Pride Angel

New guidance may help clarify surrogacy: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has voted to update the guidance it gives to UK fertility clinics on surrogacy. The new Code of Practice will:

- clarify what UK clinics should say to surrogacy patients, and
- update clinic procedures and forms for surrogacy.

The HFEA voted to make these changes (following advice from NatalieGambleAssociates and its own lawyers) at its meeting on 20 March 2013 and will now undergo a period of consultation on the practicalities, before the new Code of Practice is introduced on 1 October 2013. This includes a workshop for clinics and professionals practising in surrogacy, to be held at the HFEA on 30 April 2013.

NatalieGambleAssociates congratulate the HFEA on a very sensible decision, which will mean clearer guidance for parents and clinics dealing with increasing numbers of surrogacy cases. In particular, it will be made clear that where a surrogate is unmarried, one of the intended parents (whether gay or straight, and whether or not a biological parent) can be named on the child’s initial birth certificate together with the surrogate. This approach will make the HFEA’s guidance entirely consistent with longstanding practice at register offices and in the family courts.

You can find out more about the HFEA meeting on 20 March here, and more about surrogacy law.

Article: April 2013 www.nataliegambleassociates.co.uk

We are pleased to say that the government announced yesterday that they would be introducing adoption leave (equivalent to maternity leave) rights for parents through surrogacy. After campaigning for more than five years, Natalie Gamble Associates are thrilled ‘Some days I feel very proud of what we do here, and today is one of those days’

Until now, parents whose biological child is carried by another woman have had no rights to time off work when their new baby arrives, unlike parents who give birth or who adopt a child. This has been grossly unfair, and resulted in parents through surrogacy having to quit their jobs or go back to work if their employer does not (or cannot) give leave on a discretionary basis.

The new rights will be introduced as part of the government’s maternity leave and adoption leave reforms, expected to come into force in 2015. Although the full detail has yet to be confirmed, we know that parents through surrogacy will be entitled to two antenatal appointments during the pregnancy, and adoption leave after the birth. This will be available to all couples eligible to apply for a parental order, including heterosexual parents and gay dads. Surrogate mothers will also retain their right to maternity leave to recover from giving birth.

More information is available in the government’s response to the consultation on modern workplaces which says:

We propose that intended parents in surrogacy cases who satisfy the criteria for a Parental Order and intend to apply, or have applied, to a court for a Parental Order will be entitled to leave and pay on the same basis as adopters who are eligible for statutory adoption leave and pay, subject to the qualifying conditions and evidential requirements. In addition, both intended parents will be entitled to take unpaid time off to attend two antenatal appointments with the surrogate mother carrying their child.

What is so exciting about the change, as well as the practical legal rights it will introduce for new parents, is that this is the very first time in UK legal history that parents through surrogacy have been recognised as having any rights in advance of the birth of their child. This is a very significant recognition that surrogacy is real and here to stay, and hopefully a first step towards wider reform of our surrogacy laws.

Read more information about surrogacy law and more about Natalie Gamble Associates' campaigning work.

Article: 15th November 2012 www.nataliegambleassociates.co.uk

Yesterday's ITV Daybreak featured Kyle Casson, a single dad who Natalie Gamble Associates are proud to be working with on his journey to become the first single parent through surrogacy in the UK. Well done to Kyle for speaking out so bravely, and for being such a great a champion for solo dads.

Kyle spoke characterically warmly about his plans to be a father. He has always wanted children, and wants to do it in his twenties (with active grandparents) rather than waiting for a partner who may not come along. He has planned things carefully, is financially secure, has the enthusiastic support of his family, and has a surrogate who wants to help him. You can see Kyle talking about his story on ITV Daybreak here.

So what does the law say?
The law in the UK has never made it illegal to enter into a surrogacy arrangement as a single father. But it doesn’t make it easy either. Most parents through surrogacy (including gay dads and unmarried couples) can apply for a ‘parental order’ after their child is born. This is an order made by the family court which gives the intended parents a new birth certificate and extinguishes the responsibilities of the surrogate mother. Single parents are not, however, eligible to apply.

