Last week I presented to the 19th annual South African family law conference. I was the keynote speaker- about surrogacy.
Here is my paper:
The
Musicians May Change but the Band Plays On.
Here is my paper:
SOUTH
AFRICAN FAMILY LAW CONFERENCE
CAPETOWN
SOUTH
AFRICA
17
– 18 March 2016
Did
Baby Gammy Change Anything?
By
Stephen Page[1]
“What’s clear is while one culprit’s been exposed, there
will always be another rogue operator, new sets of parents desperate to have
children, and a willing supply of surrogates trying to better their own lives.
And when this pattern plays out around the world in developing countries with
next to no regulation, there are very few winners.”[2]
It’s not all about surrogacy!
As I had to explain to one judge, who wanted to know
why my gay clients wanted to undertake surrogacy, the easiest way to have a
child is to have sex. My clients, as I told his Honour, tried repeatedly, but
they were unable to succeed because they were both men.
His Honour then invited me to continue. I explained
that no one would undergo the option of last resort, surrogacy, if all the
successful alternative was that of sex. After all, why run the gauntlet with a
battery of counselors, doctors, lawyers and then finally a judge, if the
alternative were that of sex?
For many laypeople, and indeed many intended parents,
the focus is on surrogacy. Fair enough when you are a gay couple or a single
man- you have little option, but for single women, lesbian couples or
heterosexual couples, surrogacy is often one of the options, and the last
option after other options have been considered including:
·
Sperm
donation
·
Egg
donation
·
Embryo
donation
·
IVF
Many intended parents, after seeing media coverage
about surrogacy, or reading about it via Google, then assume that surrogacy is
the option for them. Often they’re wrong.
Although I talk in this paper about surrogacy, the
other aspects of ART should not be forgotten.
Australians restrict the ability to pay egg donors,
for example. I have had clients head overseas after asking 38 potential egg
donors, none of whom responded positively except the last one, who wanted
A$5,000 for an overseas holiday, which aside from the risk of paying what would
appear to be a capricious donor, raised the further risk of criminality in two States
and Federally.
Australians have headed overseas for egg donors to as
far away as:
·
Here,
in South Africa with Australian intended parents going to both Capetown and
Johannesburg.
·
Argentina
·
USA
·
Mexico
·
Canada
·
Spain
·
Greece
·
Ukraine
·
India
(until recently)
·
Thailand
(until last year)
·
Cambodia
A focus on surrogacy alone will miss the other aspects
of ART that should not be ignored.
Intended parents may worry that they not commit
criminal offences to do with surrogacy (which depending on the jurisdiction
has a maximum penalty of up to three
years imprisonment) but not realize that there can be a criminal offence with
overseas egg donor contracts (which can have a maximum penalty of 15 years
imprisonment).
It has been reported to me repeatedly that poor South
African women have flown to India to be donors there, and at times been
subjected to the risk of death from hyper ovary stimulation. It should be
assumed that these women will also be donors in Cambodia and the other new
surrogacy hub – Laos. Westerners want Caucasian babies.
Introduction to the madness
Just over a year ago, the Baby Gammy saga burst into
view. Day by day the saga played out with new developments.
I had no connection with the case except that I was
seemingly the world’s expert du jour. I was at the epicentre of the media
storm. For one month I did very little billable work, instead every day being a
series of media interviews, backgrounders or setting up media interviews.
I knew it was big when colleagues in Canada and
Switzerland were interviewed about the same story- the story of surrogacy gone
wrong, involving two babies, an Australian couple, a Thai surrogate and an
Australian trained Thai fertility doctor.
To give you a perspective of that month of madness:
·
in
one day I did five separate national TV network interviews, plus several radio
interviews, a backgrounder, plus two or three press/internet interviews.
·
I
was contacted by seemingly everybody: The New York Times, Wall Street Journal,
The Guardian, Fuji TV, DW (German TV), Radio NZ, as well as seemingly most of
Australia’s media. Who knew that there was a Christian radio station in Sydney
or that there was a late night political talk show on pay TV in Australia? I
didn’t!
·
When
I went to speak at the inaugural AFCC conference in Australia, I spent much of
the day down the hall from the conference venue sitting in winter on the
polished stone floor? Why? This was the only place that I could find that was quiet
enough where I could find a plug to charge my phone at the time of doing a
dozen or two phone calls connected with interviews- with everywhere from
Brisbane radio to a colleague in Boston and journalists in Bangkok.
·
A
year later I was hit by a sense of déjà vu of going to the annual family law
conference in Queensland. What was different this time was that unlike 2014, I
was not sitting in my car in the car park for a lengthy time. Last year the
interview with Fuji TV was conducted via Skype, using my phone. As it was
almost out of juice, I had to plug it into the phone charger in the car, and
then hold my phone dead still for 20 minutes. You cannot possibly realize how
heavy an iPhone is until you have achieved this!
When you are subjected to this level of scrutiny, as
happens when for example I said that our Prime Minister was wrong (as he said
that Australian intended parents who went to Thailand who got stuck should have
complied with the law in both places, to which I responded that many of them
did), and every journalist wants to scoop all the others, suddenly you have to
come up with some soundbites as to how prevent something like Baby Gammy
happening again.
Mine were:
1.
Reduce demand by
increasing supply.
Australia has to allow commercial surrogacy. Surrogacy in Australia, with the
most limited exception in the Northern Territory, is non-commercial. Donors are
not able to be paid, except for out of pockets. Surrogates are not able to be
paid, except for out of pockets. It is illegal to advertise for surrogates in
most of Australia. If demand were increased, then Australian intended parents would
not be going overseas to developing countries where human rights protections
and governance standards were less than adequate- they would be staying home,
at their local high quality, heavily regulated IVF clinic. Who wants to go to a
developing country overseas when they could go just down the road? After all,
Australia produced the first IVF pregnancy. Its twinning rate (along with NZ)
is the lowest in the world. The suggestion that Australian laws could not
protect the human rights of surrogates and children was laughable.
2.
Use soft power to
encourage overseas countries to lift their standards. This would be through
diplomatic efforts, but also through legal and medical organisations, such as
the International Bar Association and ASPIRE (Asia Pacific Initiative on
Reproduction).
3.
Have a sensible Hague
Convention on international surrogacy arrangements.
