Pride Angel

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.

Amanda Broomhall, 39, from Penhill, has two children of her own, but since 1997 has helped couples from all over the UK have babies. Surrogacy UK has recently recorded a surge of interest following high-profile surrogacy stories concerning Elton John and Nicole Kidman. Miss Broomhall said that surrogacy was something she "fell into".

She said: "I can, so I thought why not if it helps somebody else? People give blood and give bone marrow. I'm just using a part of my body that would otherwise lay dormant."

Surrogate arrangements are usually set up through agencies, although private arrangements can be made. As a surrogate in the UK, it is illegal for Miss Broomhall to receive payment, although some couples have offered her large sums of money to carry their child.

"People can be desperate," she said. "People ring me up and say 'can you help me have a baby?' and when I tell them I can't at the moment they say, 'I'll pay you lots of money'. They think if they throw money at me I will help them. They think they can buy a child."

For each birth, Miss Broomhall only takes two weeks off work and has never let the process affect her day-to-day life. She said: "If I sat at home and rested as other new mothers do when they are looking after their new baby, I don't think that would help me. I want to get my life back on track, so that's the way I deal with it."

However, nine weeks into her sixth surrogate pregnancy, Miss Broomhall has decided that this time will be her last. She said her age was the main factor in her decision to give up. "I'm not as young as I used to be," she said.

"With the last pregnancy I did have a number of problems, mainly around my kidneys. They're showing signs of stress. If I can't look after myself I can't nurture an unborn child."

Article: 20th April 2011 www.bbcnews.co.uk

Read more about surrogacy within the UK.

A couple who lost custody of their baby daughter to her surrogate mother have been ordered to hand over more than £500 a month maintenance for the child.

Today they spoke of their disgust that they would be forced to pay for someone else to raise the child they will never see. The father, a leading chef, said the decision by the Child Support Agency ‘added insult to injury’ and that he would appeal against it.

He and his wife, who had suffered six late-stage miscarriages including four sets of twins, used a surrogacy website to find a single mother of two on benefits who was willing to carry the baby they longed for. They made an informal agreement to pay her £10,000 in expenses.

But halfway through the pregnancy she decided she wanted to keep the baby and a judge ordered that the woman, who was also the biological mother, could keep the child despite her earlier promise.

The couple, referred to as Mr and Mrs W to protect the child’s identity, later relinquished their contact rights because they said it would be too difficult emotionally and that it was unfair for the baby to be split between two homes.

They allowed the surrogate, known as Miss N, to keep the £4,500 they had already given to her. But now Mr W must also pay £568 in child support every month as the biological father of the eight-month-old girl. ‘She cannot say, “I am keeping your child and now you must pay for it”,’ he said.

‘She has taken away our baby and now she is taking our money. To me, that is completely wrong. The CSA has made the decision as if we were a couple who had broken up, but our situation is unique.

‘We were not having a baby together, we had agreed for her to carry a child for myself and my wife. ‘I have written to Downing Street and my MP to call for a change in the law.’

Mr W said he now suspected it may have been Miss N’s plan all along to have a child with a wealthy man from whom she could claim child support over the next 18 years.

‘We should have seen the signs when she started asking for more than we had agreed. I don’t think this was ever about her suddenly wanting to keep the baby, I think this was about getting an income.’

The chef said he would feel more comfortable paying for vouchers which could be redeemed on food and clothing than money which would not necessarily go towards the child. ‘If I need to pay £500 a month because otherwise the child will be living in poverty then that is another reason why the baby should be with us. We would have given her all the things she needed.’

Mrs W, who is in her late 30s, had cancer of the womb in her 20s and complications from surgery meant it was difficult for her to carry a baby to full term.

After she and her husband contacted her via a website, Miss N agreed to be inseminated with Mr W’s sperm, meaning they were both the baby’s biological parents. But the relationship between the two parties turned sour after Miss N apparently began asking for more money.

Three months before the baby was due, she sent a text message to the couple to say she was keeping the child. In July last year she gave birth to baby T and a bitter six-month custody battle ensued.

Miss N accused Mr W of being violent towards his wife, which the couple denied. They accused Miss N of neglecting her sons and of living in a filthy home. In January, in a rare case, Miss N was awarded custody after a judge deemed it was in the child’s best interests because there was a ‘clear attachment’ between the mother and daughter.