This means it is perfectly legal for Kyle to have a child through surrogacy in the UK, but the normal solution for families created through surrogacy (designed to give lifelong security and certainty for the child) is not available. He will have to get creative with using law designed for other purposes to secure his family and resolve the position of his surrogate – adoption being the best alternative to a parental order if the family court will agree to help.

Natalie Gamble Associates (NGA) call to action
On behalf of Kyle and the increasing numbers of solo prospective dads NGA are advising (some going abroad for surrogacy, others entering into co-parenting arrangements. NGA call for parental orders to be made available to solo parents. The law has already been extended, in 2008, to allow gay dads and unmarried couples to apply, and it is now time to allow single parents to apply too. This would bring the law into line with adoption law, which allows single parents to become adopters, and with reproductive law for women which was specifically amended in 2008 to allow solo mums to conceive through donor insemination.

NGA frequently see heartbreaking cases caused by the denial of surrogacy to single parents. A change to the law would benefit not only prospective solo dads like Kyle, but also single women who have survived cancer and need the help of a surrogate to carry their child, and widowed fathers who want to use embryos in storage, just as widowed mothers are able to do.

And what do we say to people (like the lady on Daybreak with Kyle this morning) who say that such solo parents who want to have children are selfish? Well, wanting to be a parent is something most human beings experience, so it comes down to whether children suffer harm if raised without a mother and a father. This is an old question for non-traditional families, and the answer (backed by long research, including by the Centre for Family Research at Cambridge University) is that children in deliberately created non-traditional families (including solo parent families) have good outcomes, and are in a very different position from children whose parents have separated. It is the quality of the relationships which matters, and not the gender or number of the parents.

Article source: 5th November 2012 www.nataliegambleassociates.co.uk

Read more about surrogacy and the law

The Telegraph and Daily Mail have today reported the international surrogacy case of D and L (2012). The case marks a legal first: the court agreeing to make a parental order after the surrogate mother could not be found to give her consent. We are proud to have worked with the parents on this case to win legal security for their family.

A UK same sex couple had twin boys through an Indian surrogacy arrangement. They had taken legal advice at the outset and knew they would need their surrogate’s consent, after the birth, to become the legal parents under UK law.

They became concerned during the pregnancy that their clinic might not be as helpful as they had thought, so we wrote to the clinic explaining what was needed, and the clinic confirmed they would help. However, after the birth, the clinic refused to secure the surrogate’s notarised consent. As a final insult, our clients were sent a couriered package which they thought finally contained the consent document they desperately needed – instead it contained a single sheet of paper with a sketch of an obscene gesture. They then tried to track their surrogate down themselves, but the address they had been given for the surrogate was a false one and they could not find her.

They applied to the UK court for a parental order and asked the judge to help. Focusing on the need to give the boys legal security with their parents throughout their lifetime (and our clients’ extensive efforts to obtain the required consents), Mr Justice Baker in the High Court made them their sons’ legal parents.

Read more .... at www.nataliegambleassociates.co.uk

Read more about gay surrogacy at www.prideangel.com

A joint claim has been lodged at the High Court challenging the lack of maternity leave rights for families through surrogacy. Surrogacy UK and a mother directly affected are together seeking a declaration from the High Court that the current law is unfair.

The issue is that UK parents who have a child with the help of a surrogate mother do not have rights to time off work to care for their new child, while parents who give birth or who adopt do. As a result, the mother bringing the claim (known only as RKA) was denied maternity leave rights by her employer to care for her newborn child, and was then made redundant while on unpaid leave.

Surrogacy UK, which has brought the claim together with her in its capacity as a leading representative of many UK families, says: “We’ve made this claim as the leading surrogacy organisation in the UK, reflecting our responsibility to promote and protect the interests of our members and all others involved in surrogacy. Put simply, there can be no reason to treat parents of children born via surrogacy any differently from any other parent looking after a new-born. The Government has a responsibility to ensure that all parents have rights to a family life and the best possible start for their child.”

