The case involved a father who was convicted for sexual offences against his step daughters. On being released from prison, his ex-partner applied to the court to terminate his parental responsibility because the father wanted to have contact with his biological son who lives with his half sisters (the victims).

In passing the judgement, Mr Justice Baker made it clear that as a starting point it should be the view of the court that once parental responsibility has been obtained this should not be terminated for anything less than solid reasons. That said, this needed to be weighed up against the child’s interests, being the paramount consideration.

In presenting his decision, the judge acknowledged the importance of the need of the child (D), to grow up with some understanding of his origins and, whenever possible, (have) a relationship with each biological parent. He balanced this need against the importance of the child’s overall and future emotional wellbeing and security. In ordering that the father’s parental responsibility be terminated Mr Justice Baker said that the reason for this conclusion was that “in this case there (was) no element of the bundle of responsibilities which his father could in present or foreseeable circumstances exercise in a way that would be beneficial for D”.

If you would like to discuss your situation or you would like more information on our parenting and children law work, please click here or email louisa.ghevaert@porterdodson.co.uk or telephone Louisa on +44 (0)207 222 1244.

Tonya Collins, 37, of Modesto, California, established a surrogacy agency, SurroGenesis, which she used as a front to carry out a scheme to defraud prospective parents between November 2006 and March 2009, directing them to pay their funds into an independent personal property escrow company. During investigations by the FBI, it emerged that, in fact, Ms Collins owned the escrow company in question and had used the money deposited by intended parents to fund her lavish lifestyle. She is reported to have used the funds to purchase expensive cars, homes, jewellery, clothing and vacations for herself and others.

US Attorney Wagner said “Tonya Collins orchestrated a cruel fraud, the effects of which are still being felt by the victims. She not only stole victim’s funds from their escrow accounts, but in many cases caused other injuries to victims, permanently foreclosing certain victims’ ability to proceed with a surrogate pregnancy for which they had planned for many years.”

In addition to her prison sentence, Ms Collins has also been ordered to pay restitution to her victims. She will begin her jail term on 27 June 2013, whilst a hearing to determine restitution amounts due to each victim has been scheduled for 29 July 2013.

This case illustrates the palpable problems and risks associated with international surrogacy and unregulated surrogacy agencies. Whilst many intended parents have a positive surrogacy experience and achieve their goal of a much-wanted child, some (as in this case) are not so lucky.

If you would like to discuss your situation or you would like more information about surrogacy, please click here or email louisa.ghevaert@porterdodson.co.uk or telephone Louisa on +44 (0)207 222 1244.

Zach is the co-lead in one of 2013′s most anticipated movies, Star Trek: Into Darkness, in which he has reprised his role as everyone’s favourite half-Vulcan, Spock.

Off-screen, though, Zachary remains a leading man. He became Hollywood’s first openly-gay blockbuster actor when he decided to come out in 2011; boldly going where no A-lister has gone before. His unique candour and public commitment to LGBT equality, combined with his commanding roles in cult franchises 24, Heroes, and, of course, Star Trek, has won him legions of dedicated fans.

Louisa’s article looks at Zachary’s journey to-date and where the now-happily-partnered actor might like to head next, as well as discussing some of the legal issues gay parents-to-be need to consider. To read the full article, click here.

At present, there exists no Chinese law specifically relating to the practice of surrogacy. Instead, surrogacy is effectively prohibited by laws introduced in 2001, which ban the trade of fertilised eggs and embryos and therefore prevent hospitals from performing procedures that involve that process, such as surrogacy. As a result, the practice has been pushed underground.

In spring last year, the Chinese Health Ministry convened a panel of experts to discuss surrogacy and associated issues. This panel comprised experts in medicine, law and sociology, whose task was to evaluate surrogacy as an assisted reproductive technology, through the lense of Chinese ethics and tradition.

This move was prompted by a high profile surrogacy case involving a couple from the southern city of Guangzhou, who reportedly paid almost 1m yuan (£100,000) for the help of two surrogates to carry their eight babies simultaneously. In a country that has a single-child policy, practiced for several decades, this caused understandable concern to the government.

That case was unusual but it exposed the practice of surrogacy in China driven by economic benefits and the desire to have children. It is thought that 10 -15 % of China’s two billion population suffers with infertility. In 2010, the Guangzhou-based newspaper Southern Metropolis Weekly estimated that in the preceding 30 years there had been almost 25,000 children born through surrogacy in China.