In the midst of the saga, the chief family law judges,
Chief Justice Diana Bryant of the Family Court of Australia and Chief Judge
John Pascoe of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, supported change. Their
Honours:
·
Supported
the removal of extra-territorial sanctions for overseas surrogacy, which exist
in Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. After all,
they reasoned, these laws are in place to prevent people from going to
developing countries, for which they have been spectacularly unsuccessful.
Either the laws should be enforced, which they weren’t as not one person had
been prosecuted, which made a mockery of the law, or they should be repealed.
·
Supported
the legalization of commercial surrogacy in Australia.
·
Called
for a Parliamentary inquiry to investigate commercial surrogacy, to see whether
it ought to be allowed in Australia.
A summary of scandals
Probably a better name for this paper might have been:
the more things change, the more they stay the same[3]. Despite the scandals, it
might seem that very little has changed with the regulation of surrogacy,
nationally and internationally.
To give an idea of recent troubles, it is best to
highlight all of which have an Australian element. Australians hold the dubious
honour, due to our surrogacy laws, and relative ease of obtaining citizenship,
of probably being the highest per capita users, and possibly the highest
absolute users of international surrogacy arrangements.
Scandal 1: Russia and USA: Newton and Truong
Mark Newton is a US/Australian dual citizen. His
former partner, Peter Truong is an Australian citizen of Vietnamese background.
They lived together near Cairns.
Their story was that they went to Russia, underwent
surrogacy there using Mr Newton’s sperm, and came home with a baby boy. They
obtained at first a custody order and then an adoption order in the US.
They presented to the world as a loving gay couple who
had undertaken surrogacy and doted on their child.
Most of what they said was a lie. The lie was exposed
when a man in New Zealand in 2011 took his computer to the repair shop. The
repairer noticed that there was child porn.
The truth was that Mr Newton and Mr Truong had
purchased the baby from a Russian woman for the purpose of sexualizing the
child and making him available both physically but also via video and pictures
on the web, to a global paedophile ring.
The child was sexualized, according to media reports
to an extraordinary degree. He is now in the care of relatives in the US. Both
Mr Newton and Mr Truong are serving long sentences in US jails.
The good news is that Queensland police, as part of
Taskforce Argos[4],
co-operated with the FBI and counterparts in New Zealand and Europe in
investigating the leads and catching the various suspects.
Scandal 2: India: The missing boy
In 2008 an Australian couple from Western Sydney had
twins born to them in India via surrogacy. They did not want the boy, and took
the girl. The choice was based on sexuality. It is not known where the boy
ended up, other than with “friends”, but it is likely that he did not leave
India. The Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, Diana Bryant, has called
the actions, if correct (and they appear to be so) to be child trafficking.
Her Honour broke the scandal in October 2014, and
there have been reports about the case from Australia’s ABC[5] since then.
The effect of the scandal, which broke in the aftermath
of Baby Gammy, was that India stopped all Australians from undertaking
surrogacy there whatsoever. Since early this year, India has relented somewhat
so that limited numbers of intended parents from Victoria, Tasmania, South
Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory can undertake surrogacy
in India.
Following earlier changes in 2012 when India changed
the rules halfway through some surrogacy journeys, many Australian intended
parents got stuck on the way through. Thankfully, all were able to bring their
babies home, although it was reported to me by clients that bribes had been
paid to enable them to do so.
Scandal 3: Thailand/Cambodia: Making multiple babies
At the time that the Baby Gammy saga broke, and it
appeared that almost the whole of the world’s media beat a path to my door,
what journalists in Thailand told me was that Thai officials viewed much more
seriously were the efforts of a 24 year old Japanese man, Mitsutoki Shigeta, the son of an
IT billionaire, to create many children. At last count, there were 18, fathered
by 13 surrogates, all created through the efforts of Australian-trained Dr
Pisit Tantiwattanakul.
I do not know what ultimately has happened with these
babies, or the Japanese father, although it appears that in January 2015 he was
awarded custody of three of them[6] and was suing for 13 of
them to come into his care[7].
As well, another 21 babies were taken into custody by
Thai authorities, in what they described as a baby factory. Those babies were
conceived from eggs of donors from Australia,
the US, Sweden, China, Spain, Brazil, Malaysia and Israel[8].
Scandal 4: Thailand: the Baby Gammy Saga
The biggest of the scandals was the Baby Gammy Saga.
Every day in August and September last year it appeared that there was a new
development. The case seemed as far removed as it could possibly get from the
standard surrogacy case, but nevertheless the facts kept rolling:
·
An
Australian couple, the Farnell’s, underwent surrogacy through Dr Pisit’s All
IVF in Bangkok.
·
They
came there through a backyard surrogacy agency in Bangkok.
·
The
surrogate it turns out was not a gestational surrogate, but a traditional
surrogate.
·
Although
doctors were not allowed to provide treatment for commercial surrogacy, it
appears that the surrogate was paid, and recruited other surrogates.
·
Twins
were conceived, presumably intentionally.
·
No
discussions appear to have occurred between the intended parents and the surrogate
as to what they might do if something went wrong, or if they did have
discussions, those discussions were clearly inadequate.
·
All
discovered in due course that the twins were a boy, Gammy and a girl. The girl
was healthy. Gammy had Down’s syndrome.
·
The
Farnell’s took that the view that there should be selective reduction of Gammy.
The surrogate refused.
·
Following
the births, the Farnell’s refused to take Gammy, and took the girl.
·
The
surrogate consented to the removal of the girl from Thailand to Australia.
·
After
their return to Australia, the Farnell’s refused to provide any financial help
with Gammy, who it turns out also had a congenital heart condition.
·
A
public appeal raised several hundred thousand dollars to help the mother
provide for Gammy.
·
When
the story broke, it was revealed that Mr Farnell was a convicted paedophile.
·
It
then became apparent to the world’s media that there was in fact no global
legal system concerning surrogacy, and that there were no criminal and child
protection checks on those undergoing surrogacy overseas.
·
Media
then camped out at the Farnell’s home, chasing down child protection service
officers.
·
Mr
and Mrs Farnell then took part in a 60 Minutes story to put their side of the
story.
Following the multiple baby scandal, and the Baby
Gammy saga, Thai officials (now appointed by a junta) took swift action. The
actions of Thai officials seemed to change day by day. At first no action
seemed to be taking place, then rules were put in place, which then kept
changing.