Merry Varney from law firm Leigh Day & Co, who is representing RKA and Surrogacy UK, says: “The Government has a positive obligation under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act to protect surrogate parents to ensure respect for their private and family life and a positive obligation under Article 14 to avoid discrimination.”

The anomaly which denies maternity leave was raised in Parliament earlier this year, when John Healey MP called for equal maternity leave rights for mothers through surrogacy. His constituent Jane Kassim had also been denied maternity leave after her cousin Amy carried her and husband’s twins (read more about what he said here). With the Department of Business Innovation and Skills currently reviewing the law on maternity rights, there is an opportunity to address the problem.

While surrogacy was historically a rare phenomenon which only affected a tiny handful of families, that is no longer the case. The numbers of parental orders (the orders which make parents through surrogacy the legal parents) stood at 138 last year, up from 58 just two years ago.

We at Natalie Gamble Associates have been campaigning to end discrimination against surrogate families for many years. As well as the employment law issues, other problems arise from the fact that it takes so long (often up to a year after the birth) for the parents to win legal recognition. There can be problems with medical consent, not to mention severe difficulties over immigration where children are born through surrogacy abroad. There is also no proper regulation of surrogacy services in the UK, while surrogacy thrives as an industry in many places abroad, driving more and more parents to go abroad. Surrogacy law in the UK desperately needs updating and we hope dealing with the employment discrimination will be just the first step.

Article: 23rd September 2012 www.nataliegambleassociates.co.uk

Building Families brings together the world’s leading IVF & Surrogacy specialists and showcases the most diverse range of innovative methods and technologies to make surrogacy and egg/sperm donation work for you.

Each year, Building Families will be holding two shows that will consist of seminars presented by industry professionals and exhibition/meeting spaces that will bring the world’s leading Surrogacy and gamete donation professionals together under one roof. Each year the venues will change, but each year the shows will be held at one European capital City and the other in a major US state.

The show will take place at The Hilton, London Metropole Hotel in April 2013.

Building Families is a unique bi-annual event dedicated to Practitioners, Specialists, Agency owners and students in the field of IVF and Surrogacy. The aim of the show is to bring these professionals together with not only their peers, but the general public who might be looking to start a family or grow their family with the help of surrogacy or gamete donation.

"With 1 in 6 couples seeking help in trying for a child, infertility has become an epidemic of our generation"

Building Families presents a perfect opportunity for all participants to boost and update their knowledge in the world of Surrogacy and Gamete Donation and to meet new contacts. Additionally, the seminar program provides an ideal setting for specialists and practitioners in this field to strengthen existing collaborations and develop new ones with their counterparts from all over the world. But also gives the general public or those wanting to know the process of surrogacy and gamete donation, the insight into your world!

In addition to the excellent educational opportunities, a specialised exhibition held in conjunction with the seminars, provides an avenue for business entities in the industry to showcase and promote the most up-to-date skills and practices.

"This Show is Certainly one not to miss" N Kelly - Vice President British Surrogacy Centre.

Avertorial: 31st May 2012 www.buildingfamilies.co.uk

John Healey MP (the Shadow Secretary of State for Health) spoke clearly and compellingly in the House of Commons this afternoon about the need for proper maternity leave and pay for mothers through surrogacy in the UK (you can watch John Healey’s speech in full here). Introducing a Ten Minute Rule motion, he told Parliament about his constituents, surrogate mother Amy Bellamy and her cousin Jane Kassim. They came to see him at his surgery having been “stunned” to discover that Jane had no legal right to maternity leave or maternity pay to care for the twin daughters Amy had carried for her after Jane was told at 15 that she could never bear children.

