Tag Archives: law

What the Surrogacy Petition Debate really told us

Dressed head to toe in black, petitioner Adam Frisby and his partner Jamie arrived in Parliament moments before the debate began. They were alone.

Adam and Jamie did not appear to have the support of members of the UK surrogacy ‘community’ who have also been calling for parental rights to transfer at birth. Our understanding is that they had not engaged with other campaigners and were not entirely aligned with their objectives. Nor were they aligned with the Law Commission’s recommendations for the ‘New Pathway’, which did not call for parental rights at birth for international arrangements.

Adam and Jamie engaged with a foreign agency Circle Surrogacy (which has a London office) to match them with a woman called Krista. Krista, a single mother in Connecticut, would have been required to sign a contract before being implanted with an embryo which subsequently became her daughter, Leven Rose. Despite 6 years of research, Adam and Jamie seem not to have come across the government webpage on surrogacy and despite working with an agency that welcomes foreign clients and a lawyer, they did not appear to be informed of the necessary parental order process. At least they gave the impression on ITV’s daytime show This Morning, that they believed the pre-birth order which named them on the birth certificate in America, would apply in Greater Manchester.

The question asked of Parliament was whether the law should dispense with the state’s involvement in the permanent transfer of legal parenthood and once the debate began, the reality of what that meant became much clearer. The emotional language framing surrogacy was held up to the light and you could see right through it.

A parental order (which is 13 pages long, not 200 as was claimed) is not simply administrative paperwork. It is the legal mechanism through which the state authorises the transfer of parenthood following a surrogacy arrangement. This takes place after the child is born and requires the surrogate mother’s consent. The process therefore provides an opportunity to consider what has actually happened, rather than relying entirely on agreements and intentions made before a child existed. Whether legal parenthood is transferred before birth or at birth, the practical effect is the same and to remove the point at which the state can independently examine what has happened, removes that oversight.

The response from MPs in the room was remarkably consistent. Those speaking against the petition repeatedly raised the question of safeguarding, the commodification of children and the rapid increase of international surrogacy. Concerns for women and exploitation in surrogacy were constantly mentioned and it quickly became clear that automatic parenthood from birth in surrogacy would remove the state’s ability to be informed of the circumstances surrounding these arrangements. Even among the MPs supporting surrogacy, there was recognition that some form of a cooling-off period for the surrogate mother was necessary. That should tell us something.

International surrogacy was central to the policy question Parliament was considering, because like Adam and Jamie and other UK commissioning parents, and collectively British Citizens and the government participate in the international market in which the laws, safeguards and protections for women and children vary enormously.

MPs who spoke against the petition understood this but one intervention was particularly troubling. Rachel Taylor, speaking about consent, said:

“We need to strengthen checks for consent in surrogacy relationships, but we cannot have a situation where somebody can give consent, which has been adequately checked and monitored, and then withdraw it afterwards. We have to be careful about challenging that, because it goes to the very root of consent, and it is dangerous to do so.”

We do not accept the implication behind this argument. However inconvenient it may be, women can change their minds. Consent in any area is not permanently fixed, women (and men) are human beings, not robots. How you feel and what you decide can change. You may regret what you agreed to and you should have the ability to withdraw consent. I was reminded of this with the mention of a specific court case by Rebecca Smith, involving surrogate mother Hannah*, who I personally supported and whose case centred on exactly that issue:

“In 2023, the Court of Appeal dealt with a case where a parental order was set aside and the surrogate mother was ultimately awarded contact with the child four times a year. That child was conceived using the surrogate’s own egg. She had to fight for that contact against the wishes of the commissioning parents.”

Another significant moment in the debate was when Phil Brickell raised concerns about constituents who had had a very poor experience with My Surrogacy Journey, a UK surrogacy agency in Mexico.

“While in Mexico, they had repeated traumatic experiences with the company relating to issues including insurance for their children, accusations of bullying towards staff and repeated efforts to silence any constructive criticism. I understand that other Members of this House have received similar complaints.”

Phil Brickell called for a review of whether this agency should remain listed on the government’s surrogacy webpage. Diana Johnson confirmed that the allegations about this company would be explored.

That intervention alone demonstrates why Parliament should be extremely cautious about weakening the safeguards surrounding surrogacy. For background, this agency is run by Michael and Wes Johnson Ellis, commissioning parents of 3 surrogate born children (two were born in the UK, one in Mexico and Wes has a daughter with a former partner). Said to be worth $8m with a financial target of $20m next year, these Co-CEOs also run Ethica Fertility.

Sitting in the room, the contrast was striking. The petition was framed around one family. Adam and Jamie say they became Leven’s fathers the moment they held her but Krista became her mother from the moment of conception. However deep, genuine and steadfast their love for Baby Leven is, legal parenthood is not the same thing. Parliament should legislate for everyone, and with my great relief, the strength of support in the room for retaining safeguards for children was overwhelming.

The petition did not produce the straightforward endorsement it’s campaigners hoped for. Instead, it exposed uncomfortable questions surrounding surrogacy. Who protects the child? Who protects the woman? What happens when she changes her mind? And who, ultimately, gets to decide when a child is treated as a legal commodity transferred from one adult to another?

