CT Surrogacy Blog

Santa Clara Law: Same Sex Tax

2011-07-24T17:56:00.000-07:00

The Respect for Marriage Act (RMA) would repeal DOMA and provide that any marriage that was entered into legally in the place of celebration would be recognized by the federal government as a valid marriage. The bill was introduced in the House and the Senate in March of 2011. Tomorrow, July 20, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on the bill.

There are 118 cosponsors of the bill in the House (H.R. 1116), where it has been buried in the House Subcommittee on the Constitution. There are 27 cosponsors for the Senate Bill (S. 598) and Senator Feinstein predicts that the Senate Judiciary Committee has the votes to report the bill out of committee. See story here.

The bill is simple. See text here. Once a valid marriage has been entered into, that marriage must be recognized by the federal government – even if the couple then moves to a state that does not recognize the marriage. In fact, even if a couple is currently residing in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, they can travel to a recognition state to celebrate a valid marriage. The text of the bill provides that the law of the state of celebration will be determinative. There is nothing terribly unusual about this rule. Until the advent of same-sex marriage, the universal conflict of laws principle regarding the validity of a marriage was that the law of the place of celebration determined the validity. In our jurisprudence, states are free to make a different determination as to whether the law of the state of celebration is to be honored. But the federal government can make its own determination as to which marriages to honor. It did that when Congress enacted DOMA. And now RMA would create a new rule.

LGBT Family Law Institute

2011-07-23T18:07:00.000-07:00

As a member of the LGBT Family Law Institute, I will be presenting on the topic of changing surrogacy laws at an advanced surrogacy conference in September, 2011. To be held in Los Angeles, California. The issues will focus on legal parentage and how to make sure that Intended Parents secure their parental rights. Visit us at Worldwide Surrogacy Specialists, LLC

www.assistedreproductionlaw.com

Ethnic variety may be found on Bloodroot menu

2011-07-23T18:00:00.000-07:00

Ethnic variety may be found on Bloodroot menu

Gay Adoption on the rise. Yay

2011-06-14T12:36:00.000-07:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/us/14adoption.html

Growing numbers of gay couples across the country are adopting, according to census data, despite an uneven legal landscape that can leave their children without the rights and protections extended to children of heterosexual parents.

Same-sex couples are explicitly prohibited from adopting in only two states — Utah and Mississippi — but they face significant legal hurdles in about half of all other states, particularly because they cannot legally marry in those states.
Despite this legal patchwork, the percentage of same-sex parents with adopted children has risen sharply. About 19 percent of same-sex couples raising children reported having an adopted child in the house in 2009, up from just 8 percent in 2000, according to Gary Gates, a demographer at the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“The trend line is absolutely straight up,” said Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a nonprofit organization working to change adoption policy and practice. “It’s now a reality on the ground.”

That reality has been shaped by what advocates for gay families say are two distinct trends: the need for homes for children currently waiting for adoption — now about 115,000 in the United States — and the increased acceptance of gays and lesbians in American society.
The American family does not look the same as it did 30 years ago, they argue, and the law has just been slow to catch up.
Most of the legal obstacles facing gay couples intending to adopt stem from prohibitions on marriage, according to the Family Equality Council, an advocacy group for gay families. In most states, gay singles are permitted to adopt.
Though advocates for gay families can point to legal victories — court rulings in Florida last year and in Arkansas in April — they note that they are tempered by losses, such as in Arizona, which passed a law recently requiring social workers to give preference to married heterosexual couples.

“It’s two steps forward, one step back,” said Ellen Kahn, director of the Family Project at the Human Rights Campaign, a resource for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender families and the agencies that work with them.

But laws and politics aside, advocates say that more adoption agencies and social workers are seeing same-sex couples as a badly needed resource for children in government care.
“The reality is we really need foster and adoptive parents, and it doesn’t matter what the relationship is,” said Moira Weir, director of the job and family services department in Hamilton County, Ohio. “If they can provide a safe and loving home for a child, isn’t that what we want?”

The Obama administration has noted the bigger role that gays and lesbians can play in adoptions. The commissioner for the Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Bryan Samuels, sent a memo to that effect to national child welfare agencies in April.
“The child welfare system has come to understand that placing a child in a gay or lesbian family is no greater risk than placing them in a heterosexual family,” Mr. Samuels said in an interview.
The numbers are small. Mr. Gates estimates that 65,000 adopted children live in homes in which the head of the household is gay, or about 4 percent of the adopted population.
Ms. Kahn, who trains adoption agencies to work with gay and lesbian prospective parents, said that the number of agencies she works with has more than doubled over the past five years to about 50.