Some Chinese surrogacy agencies advertise on the internet, where upwards of 30,000 intended parents gather in online chat communities. Some of these agencies provide a variety of surrogacy ‘packages’, from ‘economy’ to ‘luxury’, and will often fly surrogates abroad for the purposes of embryo transfer and fertilisation. This causes concerns about the treatment of surrogates and the care they are provided post-birth in circumstances where much of the practice takes place away from regulatory bodies. Some surrogates reside in ‘surrogate dorms’ for the duration of their pregnancy where they must adhere to a strict routine. This includes set sleeping periods and non-disclosure of the dorm’s location to friends and family members.

As such, the Chinese government’s expert panel was convened so as to coincide with a nationwide crackdown on violations of the 2001 laws, including those practicing surrogacy. In the intense media speculation that has followed, one of the expert panellists, a reproductive medicine professional, claimed that as a result of the panel’s findings it was likely that China would legalise surrogacy within 5 to 10 years. This has since been flatly denied by government spokesmen within the Health Ministry, who maintain that there will be no such changes to laws governing surrogacy.

Click here for more information about surrogacy law or contact louisa.ghevaert@porterdodson.co.uk or call +44 (0)207 222 1244.

The ABA conference was well attended by specialist assisted reproduction and family lawyers from across the US and beyond and it offered a variety of speaking and training programmes on subjects as varied as developments in international assisted reproduction law to pet custody law and practice.

Louisa joined an international panel of specialist lawyers from Australia, Argentina and the US, all of whom provided updates on recent assisted reproduction case law and policy changes in what remains a fast moving area.  Louisa presented a comprehensive overview of the differing and often fragmented approaches to fertility and assisted reproduction law across Europe and the complex legal issues arising within the  international fertility sector. 

In the absence of international consensus on assisted reproduction law and policy, ABA’s commitment to assisted reproduction and its work within the global fertility sector plays a valuable role in improving awareness and understanding of the complex practical, legal and policy issues associated with fertility treatment, donor conception, surrogacy and alternative family formation.

The ABA conference was set against the stunning backdrop of the Alaskan landscape, which boasted unrivalled access to the state’s glaciers, coastline, flora and fauna.  The conference staged a breathtaking train trip along the coast, enabling lawyers to come together as a group to discuss their legal practice and share information as well as enjoy some of the world’s most beautiful natural heritage.

If you would like to discuss more information about the legal issues arising from fertility treatment, donor conception, surrogacy or alternative family formation please click here or email louisa.ghevaert@porterdodson.co.uk or call +44 (0)207 222 1244.

The most recent case relates to an Indian surrogate mother who carried twins for Norwegian intended parents. Sadly, the surrogate died of hepatitis shortly after giving birth late last year. When the story was reported in Norway’s Aftenposten last month, critics were quick to highlight part of the report that suggested the surrogate, who had children of her own, had been financially motivated to become a surrogate mother.

Norwegian fertility law, much like that of its Scandinavian neighbours, Sweden, is less than straightforward. Norwegian state institutions take a dim view of surrogacy. Indeed, the state directorate for children’s and family issues (Bufetat), likens commercial surrogacy to human trafficking.

As things stand, surrogacy is illegal in Norway. Nevertheless, increasing numbers of Norwegians find the solution to their fertility issues abroad, in a foreign destinations that permits surrogacy, such as India, the Ukraine or the US, effectively breaking Norwegian surrogacy law. The matter was brought to public attention earlier this year when Norway’s crown Princess, Mette-Marit, travelled to India to care for surrogate-born twins whose intended parents were friends of hers, and who had been unable to make the necessary VISA arrangements to attend the twins’ birth. Despite having seemingly broken Norwegian law, Mette-Marit, who used her diplomatic status to circumvent India’s newly tightened VISA regime, faced no political criticism or police involvement upon her return to Norway.

The Norwegian police found itself in an unprecedented situation. Indeed, Øystein Mæland, the former head of Norwegian state police, who resigned last year in the wake of a damning report into the police’s handling of the Breivik terrorist attacks, has two surrogate-born children of his own. Like many other Norwegian couples, he and his partner, Rolf, enlisted the help of a Californian surrogate mother. Mr Mæland is also a close personal friend of Norway’s Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg.

It is cases such as this that have prompted calls for the Norwegian parliament to update its surrogacy laws. In particular, one of Prime Minister Stoltenberg’s Labour Party colleagues, state secretary Nina Tangnæs Grønvold, has advocated that the law be changed to reflect the reality that Norway’s biotechnology laws do not apply outside of the country, meaning that the purchase of surrogacy services abroad cannot be prosecuted within Norway.

It is a position that is fiercely contested by the Labour Party’s coalition partner, the Center Party, whose MPs have confirmed that they will not support the Prime Minister if he seeks to change surrogacy laws.