Thai officials immediately announced that there would
be no more surrogacy, unless it was altruistic and the intended parents were
Thai citizens. So that there was no doubt about who could take the children
from Thailand, it was also suddenly announced that any intended parents who
wanted to remove their babies from Thailand would have to get an order from the
Family Court there. This step had never been required before, and was estimated
to take six months to complete, during which time the intended parents would likely
lose their life savings, their jobs and homes back in Australia and other
countries.
The Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, also announced that in
effect Australian intended parents had to obey the laws in Australia and in
Thailand, effectively saying that they only had themselves to blame. I said to
media that the Prime Minister was wrong- because many of these parents believed
that they were obeying the law in both places when they entered into the
surrogacy contracts and could not be blamed for a change of rules halfway or
even more of the way through.
Luckily the Australian government regrouped, via a
committee of officials from various departments, and made strenuous diplomatic
efforts, mostly behind the scenes, to ensure that the children could come to Australia
in a timely manner. They were largely successful. However, it has been reported
to me by several of the parents that they could only remove the children from
Thailand following the payment of a bribe to relevant Thai officials.
Two Thai clinics were immediately closed down, one of
which was Dr Pisit’s All IVF. It was announced that Dr Pisit was placed under
arrest, presumably never to practice again.
Recent anecdotal reports I have received suggest that
some Thai doctors are still at the centre of surrogacy: evidently the profits
are too good. Thai doctors have been responsible, so I have been told, for the
creation of embryos in Cambodia, sometimes with surrogates there, or for the
subsequent export of embryos from Cambodia to Nepal. I am told that embryos are
shipped from India & Thailand to Cambodia.
As of 1 February 2016, Dr Pisit appeared on the web,
no longer from All IVF, but now appearing at “iBaby Fertility and Genetic
Center, Leading Fertility Center in Bangkok Thailand”[9]. This is what his website
said under “About us”:
“Why iBaby : Dr. Pisit is a doctor of clinical embryology, receiving
his post-graduate credentials from Monash University in Melbourne, Australia…
Moreover, Dr.Pisit received doctorate of medicine from Chulalongkorn University, one of the best and world class university in Bangkok, Thailand and has a wealth of experience in the fields of embryology, gynecology and obstetrics. Dr.Pisit has spent over 10 years in the study and work of reproductive medical practices. Dr. Pisit has written heavily researched and detailed papers on pregnancy, embryo transfer and contraceptive affects on the uterus and also has done work for several hospitals throughout Thailand and Australia. Recently, at our clinic, Dr. Pisit works as an infertility specialist and director of embryologist.”
Moreover, Dr.Pisit received doctorate of medicine from Chulalongkorn University, one of the best and world class university in Bangkok, Thailand and has a wealth of experience in the fields of embryology, gynecology and obstetrics. Dr.Pisit has spent over 10 years in the study and work of reproductive medical practices. Dr. Pisit has written heavily researched and detailed papers on pregnancy, embryo transfer and contraceptive affects on the uterus and also has done work for several hospitals throughout Thailand and Australia. Recently, at our clinic, Dr. Pisit works as an infertility specialist and director of embryologist.”
There is no
suggestion that Dr Pisit is undertaking surrogacy work now, but certainly
continuing fertility work.
A report I
read in early September from Thailand suggested that the Thai government was
now seeking to deregister Dr Pisit. My understanding is that the charges
against Dr Pisit were withdrawn and that he is freely practicing as an IVF
doctor in Bangkok.
I have
received information that unnamed Thai doctors have enabled surrogacy to occur
in Cambodia and currently in Laos, principally using Thai surrogates, with the
children to be born in Thailand.
I have also
received information that with a simple administrative act foreigners can
undertake surrogacy in Thailand lawfully.
My
understanding is that the charges against Dr Pisit were withdrawn and that he
is freely practicing as an IVF doctor in Bangkok.
I have
received information that unnamed Thai doctors have enabled surrogacy to occur
in Cambodia and currently in Laos, principally using Thai surrogates, with the
children to be born in Thailand.
I have also
received information that with an administrative act, foreigners can undertake
surrogacy in Thailand lawfully.
Scandal 5: Mexico: Rudy Rupach, Planet Hospital
In 2013 I met Rudy Rupach in Melbourne. He turned up
there as a sponsor of the Surrogacy Australia conference, and appeared under a
large banner spruiking surrogacy in Mexico. While I do not profess to be an
expert on the subject, my immediate impression of Mr Rupach was that he seemed
to be the archetypal 1970’s Californian porn film director: open necked shirt,
heavy gold chain and pulled back long black/grey hair.
Mr Rupach touted the benefits of going to Mexico. He
had tried running surrogacy in India, but given the regulatory changes there,
was now trying Mexico, in the State of Tabasco. When I asked how surrogacy came
about, I was told that it was due to the efforts of a State senator, who was
keen to help infertile women, who moved a bill through the Tabasco legislature,
and to whose political action committee Mr Rupach paid a substantial donation
before the next election.
However, as Foreign
Correspondent[10] and The New York Times[11]
revealed, Mr Rupach’s Planet Hospital struck problems:
·
The
company was insolvent, leaving intended parents from several countries,
including Australia, many thousands of dollars out of pocket;
·
It
operated, as alleged by intended parent, then lawyer and former Planet Hospital
employee Catherine Moscarello as a Ponzi scheme;
·
Women
were being trafficked from Colombia to be promised payment as surrogates, only
to learn that they were unpaid, abandoned, and unable to return home.
Last heard from there was an FBI investigation and
bankruptcy proceedings concerning Planet Hospital[12].
But that is not the end of Catherine Moscarello. Ms
Moscarello, who lives in Illinois, and who was severely critical of Mr Rupach,
has been disbarred by the California State Bar[13] in November, 2014. The California Bar Journal Discipline Summary states:
“Moscarello stipulated that she
didn’t comply with the terms of a 2012 disciplinary order. She submitted four
quarterly reports to the Office of Probation late and did not provide proof of
restitution. She was ordered to pay the previously unpaid $1,200 plus interest
in restitution. Moscarello had two prior records of discipline. In 2013, she
was suspended for failing to refund unearned fees. In 2011, she was suspended
for misconduct in eight matters including improper withdrawal from employment
with a client and failing to perform competently, refund unearned fees to a
client, return a file to a client, communicate adequately with a client or
cooperate in a State Bar investigation.”
