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.