However, any potential policy shift seems unlikely to benefit intended parents considering surrogacy in India. In the wake of India’s own recent policy changes, intended to reflect the complicated mismatch of surrogacy laws worldwide that has sometimes seen surrogate-born children stranded stateless and parentless, the Indian state ministry now requires official written confirmation from intended parents’ country of origin  that surrogacy is an accepted practice within that country, amongst other requirements. Without such confirmation, and assurances that a child born through surrogacy will be able to return with the intended parents to their country of origin, India will not issue couples the necessary documentation to allow them to enter the country for the purposes of surrogacy. Norway has thus far refused to provide such assurances, making India, for the time being, very much off-limits for Norwegian intended parents.

Click here for more information about surrogacy law or email louisa.ghevaert@porterdodson.co.uk or call +44 (0)207 222 1244.

Initial relations between Crystal and the IPs were positive. Sadly, things fell apart following an ultrasound when Crystal was five months pregnant. The scan revealed that the unborn child, now referred to as ‘Baby S’, had serious foetal abnormalities and was likely to have been born with a variety of very serious, life-threatening health conditions. The IPs, at the suggestion of a genetic counsellor, requested that Crystal terminate the pregnancy following a termination provision in the surrogacy arrangement that both Crystal and the IPs had signed off. Crystal refused on personal grounds. Thereafter began a complicated  legal wrangle between Crystal and the lawyers for the IPs, who, according to Connecticut law, were the unborn child’s legal parents.

Initially, the IPs offered Crystal the $10,000 to try and persuade her to undergo a termination. When Crystal refused, lawyers for the IPs threatened legal action against her. If Crystal was unwilling to keep to the contract, they would instead seek to remove Baby S from her upon the child’s birth.

In the face of mounting legal pressure and financial difficulties Crystal made the decision to head 700 miles west to the state of Michigan. In Michigan, surrogacy contracts are not considered binding and if, as she planned, Crystal carried the pregnancy to term, she would remain the baby’s legal mother upon birth.

With two children of her own, Crystal had no intention of caring for Baby S herself.  Instead, she found a family willing to adopt a child with such serious health conditions with whom, Crystal says, Baby S is a “lively, thriving little girl.” The IPs have now given up their parental rights in exchange for being able to keep in touch with Baby S’s adoptive parents.

Whilst highly unusual, this particular case highlights the inherent risk involved with surrogacy arrangements. In particular, it underlines the potential vulnerability of all parties when dealing with such sensitive issues and emphasises the importance of obtaining expert legal advice before undertaking any such arrangement. Please visit the surrogacy area of our website to read more on this subject. If you would like more information about surrogacy law please email louisa.ghevaert@porterdodson.co.uk or call +44 (0)207 222 1244.

Leia Picard, CEO of Ontario-based Canadian Fertility Consultants (CFC), is charged with numerous offences under both Canadian assisted-reproduction legislation and the Canadian Criminal Code.

The case first hit headlines last year, following an investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and is understood to be the first case of its kind in Canada.

In 2011, the  Canadian Supreme Court changed much of the existing legislation contained in the 2004 Assisted Human Reproduction Act but retained a ban on the commercial purchase of eggs, sperm and surrogacy services.

Nevertheless, for almost a decade since the Act was first introduced, some organisations have walked a fine line. Until recently, though, no serious investigation was ever launched.

CFC is understood to provide a ‘fixed price’, ‘full-service’ surrogacy consultancy.  In Canada, as in the UK, surrogates may only be compensated reasonable expenses, and in Canada these must be evidenced with receipts.  CFC required intended parents to hand over large amounts of money.

Suspicions are thought to have been raised by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, which allegedly uncovered a connection between CFC and Hillary Neiman, the US Maryland-based lawyer who was jailed in 2011 for her part in an international baby-selling ring, based in the US.  It is understood that Hillary Neiman allegedly may have had dealings with Leia Picard, although neither Leia Picard  nor CFC are believed to have had any involvement in the offences for which Hillary Neiman was convicted.

The subsequent year-long investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police culminated in a raid of the offices of CFC, during which the RCMP froze assets, confiscated documents and seized computer equipment for the purposes of examination.

Leia Picard the CFC and their supporters were defiant, arguing she had been wrongly accused; a victim of unjust and unnecessarily restrictive legislation that did little more than put further hurdles before already suffering infertile couples.

It was not until February this year, however, that charges were brought.  Leia Picard and CFC have been charged with  various offences of buying or offering to buy sperm and eggs,  buying or offering to buy the services of a surrogate mother, and charges of taking money to arrange such services.  In addition, they are also charged with various counts of forgery under the Criminal Code.

Soon after news of the charges broke, Leia Picard commented on Facebook that her lawyers were preparing a ‘game changing’ Constitutional challenge to the remaining components of the 2004 Act, stating that ‘… in time, and through the judicial process, I will be cleared of all charges.’

