infertility |

On Mother’s Day we celebrate our own mothers and our children celebrate us. It is a day to acknowledge the sheer hard work of raising children, how we come to have them and family units in different sizes and forms, but the focus is on mothers.

Only women can be mothers. Only women can become pregnant, give birth and breastfeed and ‘mother’ is both a social term and a legal one. The legal definition was in response to scientific developments in IVF, where egg donor conceived pregnancies created the question of what a mother is. Subsequently, two sub-categories or ‘gestational’ and ‘traditional’ surrogacy were also created. Prior to this there was no confusion about the meaning of the word ‘mother’.

The 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (Section 27) defines ‘mother’ as

“the woman who is carrying or has carried a child as a result of the placing in her of an embryo or of sperm and eggs, and no other woman, is to be treated as the mother of the child”.

In other words, the woman who gives birth has legal rights and responsibilities and the woman who provides the egg for that embryo does not. Before this law, the word mother had one meaning which everyone understood. The only deviation and subsequent sub-subcategory was when legal rights and responsibilities were transferred from a birth mother to an adopting mother. IVF of this nature created an additional sub-category; genetic mother.

The definition of the noun ‘surrogate’ is:

a substitute, especially a person deputising for another in a specific role or office

For me, in surrogacy, the person deputising or standing in for the mother is the commissioning parent; an adult – male or female – who not only commissioned the child into being but is the social parent caring for and raising the child, as a result of an arranged pregnancy, with or without a contract. This person – as single people can obtain a child through surrogacy in the UK – or couple, later become the legal parent/s when a parental order is granted by the family court. A parental order cannot be applied for, under the current law, before the newborn reaches 6 weeks old. So these people are not the legal parents from birth and there is always (as with adoption) a birth mother, regardless of how invisible they might want her to be.

Proposed law reform would see a seismic shift with the introduction of a ‘new pathway’. This would allow for parental rights for the commissioning couple to be transferred during the pregnancy, with a pre-birth order (like that seen in commercial surrogacy arrangements, a model we are told is rejected by the Law Commission and pro-surrogacy lobbyists). That’s right, whilst the woman is still pregnant, the baby inside her doesn’t belong to her and in fact someone else has legal parental rights to the child she has not yet given birth to.

The idea that a child you have within your body belongs to someone else has lead to what I consider to be dangerous and deceptive discourse around surrogacy. Euphemistic language begins with ‘surrogate’, where the word mother doesn’t feature at all, (or worse ‘gestational carrier’) and ends with the claim that the mother is ‘giving the baby back’. Back to where, where the original order was made? The baby is not returning to the place they began. With IVF that would mean taking the child to a lab where they were conceived. No, this claim refers to handing the baby over to the strangers they may or may not be related to. (Under current UK law and reform proposals, the requirement for one commissioning parent to be genetically related to the child remains.)

The dominating theory here is that the genetics are equal to ownership and that pregnancy and birth are minor details. This denies the reality of how babies are made, with or without a Petri dish. It dismisses the mother baby bond, something agencies and proponents of surrogacy, denies exist. Academics will downplay the sharing of cells in the womb as “a mere fantasy of romanticism”.

Some supporters of surrogacy prefer to dehumanise the woman, reducing her to an electrical appliance, calling women ‘ovens’ and the baby a ‘bun’. Or they consider having a baby for others to be ‘extreme babysitting’ – like Ultra Marathons or Free Solo climbing. Something that is impressive in the danger and fraught with risk. (I’m not convinced that the medical risks are fully explained to surrogacy candidates prior to conception or implantation.) Saying a pregnant woman is simply ‘babysitting’ is an insult to motherhood and it seeks to separate the mother and baby and reduce pregnancy to a bodily function or a paid role. There may be more truth in this than was intended.

In surrogate motherhood, a genetic is unimportant, whilst the genetic link between the baby and the commissioning parent/s is paramount. In surrogacy, the natural maternal bond is dismissed as emotional and romantic and known science of maternal-foetal microchimerism is waved away, but the legal definition remains – even if a woman becomes pregnant with an embryo made from another woman’s egg, she, “and no other woman”, is the mother.

We wish every mother, whether she wants to be thought as one or not, a Happy Mother’s Day.

I was pleased to see coverage of a recent surrogacy dispute in the mainstream media last week. Pro-surrogacy lobbyists say these cases are rare but we cannot be sure of this. The family court is closed to the public and it is only with the judges’ permission that details of a case be released to the press. It was Julie Bindel who sought permission to write on the case of Z (the child) and her article was published in The Critic in June, with the mainstream press picking it up in The Times, The Telegraph and the Daily last week, so it it feels like a good time to revisit this particular case.

I am limited in what I can share for obvious reasons, but I can say that I am honoured to know and support the surrogate mother from when we met 3 years ago to today. She is the picture of dignity and strength in incredibly challenging circumstances.