Moscarello remains in the surrogacy business[14], running IP Conceptions,
which specialises in surrogacy in Mexico[15].
Moscarello doesn’t talk about having been disbarred
and nor does she talk about surrogacy no longer being possible in Mexico.
So what’s changed?
Well, not that much really. The locations have
changed, but surrogacy in developing countries continues. While it appears that
the Thai’s sought to ban surrogacy, the reality, I have been informed, is that
surrogacy continues to be coordinated by Thai doctors in Laos and Cambodia and
if not currently undertaken in Thailand will soon be so. The musicians may
change, but the band plays on.
Certainly, there has been a sea change in some aspects
since pre-Baby Gammy. In April 2015 I spoke at the Merck Serono conference on
Cross-Border Reproductive Care in Brisbane. Another speaker was acclaimed IVF
specialist Dr.Wiwat Quangkananurug from Bangkok
who described how surrogacy was undertaken in Thailand, and how he would not
deal with any of the surrogacy agencies there, which in light of what happened
in the Baby Gammy saga seems particularly prescient in hindsight. He considered
the agencies to be scam merchants, often operating out of apartments, with
little evidence that they were genuine.
Dr Wiwat was
critical of the Indian approach to surrogacy, suggesting that in Thailand
surrogates were better looked after and that quality control was higher in
Thailand.
No
prosecutions
No one has yet been prosecuted in Australia for
undertaking surrogacy overseas.
No one has yet been prosecuted in Australia for
undertaking egg donor contracts overseas, even though the criminal laws in
several States, such as NSW, would appear to stretch that far.
The State Attorneys-General were recently reported as
wanting to get tough about these laws, but as yet nothing substantial appears
to have happened.
The impact of Thailand being shut for business for
surrogacy has not deterred the childless and the desperate. Australians have
gone in increasing numbers to Mexico and to Nepal.
The number of Australians going to developing
countries is likely to increase, following the collapse in the Chinese exchange
rate, which in turn has led the Australian dollar down from near parity with
the US dollar a year ago to now buying US$0.70 with predictions that it will
travel further south.
Nepal
Australians were
undertaking surrogacy in increasing numbers in Nepal, notwithstanding the
recent earthquake and pictures of Israeli gay couples being choppered out with
their babies after the earthquake. Nepal is an ironic location. Generally India
will not allow Australians to undertake surrogacy there. Nepal, being poorer
than India, has given the green light to medical tourism, including surrogacy.
However, in order to protect its women, Nepal will not agree to Nepalese women
being surrogates. They come from India, and Nepalese women travel to India to
be surrogates there.
In August
2015 the Supreme Court of Nepal issued an interlocutory injunction preventing
all commercial surrogacy there.
It seems to
be a replay of India in 2012 and Thailand in 2014: a developing country in
which surrogacy is seen as a panacea, but the panacea is more like opening
Pandora’s Box: ethical and moral issues come
with surrogacy, something goes wrong, and a lack of regulation causes a
kneejerk reaction, resulting in intended parents being trapped.
The court
case has exposed that there are no laws in Nepal regulating or allowing
surrogacy, but instead surrogacy is allowed pursuant to a Cabinet decision made
last year.
In the court
case it is being argued that surrogacy involves the exploitation of women and
the children. It is argued that the hospitals issue their own (non-State
sanctioned) birth certificates, and that children going overseas do so in
breach of the 1961 Hague Convention.
That
Convention is the 1961 Hague Infants
Convention[16].
The key provisions of the Convention are Articles 5 and 6:
“Article 5
If
the habitual residence of an infant is transferred from one Contracting State
to another, measures taken by the authorities of the State of the former
habitual residence shall remain in force in so far as the authorities of the
new habitual residence have not terminated or replaced them.
Measures
taken by the authorities of the State of the former habitual residence shall be
terminated or replaced only after previous notice to the said authorities.
In
the case of change of residence of an infant who was under the protection of
authorities of the State of his nationality, measures taken by them according
to their domestic law shall remain in force in the State of the new habitual
residence.
Article 6
The
authorities of the State of the infant's nationality may, in agreement with
those of the State where he has his habitual residence or where he possesses
property, entrust to them the putting into force of the measures taken.
The
authorities of the State of the habitual residence of the infant may do the
same with regard to the authorities of the State where the infant possesses
property.”
The member
States of this Hague Convention are, with one exception, China, all European.
China is listed as continuation, which I suspect is for Macao only, as Portugal
is a signatory, but the UK is not.
Member States:
Austria
People’s
Republic of China
France
Germany
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Switzerland
Turkey
|
Nepal
is not a signatory. Nor are the countries that have been the largest sources
of intended parents: Israel, Australia and USA, amongst others. The 1961 convention has largely been
subsumed in the 1996 Hague Children’s Convention.
|
India
Following
the victory in the Supreme Court of Nepal, a parallel case was commenced in the
Supreme Court of India, in order to ban an industry worth over US$1 billion per
year. That move was successful. Previous moves to regulate the industry were
unsuccessful.
The death of
a 17 year old egg donor [17]
in 2010 allegedly by a clinic that was at the time popular with Australians, did
not prompt changes. Nor did the alleged rape of a law student there who refused
to be a surrogate[18].
The change occurred because the Indian Government was
called upon by the Supreme Court of India to provide a response. Following international embarrassment, and
concern about the exploitation of poor Indian and Nepalese women, the Indian
Government reacted in November 2015 by banning all commercial surrogacy for
foreigners who were not married to an Indian citizen.
Mexico
In December 2015 the State of Tabasco where altruistic
surrogacy was allowed, decided to ban surrogacy for foreigners.
Reports came from Mexico in 2015 about intended
parents being stuck there, unable to bring their babies home. There were
stories in 2015 of parents from the US[19], Canada and Spain[20] in this category. One
story about the Canadians was particularly revealing: they said that their
Mexican lawyers had discussed with them about which officials to bribe[21]! This was after:
"They've done their due
diligence. They hired a lawyer, they took the precautions they thought they
needed to."[22]
A prospective
client of mine told me that he and his partner had budgeted A$160,000 for the
surrogacy journey through Mexico! That
couple later told an Australian media outlet about a litany of woes for their
surrogacy journey in Mexico, which had clearly cost them a lot of money, caused
them a lot of grief, demonstrated how not to undertake surrogacy, but not
resulted in the birth of a child.