At the time, Mr Justice Baker warned that the risks of entering into a surrogacy agreement were ‘very considerable’. Surrogacy agreements are not legally binding in court, even with a formal written contract.

It is illegal to profit from surrogacy but ‘reasonable expenses’ are permitted.

Article: 12th April 2011 www.dailymail.co.uk

Read more about fertility and parenting law at www.prideangel.com

A 29-year-old woman has given birth to her own 'cousin' after agreeing to help in her aunt's 15-year fertility fight. Emma Vaughan, 29, donated her eggs to her 42-year-old aunt Sandra Barlow and uncle Chris and acted as a surrogate for the birth. Miss Vaughan has now given birth to a baby girl called Maia, who is her biological daughter but her cousin by law after Mrs Barlow applied for a parental order.

It brings Mr and Mrs Barlow's 15-year battle to conceive to an end. Their hopes of having a baby naturally were dashed early on when doctors told Mrs Barlow that her fallopian tubes had fused shut and had to be removed.

She was sent for a dye test, where dye is injected into the cervix and uterus to check the fallopian tubes. It showed they were completely blocked and she was operated on immediately. After she recovered, she and her husband, 50, decided to try IVF. In total they spent £40,000 on seven cycles over five years, with Mrs Barlow suffering two miscarriages.

Then in 2008 the couple from Maidstone, Kent, made the decision to seek help from someone in their family, namely their niece Emma. Mrs Barlow said: 'Surrogacy seemed like our only hope. I did some research and looked at a surrogacy agency website. 'I was in awe that people did these amazing things for complete strangers but I wanted to do it within the family. I started to think who in the family could help us. I'm not sure what made me think of Emma.' Emma is the daughter of Mrs Barlow's brother Jim but they lost touch when Emma's parents split up and she moved away to live with her mother. They were reunited 11 years ago after meeting at Jim's funeral and have stayed in regular contact since.

Mrs Barlow said she spent months agonising over whether she should ask her niece before mentioning it to her husband. She said: 'I could tell he was shocked but he said: "We've got nothing to lose". When I rang Emma she instantly said yes. I told her to take some time to think about it but she never hesitated.'

Shortly afterwards, Mrs Barlow joined a surrogacy agency for advice about what would be involved. The couple signed a surrogacy agreement with Emma, although these agreements are not legally binding. 'Sandra and Chris never put me under pressure. It was my choice, I knew I could do it'

Mrs Barlow said: 'We decided to use Emma's eggs as by the time we started I was almost 40. Generally the egg condition of a woman in her 40s is not as good as someone in their 20s. Emma also wasn't keen on taking the drugs she would need if my eggs were used.' In October 2008, Emma moved from her home in Peterborough to live with the couple. But it took 18 months and 17 attempts at insemination with Mr Barlow's sperm before she became pregnant in June 2009.

As Mrs Barlow cuddled her 13-month-old daughter Maia, she said: 'I can't thank Emma enough. What she has done for me is amazing. She put her life on hold for us for two and half years. 'She has given me the greatest gift in Maia. 'At first our GP told us to just keep trying before we were referred to a specialist. We saw four specialists in two years but with no luck until Chris said he wasn't leaving until they agreed to do something.'

Mrs Barlow, the manager of a catering company, said of her IVF attempts: 'Every day Chris gave me my hormone injections, put up with my mood swings and even let me sit with my feet up for two weeks each time I had an embryo transfer. 'It was very hard but we couldn't imagine our future without a child. Each time I convinced myself it was going to work but after the seventh cycle, we decided enough was enough.'

She and her husband, who is a sub-contractor, even considered adoption but were told by a social worker they weren't ready for a child. Mrs Barlow said it was very emotional when she first heard the couple might finally have a child. She said: 'Chris called me at work to tell me the news. I burst into tears in the middle of the office.

'The three of us went to every midwife appointment together. It was amazing to see our baby on the screen.' Emma gave birth to Maia four and half weeks early in February last year by Caesarean section. Mrs Barlow said: 'When I saw Maia for the first time it was so emotional. Maia is the double of her dad, although she does have Emma's hazel eyes. When Maia is older, we will tell her everything. We've never once considered not telling her. 'Emma will be Maia's auntie but Maia will always know how special Emma is.'