When such disputes happen there are lifelong consequences for all involved. Perhaps what pro-surrogacy lobbyists mean is that it rare for judges in the family court to rule in favour of the surrogate mother. Such as this case where the commissioning parents were not entirely honest about a condition one of them suffered from and the surrogate mother wanted to withdraw her consent as she considered them to be unsuitable parents. The child was placed in foster care.

Or the case of a surrogate mother who, as she already had a large family and with no genetic connection to the child, the judge decided that the commissioning couple should retain custody. The surrogate mother is allowed to visit the child 6 times a year. (Significantly, in this case, the court notes state that a parental order “tells one nothing about what the best welfare arrangements for the child will be after birth.”)

We know of UK cases where there is significant pressure on a surrogate mother to agree to the parental order and situations when her consent is not forthcoming it can be ‘dispensed with’. Marie Anne wrote of her experience and told us that counsel for commissioning parents argued that because a UK surrogate mother had tragically died and was therefore unable to give her consent, so should she, a very much alive surrogate mother, have her consent dispensed with. (It’s likely that the wider public wouldn’t believe this unless they read about it in the papers or heard it on the news, but coverage of Marie Anne’s case was wholly positive at the time.)

These cases are complex and I am not a lawyer, but my reading of the case of Z it is that the commissioning parents had the early intention to remove the mother from their lives once they got what they wanted; the child. It was never their intention to have her as an extended family member, despite what they promised. The court proceedings made it clear that commissioning couple didn’t want a mother in Z’s life, there was “no vacancy to fill” and G, the surrogate mother was referred to as “just an egg donor”.

By applying this reductive, dehumanising language and failing to acknowledge reality and her role as mother, their aim to sever the connection with her child was made starkly clear.

Some say that G could have changed her mind and kept her son but once ‘signed up’ to surrogacy, it is very difficult to back out. It’s not a matter of simply changing your mind. You are pregnant with child you are told is not yours.

Whilst within the legal limits, a surrogate mother can access an abortion in the UK, but an article from New Zealand, where the laws are similar to ours, a woman terminated her surrogacy pregnancy and a politician (with now two surrogate born babies) put forward a private members Bill. The wording of which alludes to access for abortion in a surrogacy pregnancy possibly coming under threat.

“Labour MP Tāmati Coffey, who, with his partner Tim Smith, welcomed their son Tūtānekai by surrogate in 2019, currently has a members’ bill in ballot calling for modern laws for modern families. It includes reform of birth certificates, providing a way to enforce surrogacy arrangements and creating a register of potential surrogates.”

Outrageously, accusations of homophobia were made of G. In my view this (along with a legal argument of human rights) this was done to garner sympathy, claim victimhood and tarnish G as bigoted. If a woman was homophobic would she seek to engage in having a baby for a same-sex couple? No.

Whilst social services were in support of the two men the clinical psychologist in the case said “The fathers…claimed that they are a ‘motherless’ family” and it is from here we get the title of this blog: “Motherless’ doesn’t exist.”

Ultimately the judge ruled in the best interests of the child and that was for the child to know his mother and have an ongoing relationship. It is an unprecedented decision where “free and unconditional consent that is required by section 54(6) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008” was central to the ruling.

Had all parties stuck to the original agreement then the situation would undoubtedly be entirely different for the adults and more importantly, very different for the child. But the State cannot legislate to force a friendships in any form and this case demonstrates how the ‘friendship’ was temporary, one sided and transactional. It was not based on the natural-founded and enduring friendships we are led to believe is common in surrogacy.

Readers should be reminded that reform proposals seek to introduce a model of commercial surrogacy where a pre-birth order transfers the parental rights at birth. The mother gives her consent to transfer her parental rights before the birth but she is not required to confirm her consent afterwards. The Law Commissions of England and Wales and Scotland found this to ‘disrespect’ her autonomy:

“A requirement for further consent after birth also suggests that the surrogate’s consent before conception is not adequate, which does not respect her autonomy.” ~ Law Commission’s Core Report, Page 37.

But as we know from this case, a lot can change between conception and birth.

With the ‘cooling-off period‘ (which I use deliberately as a contractual term) much reduced from 6 months to just 6 weeks after the birth, a surrogate mother has much less time to raise the alarm, decide to try to reclaim her parental rights or instruct lawyers. Under the Law Commission’s preferred model her name has already been removed from the birth certificate. Her name, rights and role in the child’s identity documents, knowledge of their relatives and experience of their family has been erased from the outset.

Thankfully, this is not the case for Z who will know his mother but it would have been very different had reform been in place at the time.

We would like to thank the legal team who supported G and we invite anyone who is or knows a surrogate mother with regret to contact us.