She added that discrimination still remains and that in some conservative states, adoption agencies that serve gay families function like an “underground railroad.”
But adoptions are happening anyway, even in places where the law does not give both parents full rights. Matt and Ray Lees, a couple in Worthington, Ohio, said they were selected as parents for a 7-month-old, ahead of several heterosexual couples, in part because they had successfully adopted two older children.
Social workers conducted detailed background checks on both of them, but under Ohio law, they must be married to adopt jointly, so when the legal adoption process began, only one could participate. (Same-sex marriage is illegal in Ohio.)

Traditional Surrogacy and Connecticut law

2011-04-24T16:30:00.000-07:00

I had an inquiry today from an Intended Parent who wishes to use a traditional surrogate from Florida. The Intended Parents reside in CT and think that they can get a pre-birth order in CT. They cannot. The recent Raftopol v. Ramie decision applies to gestational surrogacy and allows Intended Parents who are parties to a valid gestational surrogacy agreement to establish their legal parentage prior to the birth. This can be done by a proceeding in the Superior COurt. However, with a traditional surrogacy arrangement, ie, the birth mother is the genetic mother (she uses her own egg), the birth mother remains the legal mother until her rights are terminated in the probate court, and the Intended Mother must establish her legal parental rights by way of a stepparent or co-parent adoption.

Social Justice and LGBTQ Rights

2011-04-23T17:25:00.000-07:00

I spoke at Vassar College today. The conference was entitled, Social Justice and LGBTQ Rights. It was great to be among college students from Vassar, SUNY New Paltz, Brandeis, CIA, etc. and to be discussing the issues that we face today as gay people. The focus of my talk was on being a gay professional and dealing with being out as a lawyer and as a woman, and also as a mother and partner. I tried to blend my personal life with my professional life. They really do go so hand in hand. I also always enjoy telling people how Michelle says I have achieved "identity synthesis." and no, I am not going to explain that. The theme? Be yourself. Follow your path. Find work and avocations that you love.

France rules against children of surrogate mothers

2011-04-07T18:51:00.000-07:00

This is an issue when it comes to international couples in surrogacy arrangements. Lawyers need to be careful regarding the laws of the country the children will return to. It is not enough to simply make sure the U.S. birth certificate is correct.

France rules against children of surrogate mothers
France's top court refused Wednesday to allow French citizenship for 10-year-old twin girls born to a surrogate mother in the United States, in a ruling that affirmed France's legal ban on surrogacy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42450609/ns/world_news-europe/from/toolbar

Pre-Birth Orders

2011-03-03T10:33:00.000-08:00

The Raftopol v. Ramie CT Supreme Court case is now on the books and the Connecticut Judges are fully informed about its impact. The pre-birth orders that we have obtained since the decision have been granted without question or concern. The Attorney General's office has indicated that the AG no longer wants to be cited in to these cases. It is a privilege to be practicing law in the State of Connecticut and to have a specialty in the area of assisted reproductive technology law. Visit us at

www.assistedreproductionlaw.com

Arkansas rights for non-bio Mom

2011-02-21T09:04:00.000-08:00

Arkansas Supreme Court approves visitation rights for non-bio mom
In a 5-2 decision, the Arkansas Supreme Court yesterday affirmed a trial court ruling granting visitation rights to a nonbiological mother The case, Bethany v. Jones, has a familiar fact pattern. Alicia Bethany and Emily Jones had been together for five years when Bethany gave birth to a child that she and Jones planned for together. They gave the child Jones as a last name and also gave her a middle name for Jones's grandmother. (Bethany changed the child's name after the break-up). Jones was the child's primary caretaker as a stay-at-home mother for three years. The child called Jones "mommy" and Bethany "mama." She also called Jones's parents, "Grammy" and "Poppy."

The couple split up in 2008 and agreed to co-parent, but Bethany stopped contact soon after. She also began a relationship with another woman, and it appears that she wanted to raise the child in that new family constellation without Jones.

Jones filed for custody on estoppel grounds, but the court does not say anything about the merits of a claim to custody, so I assume Jones did not pursue it. The trial court awarded visitation rights on the ground that Jones stood in loco parentis to the child, and did say that Bethany was estopped from denying that status. Bethany appealed and raised the usual issues about her constitutional rights and about a slippery slope to babysitters getting custody. The court had no difficulty distinguishing the grandparents who sought visitation rights in Troxel v. Granville, the US Supreme Court case on nonparent visitation, from Jones, because of Jones's in loco parentis status. It also dismissed the slippery slope argument, citing a terrific Kentucky case about which I blogged last year.