After Maia was born, Mrs Barlow had to apply to a court for a parental order, as current legislation in England and Wales means that, at the time of the child's birth, the surrogate mother is the legal mother. Emma, who met her husband Alan, 38, when she was seven months pregnant with Maia, already has three sons from a previous partner. She is expecting her fourth child in June.

She said: 'When Sandra called me it was a total surprise. I had no idea about her problems conceiving. 'Sandra and Chris never put me under pressure. It was my choice and I knew I could do it. 'When I was in the delivery room the doctor said to me, "You're about to become a mum". I just pointed to Sandra and said, "No, this is the mum. It's her baby".

'That is how it's been from the start. Even when Maia was born I didn't feel anything for her. I was completely detached. To me, it was just a job.'

Article: 6th April 2011 www.dailymail.co.uk

Read more about fertility, IVF, donor conception and surrogacy at www.prideangel.com

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

The day after I saw them at the Golden Globes, I read that Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban had welcomed a new baby into their family. My immediate thought was 'what designer was she wearing? She didn't look pregnant at all!'. Well, okay, maybe I didn't think that, I'm not that blonde, but for a split-second there was a confused frown on my face.

Kidman and Urban had the latest addition to their family via a surrogate which means someone else carried the baby for them. Until recently, Altruistic Surrogacy; the act of carrying someone else's baby for no money, was illegal in Australia. Furthermore, Commercial Surrogacy is still considered to be a criminal act in a lot of countries - but why?

There are plenty of others who have also gone down this path such as Elton John & David Furnish who had their son Zachary via an anonymous egg donor. This latest round of celebrity surrogate babies are nothing new though. Ricky Martin famously had twins via a surrogate mother prior to revealing the truth about his long speculated sexuality. The same thing happened with footballer Cristiano Ronaldo; before you get too excited I'm talking about the surrogacy part, not his sexuality.

Surrogacy as an option for having children is a very important one in my personal opinion. If a mother is unable to conceive through IVF or afford repeated rounds of the treatment which is extremely expensive, then having a child via surrogate may be their last hope of having a biological child of their own. It may not be as nature intended, but does that mean that we should deny those who long for children of their own the opportunity to become parents?

A recent story line in one of my favourite TV show "Brothers & Sisters" featured a surrogate mother when characters Kevin and Scotty had a friend impregnated. Aside from adopting children, surrogacy is the only means of two gay men or even a single gay man having a biological child of their own. This is certainly the case with Ricky Martin who is a single parent to his twins.

There are still people who think that those in same-sex relationships or those who wish to become single parents should not be allowed to do so. With so many single parents these days, these people are simply ignorant. Surrogacy does not have the same number of hoops to jump through and restraints that adoption does and is likely a much easier process than attempting adoption.

I read that a couple of states in the USA actually exclude gay couples from being allowed to have children via surrogacy. The law in Florida describes in a rather sneaky and underhanded way that qualifying couples are to be "a man and woman who are married where the woman has a medical need to seek a surrogate". I'm not sure if that is still the case now, but it was until recently.

I wouldn't say that surprises me, but the restrictions and objections to surrogacy all seem to be more about the interference with nature rather than whether hopeful parents should be allowed to fulfill their dreams of having biological children whether that be straight, gay, married or unmarried or even single parents. Surely the only question to be asked in that case is if they have the means to support a child and raise them?

Article: by Chaz Harris www.stuff.co.nz

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

A surrogate mother who had a baby girl for a couple but changed her mind about handing her over is allowed to keep her, a judge has ruled.

The welfare of the six-month-old child, known only as T, "requires her to remain with her mother", said Mr Justice Baker, giving reasons yesterday for a decision he made after a hearing in Birmingham last month.

He said: "In my judgment, there is a clear attachment between mother and daughter. To remove her from her mother's care would cause a measure of harm. It is the mother who, I find, is better able to meet T's needs, in particular her emotional needs."

The judge said the risks of entering into a surrogacy agreement are "very considerable".

He added: "In particular, 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."

He said the mother met the couple, Mr and Mrs W, over the internet in 2009 and agreed informally that the mother would be inseminated by Mr W, and hand the baby over after the birth.

During the pregnancy, however, she changed her mind, and at T's birth refused to hand over the baby as agreed.

The mother has two older children. Mr W is a chef and he and Mrs W were married in 2005.

After Mr and Mrs W were married, they tried to have a baby themselves, but their attempts resulted in a series of miscarriages, which led them to consider surrogacy.