MPs rightly discussed the petition in full, highlighted the deeply complex nature of surrogacy agreements and ultimately concluded that transferring legal parenthood at birth is not going to happen. If Adam and Jamie want their parental rights recognised in the UK, they will have to complete the parental-order process, just like other UK commissioning parents.

Ukraine considers closing its borders to Foreign Baby Buyers

The Detail

The Government backed Bill would shut down surrogacy to foreigners. ⁠Submitted by the Cabinet of Ministers through First Vice Prime Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko and prepared by the Ministry of Health, Deputy Health Minister Yevhenii Honchar is the main public spokesperson and defender of the bill. Under the proposals:

At least one commissioning parent would need to be a Ukrainian citizen
If only one spouse is Ukrainian, the couple must have been married for at least 3 years
Foreign couples with no Ukrainian citizenship would be excluded entirely
Advertising would be banned and the export of reproductive material would be prohibited during martial law (plus 3 years).

The ‘alternative’ Bill would sanction surrogacy as a legalised practice, to operate under ‘regulation’. Submitted by MP and former journalist Oleksandr Danutsa who founded Prime-Time TOV Media Group. He sits on the Committee on Law Enforcement Activities, (not the health committee).

This Bill would require clinics to obtain a licence with annual fees so smaller agencies would struggle. In some ways this reflects the UK’s own proposals as regulatory body for fertility clinics, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) have been put forward as a national regulator to monitor agencies. The HFEA could feasibly be responsible for overseeing operations, granting licenses and managing regular inspections. Ukraine’s proposed Bill aims to weed out the smaller agencies and allow the large enterprises to continue to operate – an argument that has been applied in the UK, as small agencies cite possible licensing requirements in their decision to close.

Both bills impose limits, but one generates income whilst the other restricts the practice, limiting access to Ukraine’s own citizens. Neither goes far enough but both are a response to what is undeniable; the Ukrainian surrogacy market is out of control and something needs to be done.

Language and the Law

A more pressing concern is the new Civil Code currently being pushed through Parliament which contains a number of troubling provisions, among them are clauses which explicitly normalise and legalise surrogacy through assisted reproductive technologies. The proposed language does not merely regulate existing practices; it formally embeds surrogacy into the legal framework governing parenthood and family identity. The draft legislation ‘assigns parenthood’ regardless of which woman is pregnant with the child. Article 1524 states that when an embryo is created through assisted reproductive technologies and transferred into the body of another woman, the married couple who paid for the embryo to be created are recognised as the legal parents.

Article 1527 states that single individuals have the right to motherhood or fatherhood through assisted reproductive technologies, including arrangements involving another woman carrying the child. Legal parenthood is granted based on who provided the gametes, or to who purchased that DNA in order to conceive.

These provisions effectively separate biological gestation from legal motherhood and establish surrogacy as an accepted and protected institution under civil law. By doing so, the Code redefines parental relationships primarily through contractual and technological arrangements rather than through pregnancy and childbirth. Critics argue that these provisions normalise the outsourcing of pregnancy while reducing motherhood to a contractual or biological function. Supporters, meanwhile, frame the reforms as expanding reproductive rights and modernising family law.

This Debate is not new

Ukraine has wrestled with surrogacy before. In April 2023 an attempt was made, under martial law (plus 3 years), to ban foreign commissioning parents, with criminal penalties for violations. That Bill was withdrawn as parliament prioritised wartime legislation and emergency governance. But the issue never went away.

At the time, Ukraine was one of world’s leading destinations for international commercial surrogacy, often described as second only to the United States. CNN’s report in March 2022, less than three weeks after Russia invaded, showed newborns being cared for in ‘baby dens’. Footage from a basement flat saw women caring for the children in desperate conditions but what it revealed was perhaps even more shocking. The babies were not all ‘brand new’, some were shown holding their heads up and had been letting to languish due to a post-Covid travel ban. These were not newborns.

Similarly, BioTexCom proudly showed the basement floor of a Kyiv Hotel, with row upon row of newborn babies. The numbers of children quickly grew from 50 to approx 1,000 as surrogate mothers gave birth and commissioning parents who could not (or would not) collect their ‘orders’.

Former Children’s Commissioner Mykola Kuleba described the country’s surrogacy industry as “an international online store for babies”, arguing that commercial surrogacy had turned children into commodities and exploited economically vulnerable women.

“Commercialisation and permission to receive such a ‘service’ in Ukraine promotes the uncontrolled sale of Ukrainian children abroad” he said in May 2020. He reiterated his position in October 2025:

“Ukraine is in the abyss of becoming the country in which to buy babies at a discount price and in which women have to sell themselves so as not to go hungry.” ~ Catalunyaplural

And Mykola Kuleba is not alone. Former Minister of Culture and Tourism Oksana Bilozir, when interviewed by ABC News said “We can’t be shown as an incubator for foreigners.”