Arkansas allows stepparents who stand in loco parentis to obtain visitation rights. Bethany had the nerve to say (as bio moms do in these circumstances), that the case establishing those rights could not be applied to Jones because Arkansas does not allow same-sex marriage or domestic partnership. The court quite rightly said that the proper focus was the relationship between Jones and the child, not the relationship between the two adults.

Next month the Arkansas Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the Arkansas v. Cole case, challenging the ban on adoption and foster parenting by anyone living with an unmarried partner (same-sex or different-sex). Of course the legal issues are completely different, but this ruling shows at a minimum that this court is willing to look at matters from the perspective of the child and that the court bears no general animosity to same-sex couples raising children. (And the court did previously strike down an administrative regulation banning gay foster parents, in another case, Howard v. Arkansas.)
As posted by Professor Nancy Polikoff
http://beyondstraightandgaymarriage.blogspot.com/

We won!! Raftopol v. Ramie

2011-02-11T13:05:00.000-08:00

PRESS RELEASE: January 10, 2011
On January 5, 2011, the Connecticut Supreme Court issued an historical decision regarding parental rights in matters involving surrogacy and gestational agreements. This is the first time in U.S. history that a state high court has created a new way by which persons may become legal parents through surrogacy.
Attorney Victoria Ferrara of the Law Firm of Victoria T. Ferrara, PC, Fairfield, Connecticut represented the Intended Parents, Anthony Raftopol and Scott Hargon throughout the litigation and the appeal. The lower court in Connecticut decided that a pre-birth court order naming the non-genetic parent, Scott Hargon, as the legal parent of the children to be born to their gestational carrier, Karma Ramey, was appropriate. The State of Connecticut appealed. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. Attorney Ferrara argued the appeal for Raftopol and Hargon. Amicus briefs were filed by GLAD, LAMBDA and the American Academy of Assisted Reproductive Technology Attorneys among others.
The Court concluded that an Intended Parent to a Gestational Carrier Agreement who has no genetic relationship to the baby may establish his or her legal parental rights by way of a Pre-Birth Court Order. There is no longer a need in Connecticut for the non-genetic parent to go through adoption proceedings. Essentially, the Court created a new way to establish parental rights. While the court stated that there were already three methods of establishing parental rights: 1) giving birth to your own child; 2) adoption; and 3) the birth of a child by way of artificial insemination, now the Court established a fourth manner to establish legal parental rights: An Intended Parent to a valid gestational agreement who is NOT genetically related to the child to be born, may establish legal parental rights by way of a pre-birth court order issued by the Superior Court of Connecticut.
This is a major and most favorable decision for Intended Parents who are using egg donors or sperm donors in their gestational carrier arrangements. And of course for gay male couples since obviously one of the Intended Parents will not be genetically related to the baby or babies.

CT Supreme Court appeal

2010-02-15T18:57:00.000-08:00

We are gearing up for the Raftopol appeal. The Superior Court judges have been ruling in favor of Intended parents to a surrogacy agreement being named on their children's birth certificates, even if they are not genetically related to the children born to the surrogate. Only one judge, Judge Boland, ruled against an intended parent. The State of CT, through the AG's office, has appealed a lower court ruling arguing that the State has an interest in the accuracy of the birth records. But what about AID, the use of egg donors and sperm donors to couples who do not use a gestational carrier. Where is the accuracy of the birth records in those cases? The case will be argued in late March. It was at the appellate court level but the CT Supreme Court took it up on its own motion. Amici briefs to be filed by GLAD and Lambda with the help of John Weltman of Circle Surrogacy.
Visit us at Worldwide Surrogacy Specialists, LLC, www.assistedreproductionlaw.com

Battle of the Blogs

2009-05-26T07:10:00.000-07:00

There's a little friendly competition going on at the law firm. Attorney Hayden has started a blog that will focus on other areas of practice at our firm. You can read it here: http://ferraralaw.wordpress.com/

Surrogate Parenting Gives Birth To Controversy

2009-05-12T08:08:00.000-07:00

Here is the article I wrote for the Connecticut Law Tribune.

You can also read it here: http://www.ctlawtribune.com/Supplements/Health_051109.pdf

A gestational carrier agreement is an agreement covering the birth of a child through surrogacy, wherein an individual or a couple enters into an agreement with a woman to carry and give birth to their child.

In some cases, the two intended parents are the genetically related parents of the child to be born. In other cases, the intended parent or parents use an egg and/or sperm donor and therefore, at least one of the intended parents is not genetically related to the child to be born. In either case, counsel has brought complaints seeking the issuance of pre-birth orders pursuant to Connecticut General Statute §7-48a for genetic and non-genetic intended parents of children being carried by gestational carriers.