The case took another turn this week, however, when news broke that, amongst the allegations relating to payments, CFC allegedly falsified  information and documents about egg donors and surrogates. Leia Picard’s lawyers refused to be drawn on these matters. The accuracy of a donor’s profile and medical records is, of course, of paramount importance to donor recipients who may never have the opportunity to meet that donor in person or carry out independent checks.  Some allege this could cast new light on the situation.

This highlights the risks associated with surrogacy and the need to ensure that great care is taken to comply with surrogacy law. Please visit the surrogacy area of our website to read more on this subject.  If you would like more information about surrogacy law please contact louisa.ghevaert@porterdodson.co.uk or call +44(0) 207 222 1244.

Sir Robert’s work, together with his colleague Patrick Steptoe, has helped transform the lives of millions of couples – providing hope of a much wanted child where previously there had been none.

Born in 1925, in the Yorkshire mill-town of Batley, Sir Robert was one of three boys. He joined the army in 1943 upon leaving school, serving mostly in Palestine. Upon demobilisation, in 1948, Sir Robert returned to his studies, at the University of North Wales, where he read zoology. In 1955, Sir Robert completed his Ph.D at the Universty of Edinburgh’s Institute of Animal Genetics, before accepting a position as a biochemist at Glasgow University.

In 1968, Sir Robert, then a researcher at Cambridge University, was introduced to Patrick Steptoe, a Manchester-based gynaecological surgeon. Sir Robert’s early research was in the egg maturation and fertilisation processes of animals, to show that eggs could be matured according to a predetermined schedule as the result of hormone treatment, and since the 1950s, he had long believed that the processes he was developing could be similarly used to help humans. With Patrick’s help, Sir Robert was determined to further his research in this area.

Early efforts to fertilise human eggs proved unsuccessful, whilst their research was further hampered by the unsupportive approach of colleagues in the medical community. Nevertheless, undeterred, in 1969 the two men succeeded in creating the first fertilised human embryo. With the financial help of a private donor from the US (the Medical Research Council refused to fund the studies) they were able to proceed with their research at a cottage hospital in Oldham, where they attempted the world’s first human embryo transfers.

There followed five long  years of failure until, in November 1977, they succeeded in implanting a fertilised embryo in the womb of Lesley Brown, who, together with her husband John, had endured more than a decade of infertility. The following July, Louise Joy Brown, the world’s first ‘test tube baby’, was born. The news was monumental. Not everyone approved, however. At the time, the Vatican said that Louise’s birth would have “grave consequences for humanity.”

Further IVF-conceived children followed and, in 1980, Sir Robert and Patrick established Bourn Hall, Cambridge, the world’s first dedicated IVF clinic. Throughout the 1980s there was a slow but steady acceptance of the practice, which mirrored the gradual rehabilitation of Sir Robert and Patrick, who had been all but ostrasized by the medical fraternity during the early years of their research. By the time of Patrick Steptoe’s death, in 1988, more than 1,000 children had been born through IVF.

Today, that figure is well into the millions. In 2010, when Sir Robert Edwards was finally awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology for ‘the development of in vitro fertilisation,’ more than 4.5 million children born worldwide were conceived using IVF. Sir Robert always held a special fondness for Louise Brown, his first successful embryo transfer, even attending her wedding in 2005. Louise, who now has two children of her own, remarked that she was saddened to learn of the death of Sir Robert: ‘I’ve always regarded Robert Edwards as like a grandfather to me. His work, along with Patrick Steptoe, has brought happiness and joy to millions all over the world by enabling them to have children.’

Sir Robert is survived by his wife, Ruth, their five children, and their 12 grandchildren.

If you would like more information about the laws associated with IVF and fertility treatment please email louisa.ghevaert@porterdodson.co.uk or call +44 (0)207 222 1244.

At various times a dancer, model, and actor, Charlize is perhaps best known for her roles in films as varied as Monster, The Valley of Elah, and, more recently, James Cameron’s Alien prequel, Prometheus.

Whilst she may these days call LA home, Charlize, now a US citizen, has never forgotten her African roots. Her charity, the Charlize Theron African Outreach Project, established in 2007, aims to support African youth in the battle against HIV/AIDS and she has long been an activist for international development, with the United Nations appointing her a ‘Messenger of Peace’ in 2008.

Last year, however, she adopted baby Jackson from her native South Africa, presenting Charlize with her toughest and most rewarding role yet, as a mother. Louisa’s article examines Charlize’s own fascinating journey to parenthood, from her troubled up-bringing to the rationale behind her decision to adopt as a solo-mum.

To read Louisa’s article, click here.