Natalie Gamble Associates and Surrogacy UK, are proud to have supported today’s important landmark, the first time this issue has been properly raised in Parliament. As we know so well, for parents who have struggled to build their families through surrogacy (often after a long and difficult journey of infertility), the lack of basic rights to care for their newborn baby can feel like the final insult. It makes no sense and has never been a policy decision; just a gap in the law which has not been addressed. But it is important, as the current position leaves children born through surrogacy in the UK without the legal protection afforded to other children born to their mothers or adopted.

Problems with UK surrogacy law
As well as talking about maternity rights as the urgent first step needed, John highlighted some of the wider problems with UK surrogacy law which need addressing, including:
- the parents not being named on their child’s birth certificate,
- problems dealing with the child’s medical treatment,
- delays in the court system to reassign parenthood, and
- the absolute veto the surrogate and her husband hold, no matter what is in the child’s best interests.

The UK’s surrogacy laws were designed in 1990. After 22 years we live in a much changed world, with more children born through surrogacy and a much more sophisticated understanding of families created in unusual ways. The law on surrogacy was not reviewed properly when Parliament had a chance in 2008 and is overdue for review. John drew attention to other models of surrogacy law, including pre birth orders, which have been much more successful in dealing with surrogacy arrangements in certain US States, and which the UK should look to.

What was said in Parliament?
“Unlike other mothers, Jane is entitled – having her baby through a surrogate mother – to only 13 weeks parental leave unpaid, and then only entitled to it when she and her husband have a parental order in place. That means that for mothers like Jane, they are faced with the choice of going back to work very quickly or indeed giving up their jobs entirely. Today is a day when I hope this House will take the first step in closing this legal loophole.

“As the leading lawyer in this field says: The conditions for a parental order do not place the child’s welfare first, and ultimately children born through surrogacy do not have the same protection as other children to the time to bond with their parents in the early months of life. That is from Natalie Gamble, a leading legal expert in this field and one who has conducted more cases and seen through more parental orders than any other lawyer in the country.

“There are probably around 100 babies born through surrogacy each year, but the number is growing as society is changing and science is advancing. Surely there must be a good case for Britain, like some States in the US, to have a system of pre birth orders. But the first and most important step is to secure basic maternity rights. So that mothers like Jane who have their children born through surrogates have the same rights as any other mothers who give birth themselves or indeed who adopt children.

“It is wrong that thousands of mothers who have their own babies or who adopt have a legal right to 39 weeks maternity pay and up to 52 weeks maternity leave, while others have a right to only 13 weeks parental leave unpaid. It is wrong that such parents cannot put their names on their children’s birth certificate, they cannot make decisions about medical treatment for their children until they have a formal parental order in place. It is wrong that such a legal step can be blocked completely by the surrogate mother or her husband; and wrong that it may take months, if a magistrates court is busy, to get that order in place. Above all it is wrong that mothers like Jane are denied the same basic rights to the time they need together with their newborn babies that other mothers have.

“Amy simply wanted Jane to have the same joy as a mother as she had with her own son Archie. Together they make a very powerful case for legal change. This is their campaign and I hope this House will back them today.”

What next?
The Bill proceeded unopposed and was formally listed for a second reading, although in practice it is rare for Ten Minute Rule Bills to be given sufficient Parliamentary time to become law. However, a cross party group of MPs will now meet with the Minister for Employment to press for government-led change. We will continue to support this however we can and if you want to get involved or can help with case studies, please do contact us.

Woman’s Hour today
Natalie was also interviewed on this morning’s BBC Radio 4 Woman’s Hour, following a discussion on the lack of maternity leave rules for surrogacy which Natalie contributed to back in 2009, and updating the programme on what was happening today. You can listen to Natalie on today’s Woman’s Hour here.

Article: 17th April 2012 www.nataliegambleassociates.co.uk

Read more about surrogacy law Looking for an egg donor? search hundreds of profiles at www.prideangel.com

Alice Jolly and her husband knew they could offer a loving home to one of the thousands of British children awaiting adoption. So why were they forced to go abroad instead and use a surrogate to get the child they longed for?