Currently, Connecticut is in a state of disarray regarding the issuance of these pre-birth orders by the Superior Court. For about the past six months, the state Department of Health has objected to the Superior Court issuing orders unless the intended parents are genetically related to the child or the children.

At the Superior Court level, there is a split of authority regarding whether Conn. Gen. Stat. §7-48a, as written, allows this form of relief. The Connecticut Attorney General’s Office, through the Department of Health and Judge John D. Boland in Oleski v. Hynes (2008), has advocated that the law only allows for a genetic parent to be named on a replacement birth certificate and that the correct procedure for a non-genetic parent to obtain parental rights is through a co-parent adoption in the Probate Court.

To the contrary, Judge Lloyd Cutsumpas, in Griffiths v. Taylor (2008), and an overwhelming number of Superior Court judges have advocated that Connecticut allows for a finding of intended parentage and have signed orders supporting the same. Recently, however, once these orders are issued, the state appeals the ruling of the Superior Court, thereby delaying the implementation of the Superior Court’s order and leaving the gestational carrier as the legal parent.

This office currently represents two intended parents at the Appellate Court level (See Raftopol v. Ramey, et al). At the trial court level, Judge James G. Kenefick, granted the intended parents’ petition for a pre-birth order and the state subsequently appealed. Because the intended parents lived in Romania, they were unable to obtain jurisdiction for a co-parent adoption or enter into a same sex adoption based upon Romanian law. Accordingly, the non-genetic father has no legal parental rights until Appellate Court rules on the state’s appeal.

Until the Appellate Court hears argument on these matters and issues a decision, no representations can be made regarding the ability of any attorney to obtain a pre-birth order without the matter being appealed. Even after the Appellate Court rules, the party denied relief can petition the Supreme Court. In the final analysis, the time frame for a binding ruling from a higher court could take more than two years.

Even with the difference in viewpoints, both the courts and opposing counsel to these actions agree that the correct manner to address this issue is though the legislative process and not the courts. If the legislature does choose to address this issue, the constituency can then decide how best to clarify this legislation as opposed to judges, clerks and lawyers who attempt to infer intent through legislative histories. If the statute is not clarified, numerous issues will continue to serve as problems for parties to a gestational carrier agreement.

This office has lobbied legislators to clarify Conn. Gen. Stat. §7-48a. Rep. Thomas Drew (D-Fairfield) introduced House Bill 1137 which sought to clarify this law. The bill would authorize a court of competent jurisdiction to make a finding of intended parentage for parents of children conceived through assisted reproduction, and pursuant to a gestational carrier agreement. Currently, the bill awaits action by the state Senate. Hopefully, the legislature will take action to ensure that courts are provided with guidance in implementing these orders and are not subject to analyzing and interpreting legislative intent.

More and more individuals who either cannot conceive or cannot carry children to term are utilizing assisted reproductive clinics to make their dreams of a family a reality. To ignore this new and progressive field of medicine does a disservice to the children conceived through this form of technology and the intended parents who seek to raise their children in a loving home.

Hit the Floor

2009-04-23T08:39:00.000-07:00

Just found out that our Proposed Bill is now on the Senate floor. It's good to see that it's making progress. I'll keep you updated with any other news.

Heads-Up

2009-04-22T13:56:00.000-07:00

I just wanted to give a little heads-up: I am currently drafting an article for the Connecticut Law Tribune on the surrogacy laws in CT and legislation that is pending in the CT General Assembly. Look for the article in one of the upcoming issues of the Connecticut Law Tribune.

New Faces

2009-04-14T06:19:00.000-07:00

Just a little update on life here at the law firm:

We are very excited to be welcoming Attorney Jeremy Hayden, a graduate of Quinnipiac University School of Law, to our attorney ranks as of April 13, 2009. Attorney Hayden will bring to the firm experience and knowledge in all phases of litigation including the areas of commercial litigation, real estate, zoning law, and contractual matters.

No Nays

2009-04-07T08:50:00.000-07:00

Just a little update on our proposed Bill 1137 - received the Judiciary Committee's Vote Tally Sheet and found that there were no "nay" votes to the Bill. The Bill left the Judiciary Committee favorably with 37 "yea" votes. It is now on the Senate floor. I will continue to keep you updated on the Bill's progress.

