – comparable to normal IVF success rates.

‘We have many patients from England. Some of them come because we are able to do gender selection – which you can’t get in the UK.’ Patients pay the UKCFA for treatment carried out in Britain: £3,215 if women use their own eggs, or £2,355 if using donor eggs. The Cyprus clinic is paid between £8,000 and £11,000 for providing its treatment directly by the couple.

The clinic was set up in 2005 by Cypriot-born gynaecologist Dr Halil Tekan. It occupies part of a modern four-storey building in the north-eastern resort of Famagusta, which is also home to a pharmacy, laboratory and cafe.

The site is beside a main highway and a sign for the fertility centre, featuring a large logo of a sperm and an egg, is displayed prominently above the front entrance. A secretary, Hanze Neara, said: ‘We have many patients from England. Some of them come because we are able to do gender selection – which you can’t get in the UK.’

Its website boasts of its ‘unique partnership’ with the UKCFA.

On his profile on the Liverpool Women’s Hospital website, Mr Kingsland says he is an inspector for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. However, the regulator said that he had not been employed by them for six years

He worked for them as an inspector and external adviser, and in 2004 he sat on a committee advising on safety issues. In his role with the HFEA he would have had the authority to report IVF units that performed sex selection for purely social reasons for potential legal action.

The procedure is strictly limited to couples whom doctors deem to be at particular risk from passing down serious gender-specific genetic diseases, such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy, which affects only boys.

Last night, cross-bench peer Lord David Alton, a member of the all-party Parliamentary Pro-Life group, called for an urgent debate. Lord Alton, who was an MP for Liverpool for 18 years, said: ‘The HFEA should undoubtedly be debating this issue if it is its duty to 'shelter the embryo' as its chair Lisa Jardine has claimed. It can make recommendations to Parliament and introduce penalties. The financial connection should be probed. If you have a doctor with a vested interest in organising treatment that’s illegal in the UK, that raises enormous moral issues.

‘I have a big problem with the way the human embryo is regarded and oppose sex selection. It means more embryos are destroyed if they are not ideal.

‘It also means there are risks to women who would not normally undergo fertility treatment. It is deplorable that there are these ways to circumvent the law in Britain.’

He said that three million embryos had been destroyed since 1991, most of them following fertility cycles.

'I made it very clear this is illegal in the UK' Josephine Quintavalle, of the campaign group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said it was shocking that British specialists would dismiss the ethical concerns.

She added: ‘IVF was developed to address genuine infertility problems, not to facilitate discriminatory social engineering of this kind.

‘Worldwide prejudice against girls has resulted in countries such as China and India as what is now described as gendercide, with des¬truction taking place either at the pre-implantation stage or sub¬sequently by selective abortion.’

The UKCFA is the trading name of Anglo Cypriot Limited, which was established in April 2008. Companies House documents show Mr Kingsland, who lives in a £500,000 cottage on the Wirral peninsula, is a named shareholder, while his gynaecologist colleague at the Liverpool Women’s Hospital, Mehmet Gazvani, is director. Mr Kingsland’s wife Karen, a nurse, is secretary.

The firm has filed abbreviated accounts for the past two years which do not show profit and loss figures, but the total funds available to shareholders on April 30, 2010, were £40,914.

An HFEA spokesman said: ‘The HFEA has no powers to prevent a clinic sending a patient overseas for a treatment that would otherwise be disallowed here.’

The General Medical Council would not comment, but said a doctor had a duty to act within the laws of the UK. The Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust would not comment.

When confronted by our undercover reporter last night, father-of-three Mr Kingsland said: ‘I would like to think I gave you a very balanced view of what actually happens and of my involvement.

‘I made it very clear to you that this is illegal in the UK, I hope. ‘At no point did I tell you we could offer you sex selection in the UK because that’s the case – we can’t. It’s illegal.

‘But I did make it clear I could point you in the right direction. If you do require that treatment then I... we can facilitate that but not in this country. We haven’t done anything wrong.’

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk

For more information about sperm donation, egg donation and co-parenting visit www.prideangel.com

Zach Wahls a 19-year-old University of Iowa engineering student defended gay marriage in a rousing testimony in front of the Iowa House of Representatives this month. Zack Wahls spoke out against a resolution which would end civil unions in Iowa by describing his own experience as the son of two lesbian partners.

"Our family really isn't so different from any other Iowa family," said Wahls. "When I am home, we go to church together, we eat dinner, we go on vacations."

Wahls emphasized the typical nature of his upbringing, as well as his own success. He is an Eagle Scout and a small business owner. He also scored in the 99th percentile on the ACT. "If I was your son, Mr. Chairman, I believe I would make you very proud," he said.

A sixth-generation Iowan, Wahls finished his testimony on an impassioned note. "In my 19 years not once have I ever been confronted by an individual who realized independently that I was raised by a gay couple," he said. "And you know why? Because the sexual orientation of my parents has had zero effect on the content of my character."

Wahls had previously written about the issue in the University of Iowa's student newspaper:

Last fall, I had the opportunity, courtesy of Iowa Public Radio's "The Exchange," to talk with a Tea Partier about this very topic. When I mentioned that two lesbian women raised me, her face turned to shock and then concern. She asked if I ever had yearning to meet my father — an anonymous sperm donor.

My answer was — and remains — "no." And no, I don't feel damaged or that my childhood was somehow scarred. Maybe I have, in some way undetectable to me, been permanently harmed by having two moms. I guess I can't be sure.

Watch Zach Wahls's inspirational speach on youtube

Article: 11th February 2011 huffingtonpost.com

Read more about gay and lesbian parenting at www.prideangel.com