The scene: a church hall in Oxford three years ago. My husband, Stephen, and I are attending a seminar for couples who want to adopt. A social worker stands beside a whiteboard and explains the process. I look around at the other couples. Their eyes are blank, puzzled. Some start to yawn while others scratch their heads. The social worker has become a tic tac man at a race course, frantically waving her arms, speaking a language that no-one understands. We all start to stare at our shoes. It's becoming embarrassing – what are we doing here and who put these people in charge of something so important?

A man in the audience is trying to raise his hand but his wife keeps pulling his arm back down. He refuses to be silenced. "So any 16-year-old girl can go into an alleyway on Saturday night," he says, "and have a knee-trembler with a bloke whose name she doesn't know, and no one is ever going to ask about her suitability for motherhood. But I'm going to have to go through all this just to be a father?"

The room is silent. The man's wife is tearful. A social worker crouching in the corner makes a note in her black book. We all know that this couple have fallen at the first hurdle. And yet he has only said what everyone in the room is thinking.

As we have a six-year-old son, Stephen and I decide that it might be best for us to adopt a child under two. No children under two are available for adoption in the UK – or at least none are under two by the time they emerge from our adoption system. And so we go to a seminar in North London about overseas adoption. There we are made to play a bizarre board game. Adoption Monopoly? Or is it Snakes and Ladders – but without any ladders? Each couple has a marker to move around the board. Cards are drawn from a pack. They say, "your paper work has been lost, go back three months." Or, "the country you have chosen is now closed for adoption, go back to square one."

Finally, it comes to our turn. "So, Stephen and Alice, where are you up to now?" "Well, I've just retired," Stephen says, pretending to read the card. No one dares laugh or it'll be back to the beginning for them. We break for a coffee and chat to other people. One couple can't currently be considered for adoption because, although they are home owners and employed, they have £5,000 of credit card debt. Another couple used to live in Bedfordshire, and they got two years into the adoption process, but then they moved to Berkshire so they had to begin again.

After coffee, the discussion focuses on the difficulties experienced by adopted children. Two men interrupt – one is black, the other of Asian origin. Both of them were themselves adopted. The lady running the seminar is clearly uncomfortable with real-life multi-cultural adoption stories. But she presses them to express the anger they must surely feel towards their adoptive parents.

"Anger? I was in an orphanage in Thailand and my Mum and Dad adopted me, brought me back here, gave me everything. From an early age I wanted to be a musician and they made that possible. How could I possibly be angry?" Then the black guy says: "I was adopted from Ghana and for me it was certainly traumatic. Because every year my adoptive family in Hampstead wanted to celebrate Ghanaian National Day. So all my flabby, white relatives dressed up in African costumes and played drums. Man, I've been on the pyschiatrist's couch for years..." Doubtless the names of these two have gone into the black book as well.

A one-to-one meeting with a social worker follows. It's a scene from The Trial, by Kafka. We have to convince her we want a child, but we must not appear to want one too much. We tell our story: a stillbirth, four miscarriages, failed IVF. The social worker thinks we have too much baggage – but surely the truth is that most people who adopt do so because other plans have failed?

I mention that we've been told that adopting from Russia will probably take two years. No, she says. It will take four and most of the Russian babies have foetal alcohol syndrome. I have talked to a number of families who have adopted from Russia and they tell a different story – but I can't say so. And so it goes on. No and no and no. We are guilty until proven innocent. Everything is a problem – the fact that we've lived abroad, that we have an existing child, that we both went to boarding school, that once every two months Stephen might smoke a cigarette in a bar.

But strangely, the biggest problem is that we are about to have building work done in our house. Until that work has finished, we can't even start the process. As we drive home, Stephen is fuming and I am in tears. I know the social worker is playing games, trying to find out if we are serious. But could she not have offered some support or encouragement? I know that adoption isn't easy – and that it shouldn't be easy. But does it have to be negative, intrusive, judgemental and so painfully inefficient? Would they rather leave 100 children in care than relax their impossible demands for perfection?