To the Letter

2009-04-06T09:08:00.000-07:00

I just wanted to share with you the letter that I sent to Senator McDonald and Representative Lawlor, the chairs of the Judiciary Committee:

Dear Chairman McDonald and Lawlor:

On Friday, March 20, 2009 I was given the opportunity to speak on behalf of raised Bill 1137, which seeks to clarify the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. 7-48 as it relates to the issuance of replacement birth certificates for intended parents, and to amend existing law by authorizing a court of competent jurisdiction to make a finding of intended parentage for parents of children conceived through assisted reproduction, and pursuant to a gestational carrier agreement.

While we acknowledge the current split of authority at the Superior Court level regarding this statute, our position and that of an overwhelming number of Connecticut Superior Court judges is that Conn. Gen. Stat. 7-48 permits a cause of action for intended parentage. Furthermore, both the courts and opposing counsel to these actions agree that the legislative process should address this issue, allowing the constituency to then decide how to best clarify the legislation, not the courts.

It is important to emphasize that without the clarification of this statute numerous issues will continue to generate problems for parties to gestational carrier agreements and undermine the best interests of the child. First, there is the problem of the gestational carrier being unwillingly responsible, legally and financially, for a child genetically unrelated to her. Secondly, without a valid birth certificate to establish legal parentage, the child may not be able to secure health insurance through the intended parent’s carrier, or obtain other legal documents. Additionally, the parents would not have the right to make medical decisions for their child or take their child to the doctor.

It is with greater frequency that individuals who can either not conceive or not carry children to term use assisted reproductive clinics to realize their dreams of a family. To ignore this new and progressive field of medicine and cling to past, conservative construction of the law does a disservice to the children conceived in this manner and the intended parents who seek to raise their children in a loving home. The position that a non-genetic gestational carrier should be the legal parent of a child conceived through ART for the intended parents is an arcane view that does not comport with modern scientific technology.

Accordingly, we hope you will support this important legislation. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions regarding proposed Bill 1137.

Giving Testimony

2009-03-23T12:15:00.000-07:00

This past Friday, I testified before the Judiciary Committee on our proposed legislation.

The following is the testimony I presented to the committee:

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would like to begin by thanking you for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of this important legislation that seeks to clarify the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. 7-48 as it relates to the issuance of replacement birth certificates for intended parents.

Raised Bill 1137 seeks to amend existing law by authorizing a court of competent jurisdiction to make a finding of intended parentage for parents of children conceived through assisted reproduction, and pursuant to a gestational carrier agreement.

A gestational carrier agreement is an agreement covering the birth of a child through surrogacy, that is, an individual, or a couple, enter into an agreement with another woman to carry and give birth to their child. In some cases, the two intended parents are the genetically related parents of the child to be born. In other cases, the two intended parents use an egg donor and therefore, the intended mother is not genetically related to the child to be born.

Currently, there is a split of authority at the Superior Court level regarding whether the statute as written allows this form of relief. The Connecticut Attorney General’s office through the Department of Health and Judge Boland in the opinion Oleski v. Hynes has advocated for the position that Conn. Gen. Stat. 7-48 only allows for a genetic parent to be named on a replacement birth certificate and that the correct procedure for a non genetic parent to obtain parental rights is through a co-parent adoption in the Probate Court.

Accordingly, if an intended parent utilizes an egg or sperm donor to conceive the child that is being carried by the gestational carrier, the non genetic parent would not be authorized to be placed on the replacement certificate. Therefore the child would have the genetic parent, if any, and the birth mother (gestational carrier) as his or her legal parent. The non genetic parents would then have to adopt the carrier’s child via a co-parent adoption through the probate court.

To the contrary, our position and that of an overwhelming number of Connecticut Superior Court judges is that Conn. Gen. Stat 7-48 currently provides for a cause of action for intended parentage. I have provided a copy of Judge Cutsumpas’ decision in Griffiths v. Taylor which presents a concise overview of our law firm’s position on the current state of the law.

Even with the difference in viewpoints, both the courts and opposing counsel to these actions agreed that the correct manner to address this issue is though the legislative process and not the courts. If the legislature does choose to address this issue, the constituency can then decide how best to clarify this legislation as opposed to judges, clerks and lawyers who attempt to infer intent through legislative histories. If the statute is not clarified numerous issues will continue to serve as problems for parties to a gestational carrier agreement.

First, the obvious problem of a gestational carrier being legal and financially responsible for a child that is not genetically related to her and that she was not expecting to be responsible for.

Second, without a valid birth certificate establishing legal parentage, the child may not be able to secure health insurance through the intended parent’s carrier nor will they be able to obtain other legal documents such as a passport or social security card.

Thirdly, the parents would not have the right to make medical decisions for their child nor take their child to the doctor.

Finally, the best interests of the child. The position that a non genetic gestational carrier should be the legal parent of a child conceived through ART for the intended parents is an arcane view that does not comport with modern scientific technology.