It was agreed that the mother would act as a surrogate for the Ws, using Mr W's sperm, and she became pregnant, but at some point during the pregnancy, relations between the parties deteriorated.

Article: 22nd January 2011 www.yahoo.com

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

Sir Elton John and his partner David Furnish have become parents to a son born to a surrogate mother in California.

Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John was born on Christmas Day, the UK musician and Canadian filmmaker told the Usmagazine.com website.

"Zachary is healthy and doing really well, and we are very proud and happy parents," said the couple.

They provided no details about the surrogacy arrangement.

"We are overwhelmed with happiness and joy at this very special moment," the couple told the website in a statement.

They said the boy weighed 7lb15oz (3.6kg).

A representative for the couple said they intended to protect and respect the privacy of the surrogate mother, and would not be discussing any details relating to the surrogacy arrangements.

Sex And The City star Sarah Jessica Parker and her actor husband Matthew Broderick had twin girls by a surrogate mother in June last year and in 2008, pop star Ricky Martin also used a surrogate to have twin boys.

Sir Elton and former advertising executive Mr Furnish met in 1993 and were joined in a civil ceremony in 2005.

Last year the couple tried to adopt a 14-month-old HIV positive boy from Ukraine named Lev.

However, Ukrainian officials said Sir Elton, 63, was too old and his civil partnership with Mr Furnish, 48, would not be recognised as a marriage by Kiev.

In December, Mr Furnish told the BBC that they were working to ensure Lev and his brother "have the best health care, education and family options available to them".

Article: 28th December 2010 www.bbc.co.uk

Read more about surrogacy or looking for an egg donor

A British couple who won the legal right to pay a “commercial” rate to a surrogate mother in the US have said that the act was their last chance to have a child - and disclosed that the woman is now "firmly part of our family".

In a rare legal case, a senior family court judge allowed the couple to keep their newborn child, even though they had payed more than the “reasonable expenses” permitted under English law to the birth mother in Illinois.

Speaking publicly for the first time about their decision, the couple said they had suffered years of fruitless fertility treatment, several miscarriages and had no choice but to seek help abroad.

Their case is one of only three such arrangements ever to have emerged. It attracted condemnation from Christian lawyers, who warned that allowing surrogate mothers to make a profit turned children into “commodities”.

Other family law experts and childless couples said the High Court was right to put the needs of the child first and called for reforms to allow commercial surrogacy in the UK.

In a statement to The Daily Telegraph, the couple, who cannot be named for legal reasons, expressed their joy at their newborn child, who is known only as “L”.

“We entered into this surrogacy arrangement after a great deal of thought and research, having exhausted all our other options for having a family, and following years of fertility treatment and several miscarriages," they said.

“Our surrogate is a wonderful person who is now very firmly part of our family and will be part of our – and our child’s – lives going forwards. She gave us the most incredible life-changing gift which we will be ever grateful for.”

An estimated 70 children each year are born to surrogate mothers in Britain but hundreds of couples are thought to be so desperate that they are travelling abroad to countries such as India and the USA, where costs can be £25,000 or more.

Surrogacy has been regulated in Britain since 1985, after Kim Cotton was paid £6,500 to carry a child conceived using her own egg but the sperm of a man whose wife was infertile.

Another method involves transferring embryos created through IVF from the eggs and sperm of both intended parents to the surrogate mother’s womb. In this country, no commercial arrangements are permitted to be made and it is illegal to pay a surrogate mother more than "reasonable expenses".

In the case of L, the British couple made contact with a woman in Illinois, where no restrictions on payments to surrogate mothers applied.

The baby was allowed to enter Britain temporarily on a US passport, but would have been potentially stateless and parentless if the courts had not retrospectively approved the large payment.

In his ruling at the High Court, Mr Justice Hedley described the couple as the “most careful and conscientious parents” and granted them parental status and custody of L.

He stressed that the case was clearly a “commercial surrogacy agreement”, which was legal in Illinois but “unlawful” in England.

The couple’s solicitors, Natalie Gamble and Louisa Ghevaert, said it was right that recent reforms to the law made the welfare of the child the court’s “paramount consideration”.

“The reason this case was published was because the judge wanted to highlight the legal and immigration difficulties faced by intended parents, and the poor public information which parents continue to fall foul of,” they said.