USA
Australians
continue to go to the US. They do not stick just to California (though that is
the favourite location) but have ventured all over, including to Arizona,
Washington State, Arkansas, Minnesota, Idaho, Massachusetts, Maryland,
Illinois, Ohio and Hawaii.
The cost of
Australians undertaking surrogacy in the US varies.
The key in
going to the USA (of course aside from the issue of whether it is legal in the
home State) is to make sure that healthcare costs are under control. The Affordable Care Act may be making a difference. However, recently
a couple (who had not sought my advice before going to the US) told me that
some things had gone wrong in their surrogacy journey, including uninsurable
twins, resulting in a total cost of A$1 million! Another couple, who were
referred to me by an American attorney ignored my advice to sort out health
insurance and have had a health care bill of A$1million!
There are
recent reports of Australian authorities cracking down on the practice of
Australian intended parents bringing their babies home on tourist visas. What
impact this will have on practice I do not know. It is again a case of watch
this space.
Two recent
court cases will make a difference:
1.
Is a tax ruling, an egg donor’s
compensation was found to be taxable income; and
2.
The American Society for
Reproductive Medicine has settled a court case by disgruntled egg donors by
removing the cap of US$10,000 to be paid to donors.
One can only
assume that the prices paid to donors (and possibly surrogates) will increase,
possibly substantially.
Canada
For those in
Queensland, NSW and ACT where there is no doubt that it is illegal to go
overseas for commercial surrogacy (including of course to the US) , some intended
parents have been going to Canada. It is possible to undertake altruistic
surrogacy in Canada, with ART occurring in the US, such as California or Nevada[23],
if properly planned.
Canada is
popular with Victorians too. No doubt cost, transparency and predictable health
care costs will be drivers of the market.
Ukraine, Greece, Georgia
I have also
been approached by agencies or doctors in the Ukraine, Greece and the Republic
of Georgia seeking Australian intended parents.
Cambodia Laos
Surrogacy is
now available in Cambodia, and I am told Laos.
Most
worrying are reports that surrogacy babies provided to single Chinese men,
without checks, with the possible result of international child trafficking.
|
Country
|
Cheap, cheap
|
Low range
|
High range
|
OUCH!
|
|
Australia
|
$25,000
|
$35,000
|
$60,000
|
$300,000[26]
|
|
Canada
|
|
$80,000
|
$100,000
|
|
|
India
|
|
$70,000
|
$80,000
|
|
|
Georgia
|
NK
|
NK
|
NK
|
NK
|
|
Mexico
|
NK
|
NK
|
$160,000
|
NK
|
|
Thailand
|
$50,000
|
$70,000
|
$80,000
|
|
|
Ukraine
|
NK
|
NK
|
NK
|
NK
|
|
USA
|
$25,000
|
$100,000
|
$250,000
|
$1million
|
Going overseas for commercial
surrogacy- prohibitions
|
State/Territory
|
O/s prohibited?
|
Law
|
Longarm
|
Penalty
|
|
Commonwealth
|
No
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
Qld
|
Yes- commercial
|
s.56
(entering), 57 (paying) Surrogacy Act 2010
|
s.
54 Surrogacy Act 2010, s.12 Criminal Code 1899
|
3
years, 100 penalty units
|
|
NSW
|
Yes- commercial
|
s.
8,9 Surrogacy Act 2010
|
s.11
Surrogacy Act 2010, s.10C Crimes Act 1900
|
2,500
penalty units for corporation, 1,000 penalty units or 2 years for natural
person
|
|
ACT
|
Yes-commercial
|
s.41
(entering), 42 (procuring) Parentage Act 2004
|
s.45
Parentage Act
|
1
year, 100 penalty units
|
|
Vic
|
No
|
s.44
Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008
|
N/A
|
|
|
Tas
|
No
|
No-
but be careful of s.40, 41 Surrogacy Act 2012
|
N/A
|
|
|
SA
|
No- if careful. Law purports to make
ALL overseas surrogacy (commercial and altruistic require A-G’s consent)
|
No- if careful s.10F as to
“prescribed international surrogacy agreement”, “surrogacy contract”, 10HA
Family Relationships Act 1975
|
s.5G
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935
|
1
year
|
|
WA
|
Yes- commercial- if entered into in
WA
|
Must
not be entered into in WA: s.8, s.11 (services) Surrogacy Act 2008
|
s.12
Criminal Code 1913
|
$24,000
or 2 years: s.8; $12,000 or 1 year: s.11
|
|
NT
|
No
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
Going Overseas for Egg
donation
|
|||
|
State/Territory
|
Human
Cloning Act
|
Human
Tissue Act
|
Longarm
|
|
Commonwealth
|
s.21, 24 Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2002 Not
relevant: Research Involving Human
Embryos Act 2002
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
|
Qld
|
s.17 Research
Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act
2003
|
s.42 Transplantation
and Anatomy Act 1979
|
s.12 Criminal
Code 1899
|
|
NSW
|
s.16
Human Cloning for Reproduction and other Prohibited Practices Act 2003
|
s.32 Human
Tissue Act 1983
|
s.10C Crimes
Act 1900
|
|
ACT
|
s.19
Human Cloning and Embryo Research Act 2004
|
s.44 Transplantation
and Anatomy Act 1978
|
N/A
|
|
Vic
|
s.17
Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and Other Prohibited Practices
Act 2003
|
s.38,39 Human Tissue Act 1982
|
N/A
|
|
Tas
|
s.20
Human Cloning for Reproduction and Other Prohibited Practices Act 2003
|
s.27 Human
Tissue Act 1985
|
N/A
|
|
SA
|
s.16
Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2003
|
s.35 Transplantation
and Anatomy Act 1983
|
s.5G Criminal
Law Consolidation Act 1935
|
|
WA
|
s.53Q
Human Reproduction Technology Act 1991
|
s.29 Human
Tissue and Transplantation Act 1982
|
s.12 Criminal
Code 1913
|
|
NT
|
N/A
|
s. 22E, 22F Transplantation and Anatomy Act
|
s.15 Criminal
Code
|
Is a person
living in Australia who undertakes surrogacy overseas a parent of the child?