More and more individuals who can either not conceive or not carry children to term are utilizing assisted reproductive clinics to make their dreams of a family a reality. To ignore this new and progressive field of medicine and cling to arcane and past conservative construction of the law does a disservice to the children conceived through this form of technology and the intended parents who seek to raise their children in a loving home.

Accordingly, I urge the members of the committee to support this piece of legislation and would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

In the Tribune

2009-03-10T08:37:00.000-07:00

This blog was recently featured in the Connecticut Law Tribune in an article entitled "Giving Birth To A New Legal Blog." You can read it here: http://www.ctlawtribune.com/getarticle.aspx?ID=32915

More people choosing to turn their bodies into money-makers

2009-02-25T09:44:00.000-08:00

By Dianna Smith

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Monday, February 23, 2009

Selling your body for cash may sound like a bad thing.

But it's not what you might think.

While jobs are being slashed and hours cut, South Floridians are anxiously hunting for quick ways to make money.

Many are turning to less conventional methods of generating income: Plasma, hair, eggs. Even a woman's womb is rentable nowadays.

Of course, not everyone qualifies as a donor, and women whose only reason to volunteer is that they're broke are often rejected.

"Sure, anybody could use $25,000 or $30,000," said Delray Beach-based attorney Charlotte Danciu, who specializes in surrogacy and adoption issues. "But you don't want someone whose life is a mess."

It used to be that the Palm Beach Fertility Center west of Boca Raton was always looking for egg donors. Now, it has more potential donors than recipients.

In the fall, the center began to receive about five phone calls a week from curious women. The norm used to be one call a month.

Mark Denker, the center's medical director, said the number of inquiries has jumped to 20 a week. Word is spreading that donating eggs can pay $5,000.

"It makes sense," Denker said. "They can use the money."

He stressed that women who are interested only in the cash are usually rejected.

Carrie, who did not want her last name used, has been accepted once already.

Denker's office asked her to donate her eggs again because the first couple she helped wants to have another child.

Carrie, 26, said she likes knowing that she's helping a couple have a family. But the money helps, too.

"I use it as income, to pay bills, pay off school loans," she said. "I'm not taking a vacation."

To qualify for egg donation, women must meet strict criteria, including being a nonsmoker and agreeing to take injections of fertility drugs.

The center once had only one catalog of donors. Now there are two binders with a total of 100 donors. They include blondes, brunettes, whites, blacks, Asians, even Jewish women, who used to be difficult to find.

But there's a flip side to the worsening economy: The number of recipients is dropping. Three clients in the past month have canceled their treatments because they can't afford them. Patients who use an egg donor pay an estimated $20,000.

"People were refinancing their homes to have children, but they can't do that anymore," Denker said. "We want to help, but we can't treat people for free."

Surrogacy on the rise

Phone calls are also flooding the Boca Fertility IVF Center.

In the past, officials would receive about eight calls a month from women interested in either donating eggs or becoming a surrogate mother.

Now they're getting that many in one day.

The number has spiked for those calling about carrying a stranger's baby - a procedure that could net from $18,000 to $70,000, whatever the couple and the carrier agree to.

Sounds like a lot of money, but Moshe Peress, the center's medical director, said his staff reminds the women that being a surrogate is tough work.

"We make it clear the primary reason for going into something like this has to involve the altruistic aspects of this procedure," Peress said. "You are bringing an individual into this life and it's a huge responsibility."

Being a surrogate includes rigorous evaluations, meetings with lawyers, numerous medical appointments and everything else that comes along with pregnancy.

Claribel, 32, who would not reveal her last name, is becoming a surrogate mother for the fourth time. She has five children of her own and says the money she makes from surrogacy has helped them survive the past seven years.

"I couldn't find a job. I didn't know how to take care of my babies," said Claribel, who is being paid $25,000 by a South Florida couple for her current pregnancy. "The economy is so bad. It's a way for me to be there for my family."

Plasma donations flow

Donating plasma has become a ritual for many.

The Biotest Pharmaceuticals Corp. in Pembroke Pines sees an estimated 1,200 people a week. On average, a donor is paid $45 to $50 to sit in a chair for about an hour, reading or watching television while plasma is extracted from the body.

Plasma is the clear yellowish fluid portion of the blood that transports water and nutrients to the cells. It is quickly replaced by the body, normally within 24 hours, so people can donate up to twice a week, spokesman Dan Gamache said.

The center, which draws people from Palm Beach County to the Keys, offers monthly bonuses to those who donate consistently.