“Surrogacy is invariably a last option for those who have had a long and difficult battle with infertility. International surrogacy arrangements are typically entered into with enormous care and thought.

“In Illinois, there are many checks built into the system - where this is a long established and successful process - including counselling, psychological testing and independent legal advice for everyone involved at the outset.

“As in this case, the parents often have very positive relationships with their surrogate mothers which can last a lifetime.”

Article: 11th December 2010 www.telegraph.co.uk

Read more about surrogacy and gay parenting options.

As she lay on her hospital bed breastfeeding her newborn baby, Louise Pollard was overcome with love for the scrap of humanity in her arms.

After all, she'd reached the end of a difficult pregnancy which had seen both her own and her unborn child's life hang in the balance as a result of pre-eclampsia. Despite this scene of maternal bliss, however, just three days later Louise handed Danny over to a couple and drove away - a shattering parting which left her crying for three days and yearning only to see her baby again.

'Afterwards, I sat in my mother's conservatory with my sobs literally racking through my body,' she says. 'I could still smell Danny on my jumper and I desperately wanted to be with him. Giving him up was the hardest thing I've ever done in my life.' So what on earth was this young mother doing giving her child away? At 23, Louise had become - for the second time - a surrogate for a childless couple. Having had her first surrogate baby at the age of just 21, Louise is thought to be the youngest surrogate mother in the UK. But her candid descriptions of the emotional challenges she faced highlight just how much surrogacy is a role that is rarely straightforward.

Her experience was particularly unusual because both the surrogate children she's had so far were biologically hers. 'At one point, I was close to driving up to London to see Danny and I wondered if I'd done the right thing in giving him up, but the legal situation we would have then ended up in - and the distress I'd have caused the couple in question - doesn't even bear thinking about,' she says. (In theory, as biological mother, Louise would probably have a right to keep Danny had she wanted to.)

Louise continues: 'Mum was wonderful and told me that if I genuinely felt I'd made the wrong decision, then we would have to see what we could do, but that I shouldn't do anything rash. 'Gradually, the fog cleared and I started remembering why I'd agreed to be their surrogate in the first place. I'd already given them one child a year earlier, and now Danny was completing their family. 'As time went on, I was able to rationalise that I only felt so bereft because I'd bonded with Danny, which was something none of us had expected would happen. For instance, I'd planned to only express milk for him as I'd done with his big sister, but because he was unwell the doctors recommended I breastfed to be sure he benefited from my antibodies. 'But even so, at the time, I wasn't sure then I'd ever be a surrogate again.'

Today, a year on, Louise is embarking on the process for another couple. She is going through gruelling IVF treatment, trying for what will be her fourth baby. 'My mum took a photo of me the other day and I couldn't resist turning sideways for the camera just so you could see that, for once, I'm not actually pregnant,' says Louise, a PA from Bristol.

'At my age, most women are about 'me, me, me', getting drunk and having sex, but all I've been doing for the past few years is having babies. While my friends are out drinking and partying, I've been at home by myself watching television with a big bump and heartburn. I haven't even been able to have a drink on either of my past two birthdays because I've been pregnant.'

Louise says that she feels surrogacy is her calling, and she plans to have a baby a year until she is no longer physically able to. She hopes one day she might have more babies than Carol Horlock, who has had 12 babies for other couples and is widely known as the country's most prolific surrogate mother. Louise, who lives with her husband Damian, 24, a soldier, and her son Jaden, three, was just 17 when she first considered surrogacy. 'I remember watching a programme about surrogacy with my mum,' she says. 'The overriding thing I remember is the look on the couple's faces when they were presented with their baby. I thought how wonderful it would be to help couples like that and I said to my mum that one day, I would like to be a surrogate.'

Louise says that she feels surrogacy is her calling, and she plans to have a baby a year until she is no longer physically able to. She hopes one day she might have more babies than Carol Horlock, who has had 12 babies for other couples and is widely known as the country's most prolific surrogate mother. Louise, who lives with her husband Damian, 24, a soldier, and her son Jaden, three, was just 17 when she first considered surrogacy. 'I remember watching a programme about surrogacy with my mum,' she says. 'The overriding thing I remember is the look on the couple's faces when they were presented with their baby. I thought how wonderful it would be to help couples like that and I said to my mum that one day, I would like to be a surrogate.'

Article 20th May 2010 Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk

Read more about surrogacy and egg donation.