Without
taking you through all the cases, a description of the impact via this table
really says it all.
|
Is a person a parent
|
|||
|
Year
|
Answer
|
Court
|
Why
|
|
2011
|
Yes
|
Family
Court
|
Family Law Act
|
|
2011
|
Unlikely
|
Family
Court
|
State
law determines who is not a parent/law does not encourage illegal acts
|
|
2012
|
Yes
|
Family
Court
|
Family Law Act
|
|
2013
|
Yes
|
Family
Court WA
|
Statutory
drafting - Adoption Act – reality of
who is a parent.
|
|
2013
|
No
|
Family
Court
|
State
law determines who and who is not a parent – the surrogate and her husband
are the parents.
|
|
2013
|
Yes
|
Family
Court
|
A
person living overseas who is a parent there is recognized as a parent in
Australia under comity principles.
|
|
2013
|
No
|
Family
Court
|
Who
is a parent is determined under State Status of children Legislation – the
surrogate and her husband are the parents.
|
|
2013
|
Maybe
|
Family
Court
|
A
male donor to a single birth mother may be a parent under the Family Act, overriding State Law.
|
|
2014
|
Yes
|
Family
Court
|
Family
Law Act – limitations in New South Wales don’t apply in Victoria.
|
|
2015
|
For
father yes
For
mother (where egg donor) - don’t have power to answer
|
Family
Court (being appealed)
|
Interpretation
of Family Law Act.
|
Carlton
& Bissett [2013] FamCa143[27]
Mr Carlton
applied for a range of orders concerning two children born through a surrogacy
arrangement entered into between his partner Mr Bissett and the surrogate Ms
Schmitt in 2009. The effect of the
agreement was that Mr Bissett’s sperm was used to fertilise an egg form an
anonymous donor and the resultant embryos implanted in Ms Schmitt. Ms Schmitt, in accordance with the agreement
with Mr Bissett, relinquished the children to him. During the pregnancy Mr Carlton met Mr
Bissett. Mr Carlton, who was also from
South Africa was then visiting South Africa from Australia where he was
ordinarily resident. They quickly fell
in love. Mr Carlton returned to
Australia. Mr Carlton and Mr Bissett
agreed that Mr Carlton would take on a parental role in the children’s lives,
which has happened.
The children
were born in South Africa in October 2010 and have lived with Mr Bissett ever
since. Mr Bissett and Ms Schmitt have a
cooperative relationship and she supported the application to the court.
Mr Carlton applied to the Family Court of
Australia in Sydney for various orders including a declaration that Mr Bissett
was the parent of the child. Ryan J
noted the provisions of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005. Mr Bissett and the children migrated to Australia
in June 2012. The significant issue
before the court was whether Mr Bissett was a parent. Her Honour found that Mr Bissett was a parent within the meaning of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
One basis
upon which it was sought that he be described as parent was seeking to register
the South African order with the Family Court.
It is possible to register overseas child orders under the Family Law Act with the Family Court of
Australia, at which point those orders take effect as if they are orders made
by the Family Court of Australia.
Ryan J found
that the orders in question, which were a pre-approval order for the surrogacy
to occur and which deemed the children upon birth to be the children of Mr
Bissett, the right type of order.
However the orders were not able to be registered because South Africa
was not the right jurisdiction. For
orders to be registered they also had to be made in a jurisdiction that was a prescribed overseas jurisdiction within
the meaning of schedule 1A of the Family
Law Regulations 1984 (Cth). Most of
the jurisdictions listed in that list are in the United States. South Africa, as her Honour noted, is not on
that list. As a result the order was not
able to be registered.
Another
basis upon which it was asserted that the order could be relied upon was based
on the comity principle. Her Honour
noted that as Mr Bissett was residing in and a citizen of South Africa at the
time of the orders being made and was found by the South African Court to be a parent, he was entitled to also
be found to be a parent in Australia. He Honour noted that particular provisions of
the Family Law Act which deal with parenting presumptions of children born
through artificial conception procedures and the making of Australian State
based surrogacy orders:
“Are not directed to children born
in another country to a person or people ordinarily resident in that country at
the time of conception and birth.”
Her Honour
found therefor in the best interests of the children a parentage declaration
ought to be made in favour of Mr Bissett.
Parliamentary
Inquiry
Following
Baby Gammy, the Australian House of Representatives Select Committee on Social
Policy and Legal Affairs held an informal inquiry into surrogacy, called a
Roundtable.
Witnesses
came in two groups. The first group were opposed to surrogacy, because they saw
it would be like the exploitation of women through adoption and the robbing of
people of their heritage caused by anonymous donors.
The second
group were calling for change, the removal of discrimination, the legalization
of commercial surrogacy, and the removal of laws banning Australians going
overseas.
Chief
Justice Diana Bryant of the Family Court of Australia and Chief Judge John
Pascoe of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia were both in the latter camp.
Her Honour called for laws, prepared in advance by 18 months, so that those
going overseas had to meet certain checklists back home, as it was assumed that
Hague processes would be too slow. Another witness raised concerns that to do
so might mean that children were trapped offshore, remaining stateless.
The
committee’s conclusion? That there ought to be a formal inquiry by the
Committee to deal with international issues, cross-border issues in Australia,
issues to do with discrimination in Australia, and the information that ought
to be provided to intended parents. In November 2015 the Government announced
that there would be a parliamentary inquiry.
I am currently preparing my submission to that inquiry.
In April 2015
I took part in a discussion held by the Women Judges Association of Australia
about surrogacy. The question that I long remember was from a man from the Lone
Fathers Association of Australia who asked why these people could not just get
used to the idea of not having children, after all that is what happens to
parents often in the Family Law Courts- that they do not get to see their
children. I replied that was not in the real world. In the real world, within
less than a second a person who is desperate to have children can click on the
browser on their smartphone or tablet and find millions of answers to surrogacy,
based here and overseas. I said that we could be like Canute and pretend that
we can stop the tide, but the reality is that we cannot, and that we are better
off regulating surrogacy, rather than seeking to ban it.
International
altruistic surrogacy
This must
not be forgotten. In all the noise about exploitation and the need for
regulation of international commercial surrogacy, intended parents undertake
international altruistic surrogacy. This can be extremely complex.
A recent
example of the complexities of international altruistic surrogacy
Two sisters
wished to undertake surrogacy. The sister who could have children was to be the
surrogate. The sister who could not was to be the intended mother. Each of them
were married.
Simple so
far.