Six months later we meet a lawyer who specialises in gestational surrogacy in the US. Nearly everyone who crosses her threshold has tried to adopt and given up. And US surrogacy? Well, it's expensive and legally complex – but it can be done. We get in touch with agencies in the States. Yes, they say. Yes and yes and yes.

But I am unconvinced. To me, surrogacy seems bizarre and extreme. It's from the world of lawsuits and reality TV shows. But then I talk to people with real experience of surrogacy and uncover a world that couldn't be more different from those sensational media stories. A world in which women are genuinely trying to help other women overcome the pain of infertility.

Two weeks ago we came back from America with our baby daughter. She is called Hope. We are the luckiest people in the world. Throughout the whole process, I continued to doubt whether surrogacy can really work well for everyone involved – now I know that it can. But still I am left with questions about why we couldn't have given a home to an existing child instead of creating a new one. And some part of me will always be haunted by that baby who we might have adopted – and who is probably still waiting for a family and a home.

Article: 15th November 2011 www.independent.co.uk
Photo: Alice Jolly, her husband Stephen and children Thomas and Hope by JOHN LAWRENCE

Proceeds from this article have been donated to SANDS (Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society) uk-sands.org

Read more about surrogacy and egg donation at www.prideangel.com

Parents Michelle and Paul (names changed) spoke to BBC Radio 4′s World at One today about their experiences of international surrogacy, and the problems with surrogacy law in the UK. Their legal case (in which we represented them successfully) was reported anonymously by the High Court last December (as Re L (a minor) 2010) and received national press coverage at the time. Michelle and Paul took the brave decision today to speak about their personal experiences, in order to highlight the difficulties they have faced.

As Michelle and Paul explained, they entered into a surrogacy arrangement in Illinois after a very long and difficult journey of failed IVF and miscarriages. They did so in accordance with the law in Illinois and underwent a thorough vetting process with a clear legal procedure designed to protect all involved. Under Illinois law, they were treated as the legal parents of their child from the outset.

However, UK law treated their surrogate and her husband as the legal parents, despite the fact that neither had any biological connection with the child. Michelle and Paul therefore needed an English High Court order to become Mum and Dad in the UK.

One of the key issues for the court here to consider was the mismatch between UK and Illinois law regarding the issue of payments to their surrogate. In Illinois, payments for a surrogate’s inconvenience and discomfort can legitimately be made, although payments for a child are not allowed. In the UK, the law refers to ‘reasonable expenses’ (with no definition of what that means) but confusingly also gives the court a specific power to ‘authorise’ other payments. Ultimately in this case Mr Justice Hedley, noting that Michelle and Paul were the ‘most careful and conscientious of parents’, agreed to authorise the payments so that they could be approved as legal parents. However, he did not accept that the inconvenience payments to their surrogate were reasonable expenses.

It’s a story with a happy outcome, but one which shows that working out what is acceptable to pay for surrogacy at home and abroad is tricky.

In Illinois there is a clear legal framework in which payments are agreed and set out in writing at the outset (following counselling, psychological assessments and legal advice for all). If everything is done correctly at the outset, then the child is a part of the intended parents’ family throughout.

There is no such certainty under UK law. Every judge can interpret what is ‘reasonable’ differently, and the issue will only be considered after the birth of the child when the payments have been long since made, by which time there will always be tremendous pressure on the court to make an order protecting the child’s welfare. As Michelle pointed out so poignantly, the value paid to the surrogate in this case was in fact no more than what has been accepted as being reasonable expenses for surrogacy in the UK, but it was not considered expenses in their case because the arrangement was an international one set up within a different legal framework.

We are left asking – where the values being paid for surrogacy are comparable, does it make any sense to treat them differently just because they are called compensation rather than expenses, and just because they are agreed in writing at the outset? Would it not be better to have a more upfront system in the UK which resolves these issues at the start, rather than after the event?

You can hear the interview at www.bbc.co.uk

Article: October 2011 by www.nataliegambleassociates.co.uk

Read more about surrogacy law.