Steve, a West Palm Beach resident who did not want to give his last name, takes Tri-Rail to the center twice a week. He said the money he receives helps pay the bills.

"If you have an $80 light bill for the month, it's paid," he said. "Your telephone bill, paid."

Latoya Frazier of Miami has been donating twice a week since October, when she lost her job working for an ophthalmologist in Fort Lauderdale. She said she uses the money to pay for gasoline so she can take her daughter to school and submit job applications. So far, no one has called.

"It's a mess," Frazier said. "I'm applying but they say, 'We're not hiring, we're cutting.' Whatever I can do, I will do it."

Frisco Teacher Has Twins, But Never Got Pregnant

2009-02-12T13:12:00.000-08:00

Cancer victim unable to have children finds surrogate to deliver her twin girls

By Scott Gordon

Two years ago, Frisco teacher Jennifer Burns' life was turned upside down when she was diagnosed with cervical cancer.

"I was never worried about the cancer thing," she remembered Tuesday. "I was more devastated I couldn't have kids."

She and her husband, Michael, a home entertainment system salesman, looked into adoption, but the waiting lists were full.

Then someone told them about the possibility of having their own children with the help of a surrogate mother.

They met Rita Wilcox through an agency.

"We thought about it for maybe two seconds, and it was definitely, 'Let's go,'" Michael Burns said.

Wilcox, already a mother of two, had seen a TV special on surrogate mothers and wanted to help a couple unable to have children.

The Burns paid about $50,000, including agency fees and medical bills.

Of that, Wilcox received $20,000. But she said she didn't do it for the money.

"Just to see their faces and see how happy they are -- that's all that I really did it for," Wilcox said.

Doctors took eggs from Jennifer Burns before she underwent a hysterectomy and began radiation treatments for her cancer. With sperm from Michael, they created embryos which they later implanted into Wilcox.

The first time didn't work. They tried a second time.

"I was calling her up every day," Michael Burns said. "Pregnant yet? Pregnant yet? Pregnant yet?"

She was -- with twins.

Like all surrogate mothers, Wilcox signed a contract, agreeing to give up the babies after birth. Despite carrying the twins for nearly nine months, she said she felt no emotional connection.

"Since I had so much time to prepare myself that these were not mine, it wasn't a problem at all," she said.

The use of compensated surrogacy began in the 1980s.

"But it's still not very common," said Dr. Barbara Webster, the OB-GYN who delivered the twins. "It's difficult to find gestational carriers -- or surrogates -- to do this huge sacrifice for another person."

On Dec. 3, Wilcox called the Burns and told them she was ready to deliver at Texas Health Harris Methodist Hospital Hurst-Euless-Bedford.

It was a long drive from Frisco, and the delivery came fast.

The Burns arrived outside the delivery room -- right after their twin girls, Lilly and Lexie, were born.

"It's not reality when your wife is not carrying your children," Michael Burns said.

"I started crying immediately when the nurse came out and said they were…" his wife said, unable to finish her sentence because she was overcome with emotion.

"And then the girls got wheeled out," her husband said. "And Jennifer and I just looked and it was like, 'There's our daughters.'"

The Burns said they now think of Wilcox as family and welcome her into their children's lives.

Wilcox, of Euless, returned to work at a cell phone store after giving birth.

She said she considers herself an aunt.

"They're just kind of like my nieces, like when my own nieces were born," she said. "That's how they feel to me."

"This wouldn't have been possible without Rita," Jennifer Burns said, choking back tears. "I tell her 'Thank you' all the time, but I don't think she really knows how grateful we are."

Burns is now cancer free.

"It's been two years," she said. "Two years ago, we thought our life was falling apart. Now we have everything we've ever wanted."

India: Tha Land of Opportunity

2009-02-03T07:16:00.001-08:00

Warning to couples on Indian surrogacy laws
• Matt Wade, Delhi
• January 26, 2009

LAWYERS and doctors involved in India's giant fertility industry have warned couples hoping to pursue surrogacy in India that the process is risky because there is no comprehensive law covering the practice.

While surrogacy is legal in India, it is regulated only by guidelines issued by the Indian Council of Medical Research, and many industry participants say these guidelines have been left behind by the rapidly expanding surrogacy industry.

The Age reported on Saturday that about 30 Australian couples were pursuing surrogacy in India. A new Indian surrogacy law is being drafted but those involved say it may not be passed for some time.

Priya Hingorani, a prominent Delhi lawyer who is part of a ministerial committee reviewing the proposed laws, says the absence of a law means couples wanting to use surrogates in India might be vulnerable.

"They are taking a risk because some of the documents that they sign ensuring that the mother will hand over the child might not be deemed legal by the courts," Ms Hingorani said. "They need to be very careful."