One couple
lived in New Zealand. The other lived in Australia. State, Australian and New
Zealand laws had to be negotiated, as well as the Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention (because NZ handles
surrogacy via an adoption order when the baby comes home).
I drafted a
surrogacy arrangement which did not comply with State law, in the sense that an
order would not be able to be obtained (because the intended parents did not
live in that State and fertility treatment was not in that State), but it was legal.
Legal, but non-compliant, as opposed to legal and compliant, or illegal
(commercial surrogacy).
Fertility
treatment was in the US.
After my
client the surrogate was pregnant, I was telephoned by a lawyer for a medical
defence fund, acting on behalf of the obstetrician. She wanted to know if her
client, in providing treatment, would be committing an offence. I said: “No.” She then asked me to explain.
Dealing with complex issues of law, including private international law, took
me 15 minutes. She then asked me to confirm that advice in writing, resulting
in an eight page letter!
Treatment
was provided, and a healthy child was born as a result. Recently an adoption order was made in New
Zealand (as that is how they deal with surrogacy in New Zealand) naming the
intended parents as the parents of the child.
The Hague
Since 2010
the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference of Private International Law,
based, not surprisingly, at The Hague in the Netherlands, has been working on
the idea of the possibility of there being a Hague Convention on International
Surrogacy.
Australia,
along with many other Western countries, such as South Africa, is a member of
the Hague Conference. As a member nation, Australia is a party to several Hague
Conventions to do with children, such as the Hague International Child Abduction Convention and the Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention.
Between the
time this paper was written and when it is delivered a working group of experts
from Hague member states will have met at the Hague to flesh out any issues to
do with the proposed Hague Convention.
Following that, it is likely that there will be a meeting of the Hague
Conference of Member States in April or May 2016. My best guess, before the working group met,
is that we are looking at a Hague Convention about 2 – 3 years away. What form it takes I do not know.
We shall see
what transpires.
South Australia
Not much has
happened legislatively, as I said, in Australia, except that is in South
Australia. There a Liberal backbench MP, John Dawkins MLC achieved changes to
the Family Relationships Act 1975 (SA),
the law that covers surrogacy.
Some of
those changes were advocated by me- such as one counsellor before signing the surrogacy
agreement, not three as used to be the case[28],
and post-birth counselling (which was not previously provided) but he came up with his own idea
(independently also considered but rejected in Israel): that anyone from SA
going overseas for surrogacy needs the permission of the Attorney-General to do
so. As the MP explained to me, this was for the firm purpose of preventing a
repeat of Baby Gammy. I do not share his optimism, but I understand the
direction he took.
The irony of
this change is that same sex couples and singles cannot proceed with surrogacy
in South Australia and have to go overseas, but then have to get the permission
of the first law officer, the Attorney-General, before they can go.
It is not
known on what basis the Attorney-General will approve or decline approval, or
require further information and documents about any international arrangements.
It is likely that SA residents who head off overseas will ignore the law and
attempt to fly under the radar, as have their cousins in Queensland, NSW and
the ACT, unless and until there is the first prosecution.
My conception case
This case was decided as long ago as 2012, but it is
still unique, I understand, so I mention it.
The Surrogacy
Act 2010 (Qld) has some basic requirements before a parentage order can be
made. One of those is that the surrogacy arrangement was entered into “before the child was conceived”. There
was no definition of conception or conceived. Was it the act of
fertilization or was it the act of pregnancy?
The difference could be stark- if the former, and the parties were using
an embryo created before the surrogacy arrangement was entered into, then there
could never be a parentage order.
That was exactly the situation that faced the judge in
my case, LWV and Anor v. LMH [2012]
QChC 026[29].
The intended mother had cancer. Several eggs were removed, ahead of treatment
for cancer, fertilized with her husband’s sperm, then frozen. Years later, her
sister, my client, entered into a surrogacy arrangement with the intended
parents to be their surrogate. A transfer then occurred, a pregnancy resulted
and the child was born. When was
conception?
Judge Clare SC was clear- it was the act of pregnancy,
not fertilization. Her Honour made a parentage order.
Her Honour stated:
“[1] LCH is
a long awaited and precious gift, much loved by his family and a miracle of
modern medicine. When his biological parents were unable to conceive naturally,
his aunt grew and nurtured LCH in her body for them. LCH was born on 22 March
2012. He has been in the care of his natural parents, LWV and AKV, since his
release from the hospital. This is an application for a Parentage Order. It is
brought by LWV and AKV and supported by the continuing altruism of the birth
mother, LMH, who is named as the respondent.
The court’s power to make an order
3
[2] The parties had a surrogacy arrangement. They have
done everything they could to comply with the law and now seek its protection
for LCH through the parentage order.
[3] The power to make such an order derives from the
Surrogacy Act 2010
(Qld). As
one might expect the Act sets out rigorous conditions for the protection of the
birth mother and the protection of the child.
…[6] The
meaning of the term “conceived” as used in ss (2) (e) (iv) is critical to the
court’s jurisdiction in this case. This is because the embryo was created years
before the surrogacy arrangement, then frozen and not implanted in th
e uterus
until months after the written arrangement was settled. The question now is
whether the reference to pre conception as the cut-off point in ss (2) (iv)
means before the creation of the embryo or simply any time before the
transformation of the embryo into a pregnancy. If it were the earlier point in
time, the court would have no power to make a parentage order for LCH.
What does “conceived” mean?
[7] The act
offers no definition. This appears to be the first time a court has been asked
to interpret ss (2) (e) (iv). Nonetheless, the answer seems
straightforward.
Whatever approach to statutory
interpretation is applied, whether it is to view “conceive” as a technical
term, or in its everyday meaning, or the meaning that best advances the
purposes the Act, the result is the same. The point of conceiving a child is
the commencement of the pregnancy, which involves an active process within a
woman’s body.
The everyday meaning
[8] The
phrase “conceived a child” is in common usage. It is commonly understood to
refer to an actual pregnancy.
[9] One must
examine the context of the provision. This
is a provision about surrogacy. As expressed in s 5, the purpose(s) of the Act
are to safeguard the interests of the child and regulate surrogacy agreements.