Reproductive Exploitation: Relocated

Ukraine’s agencies and fertility clinics argue that the proposed legislation goes far beyond regulation. Ihor Pechenoha, medical director of BioTexCom, dismisses proposals as “nonsense” and appears unperturbed – this may because despite the war, the industry has proven to be remarkably resilient. Denis Herman from BioTexCom explains that this is because surrogate mothers are poor. (War will not be making women richer or safer.)

Sofia Bettiza BBC Health Correspondent shared her experience discussing the proposals with agencies, in a recent documentary, agencies spoke on the proposals:

“Interestingly they weren’t too worried. They say the demand for surrogacy is huge and growing so they feel as long as there is demand they will find a way to operate and survive…they will just relocate to a different country.”

And this is a fair assumption. Russia’s invasion disrupted international surrogacy markets almost immediately but recovery was swift and barely left a dent, the numbers of babies being born through surrogacy are now at pre-war levels.

What Happens Next

Ukraine’s parliament has postponed a vote on new legislation, but the Ministry of Health has already introduced tighter regulation. Age limits for surrogate mothers and lifestyle requirements were introduced in 2024 along with additional maternity hospital procedures but restrictions did not impinge upon foreign purchasing power.

Whether Ukraine will close the door to international surrogacy entirely remains uncertain. But after years of functioning as one of the world’s largest commercial hubs, the country now appears to be moving towards a decision; will they protect women and children to some degree or will politicians vote to sacrifice them for profit and growth?

Law reform will not proceed!

1 Reply

The Times confirmed today that this government will not proceed with law reform of the 1985 Surrogacy Act, as is proposed. We are thrilled to hear this news!

Reform proposals were first jointly shared in the 2019 public consultation from the Law Commission of England and Wales, and the Scottish Law Commission. It is why this campaign formed as we stand against surrogacy because of the harm it brings to women and children.

The legal model for surrogacy in the UK is meant to be based on ‘altruistic’ surrogacy only, but ‘reasonable expenses’ are paid like a monthly salary and the total fee averages between £16,000-20,000. These are numbers from the surrogacy agencies themselves. UK agency, Brilliant Beginnings states “In the UK, which is often described as having an ‘altruistic’ surrogacy framework, surrogates typically receive £12,000 to £35,000 as expenses (which is less than in the USA, where surrogacy is commercialised and surrogates typically receive compensation of $40,000 to $90,000).”

The number of people commissioning a child in England and Wales has quadrupled. A study from Dr Kirsty Horsey, Law Professor at Loughborough University (previously a Senior research Associate at London Women’s Clinic) and My Surrogacy Journey shows that Parental Orders – where a mother transfers her parental rights to the commissioning parents or parent – rose from 117 in 2011 to 413 in 2020.

Now, approximately 500 applications for parental order go through the courts each year, and roughly half of these PO applications are for babies born abroad.

Commissioning couples or individuals living in the UK are allowed to undertake commercial surrogacy arrangements abroad and bring a child back to this country, despite commercial surrogacy being illegal here. UK Adoption laws prevent international adoption from countries due to safeguarding and exploitation risks, such as Nigeria, Cambodia, Guatemala, Nepal, Haiti, and Ethiopia – but there is no such list for surrogacy. Minimal safeguards are applied and we are aware of several examples where a convicted child sex offender obtains a child through a commercial surrogacy arrangement abroad and others who planned to obtain a child through surrogacy for the purposes of abuse.

Whilst the Law Commissions jointly acknowledge that international surrogacy “can bring a greater risk of exploitation of women and children” there were no proposed changes to the ‘old pathway’ which would continue to allow babies to be removed from their mothers abroad and brought into this country. It is worth remembering that children who are conceived and carried this way will likely never see their mothers again.

In fact, there is a section in reform that argues or Parental Orders to remain and operate alongside the ‘new pathway’ as “some surrogacy teams may still choose to make agreements outside of the new pathway. Closing off the parental order process to them would mean that a decision by the court about the legal parental status …would be unavailable.”

As a reminder, the ‘new pathway’ under reform would see:

The introduction of pre birth orders – so commissioning parents would secure parental rights a birth, as practiced in countries that apply the commercial model.

Lower age limits of 18 years for commissioning parents and just 21 years old for surrogate mothers – there were no proposed limits for the upper age for either of the adult parties and there were no limits for the number of pregnancies a woman could have for others.

There is no requirement for a woman to have previously given birth or completed her own family before embarking on a pregnancy for others and proposals would to continue to use surrogate mothers to have a baby for others, conceiving with her own egg – meaning at the point of handover the child is removed from their genetic mother who is also their birth mother.

(For more on what the proposals mean, read this blog or watch the video.)

So what next for us, with this news today? We are hugely grateful to the Government for this step and, with Surrogacy Concern Nordic Model Now, Object Now and our co-campaigners in Scotland, Ireland, America and internationally (Casablanca Declaration and the International Coalition Against Surrogate Motherhood), will continue to fight for a ban on this controversial, harmful practice here and around the world.

Finally, we would like to thank everyone who sent a letter to their MP using the template from Surrogacy Concern, we truly appreciate your support. Every single email sent, every conversation, every tweet or post counts. We could not do this without your support.

Surrogacy is an inherently risky and exploitative practice which needs to end.

So let’s begin.