There is an underlying intention to protect the birth mother from duress to
surrender her child. Such issues only emerge after a pregnancy occurs. The Act
applies to all forms of conception. The use of invitro fertilisation is now
widespread. In my experience when lay people talk about IVF treatments they
tend to reserve the term “conceive” for the circumstance where an embryo
actually takes to the uterus and the woman succeeds in becoming pregnant as
distinct from even
the
procedure of implantation. I am satisfied that in the ordinary everyday
language of the community, the term “conceive a child” means more than what can
be achieved in a test tube and refers to the commencement of a pregnancy in a
woman’s body. This is consistent with the current editions of both the Oxford
English dictionary and the Macquarie Dictionary. They define “conceive” as,
inter alia, “to become pregnant”. The former publication also defines
“conceived”, the adjective, as “brought into embryonic existence in the womb”.
[10] To
construe the cut off point in s 22 (2) (e) (iv) as the point of pregnancy (and
therefore after fertilisation) is also consistent with the definition of “surrogacy arrangement “ in s 7 of the Act.
[11] AKV’s eggs
were fertilised and preserved before she underwent the emergency procedure that
saved her life but left her unable to carry her own children. This was before
the Surrogacy Act had come into existence. It was therefore impossible for her
to enter into an arrangement under the Act before the embryos were created. The same situation is likely to confront any
woman undergoing emergency procedures in the future, notwithstanding the commencement
of the Act. A woman, although desirous of having a baby,
would have
little hope of securing a compliant surrogacy arrangement in
advance of
an emergency hysterectomy, given the requirements for the identification of a
willing surrogate, proper counselling and legal advice with time to reflect on
all of the implications. The Act is intended to help such people in genuine
need of surrogacy.
[12] Therefore,
to interpret the preconception condition as condition to be satisfied before
fertilisation would not only be contrary to the ordinary language of the
provision, it would frustrate the underlying intention of the Act. There is no
reason to reach beyond the common language for the interpretation of s 22 (2)
(e) (iv).
The expert evidence
[13] The
court has an affidavit from Dr Justin Nasser, an obstetrician and gynaecologist
involved in the case, as well as various definitions from medical dictionaries.
Of course, the construction of the statute is a matter for the court, not
doctors, but the expert evidence of the biological processes is relevant to
that task. According to Dr Nasser:
“The
creation of the embryos in 2008 was an act of fertilization. Fertilization is a
step on the path way to conception. Many eggs fertilise but many fewer
pregnancies are conceived. The act of conception or the act of conceiving the
pregnancy was the actual embryo transfer and the subsequent implantation of
that embryo into the uterus of Lisa over the next couple of days with the
eventual positive pregnancy test approximately two week after 7 July 2011...
The act of conceiving in this case is viewed as the act of achieving a pregnancy.
Therefore, I view the conception of LCH as occurring from the
embryo
transfer on 7 July 2011.” Dr Nasser’s professional distinction between
the processes
of fertilisation and conception is consistent with the common understanding of
what it means to conceive a child. The same can be said of the preponderance of
definitions from the medical dictionaries cited.
Authorities outside of the jurisdiction
[14] Despite
extensive research, the parties have found only one case in which the notion of
conception was considered. This is the English case of
R (John
Smeaton on Behalf of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children) v the
Secretary of State for Health. It was
about the legality of
the morning
after pill and therefore approached the issue of conception
in the
context of sexual intercourse rather than
scientific
intervention. The distinction is not a relevant one as regards the true
meaning of
conception. Professor James Owen Drife, Professor of Obstetrics and
Gynaecology
at the University of Leeds, and, a Vice-President of the Royal College of
Obstetricians and Gynaecologists had testified in this way:
“In my view
pregnancy begins when the pregnancy test is positive, some ten to fourteen days
after conception. My reasons relate to the large numbers of fertilised oocytes
which are believed to be lost during the normal menstrual cycle. I do not
believe these can be described as “pregnancies”. When teaching students, I
describe the processes of spermatogenesis, ovulation and fertilisation as a
continuum with implantation and early pregnancy development. I reserve the term
“pregnancy” for the phase after implantation. When talking to patients, I would
not use the term “pregnancy” until a pregnancy test was positive or a menstrual
period had been missed.”
[15] The weight of evidence in that case led Munby
J to conclude:
“Put very
simply, there are two key stages in the biological process following sexual
intercourse:
i) The first is fertilisation. This takes
place after the man’s sperm and the
woman’s
egg have met...
ii) The other key stage is implantation.
This takes place after the fertilised egg
has moved into the womb. It involves a process by which the fertilised egg physically attaches itself to
the wall of the womb. The process
does not start until, at the earliest, some four days after the commencement of fertilisation. The process of
implantation itself takes some days.”
Conclusion
The regulation of ART and surrogacy in Australia will
inevitably be slower than the innovations occurring throughout the world. How
that regulation will change remains unknown, but future shocks are likely. What
the future holds we do not know.
We continue to live in interesting times.
© Stephen Page
Harrington
Family Lawyers
8 February 2016
[1] Partner,
Harrington Family Lawyers, Brisbane, Australia. Stephen is a Fellow of AAARTA.
He was admitted as a solicitor in 1987, and has been an accredited family law
specialist since 1996. He is an international representative on the American
Bar Association’s Artificial Reproductive Technologies Committee, and is the
principal advocate and co-author of that Committee’s draft paper on the
proposed Hague surrogacy convention. Stephen has advised clients about
surrogacy and fertility issues from all eight Australian jurisdictions and at
last count 21 overseas countries. In 2012 he obtained a world first precedent
that conception occurs with pregnancy, not fertilization.
[2] Jane Cowan, Foreign Correspondent, Australian Broadcasting
Corporation, “The Last Resort”, 8/7/14: http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/archives_2014.htm .
[3] Translated from
the French: plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
[5] Australian
Broadcasting Corporation
[16] Convention of 5 October 1961 concerning the powers of authorities and the law applicable in respect of the protection of infants http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.text&cid=39
[23] LAX being one plane flight from Brisbane,
Sydney and Melbourne, and Las Vegas just a quick hop over from LAX.
[24] Taken from figures supplied to me by
clients. All figures are in Australian dollars.
[25] This includes the hidden costs of getting
there and back, accommodation, and getting the baby home.
[26] This
one is a guesstimate based on legal costs involving a bitter surrogacy
litigation some years ago. I was not involved.
[28] One
for everybody, then a separate counsellor for the intended parents, and then a
separate counsellor for the surrogate and her partner. Not surprisingly the
parties could have different versions of what was agreed.
No comments:
Post a Comment