She cites the case of a Canadian couple who paid for an Indian surrogate but the mother refused to give up the child after the birth. The case is now before a Delhi court.

Anand Kumar, who runs a fertility clinic and is a member of the expert committee drafting the new law, said tighter regulations were urgently needed.

"It's a bit of a free-for-all at the moment and everyone seems to be doing what they wish," Dr Kumar said.

"There is a possibility of new technologies being misused and there is cause for concern." He could not say when the proposed law would be passed.

Many women's groups in India have expressed concern about the surrogacy system, saying it leaves mothers and babies vulnerable to exploitation.

Ms Hingorani said it was possible the new law could introduce restrictions that might affect foreigners hoping to use surrogate mothers in India.

"I think it is going to be more difficult (after the law is passed)," she said.
India's booming surrogacy industry is estimated to be worth more than $500 million a year.

According to the National Commission for Women, there are about 3000 clinics offering surrogacy services across India.

There were cases where surrogate mothers received as little as 25,000 rupees ($A780), the commission said.

Some of the potential complications associated with international surrogacy were highlighted last year by the case of Baby Manji, a child born to an Indian surrogate mother hired by a Japanese couple.

The couple divorced during the pregnancy and a subsequent legal wrangle left the baby in limbo for more than a month. An Indian court eventually granted custody to the child's 74-year-old grandmother.

In Australia, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General is reviewing surrogacy regulations, including the issue of Australian couples pursuing surrogacy in developing countries such as India.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is one of many articles written on surrogacy in India in the past few years. Since it was considered legal in 2002, surrogacy in India has become a lucrative industry, as well as a seemingly smart partnership between India’s poor and comparatively wealthy Westerners, offering a simultaneous solution to the problems of poverty and infertility.

But, as the legal aspect of Indian surrogacy is explored, the question of whether or not the practice exploits the women who carry and give birth to babies is raised. With a price tag much lower than that of its Western counterparts, is surrogacy in India an example of how industrialized countries have taken advantage of developing countries?

New Bill Proposal

2009-01-21T13:16:00.000-08:00

In an earlier post I had mentioned how our office was lobbying the legislature to clarify Conn. Gen. Stat. §7-48a. Today we received word that our proposed bill has been referred to committee.

Our bill sets out to amend the above general statute so that courts may find that intended parents, despite genetic relationship, can be named as the parents of a child on a replacement birth certificate. Our hope is that with this bill the courts will be given the authority to order replacement birth certificates according to what has been set out in a gestational carrier agreement.

Jumping the Gun in Connecticut

2009-01-20T10:38:00.000-08:00

By: ARTHUR S. LEONARD
11/06/2008

Just four days after the Connecticut Supreme Court's October 10 announcement that the state's constitution required allowing same-sex couples to marry, a Superior Court judge ruled that a Texas gay male couple who married in British Columbia and Massachusetts should be recognized as married in Connecticut.

The case involved the men's effort to place their names on the birth certificates of children they conceived through gestational surrogacy in Connecticut. After conflicting rulings this summer on the question in similar cases by several Connecticut trial judges, Judge Holly Abery-Wetstone determined that the men should be treated the same as any married heterosexual couple who made a gestational surrogacy agreement with a Connecticut woman.

In September 2007, the Texas couple, and a Connecticut heterosexual married couple, entered into a gestational agreement. The two gay men each donated sperm to create a fertilized embryo with an egg from an anonymous donor. On May 14, the two embryos were implanted in the carrier, who became pregnant and carried them to term. Two babies were delivered on October 10, coincidentally the date when the marriage ruling was announced, but several weeks before it officially went into effect on October 28.

Each of the men is a biological father of one of the babies, but the couple plans no genetic testing to figure out which, since they plan to raise both children together as "equal" parents. Under Connecticut law, when a child is born the birth mother's name is automatically placed on the birth certificate, but in gestational surrogacy cases a "replacement" certificate is soon issued listing the legal parents, and this becomes the permanent birth record. Anticipating the birth of their children, the men filed an action with the Superior Court on September 22, seeking an order to the Connecticut Department of Health that they both be listed as parents on the "replacement" birth certificates.

The Connecticut Health Department raised various objections, pointing out that in the absence of genetic testing there is no absolute proof that either man is the biological father of either of the children, and arguing that only a biological or adoptive parent should be listed on a birth certificate. The Department also has a standing objection to recognizing a legal parental relationship in advance of a child's birth in the absence of a genetic tie. After a child is born, the Health Department argues that unrelated adults should have to go through an adoption process in order to become the legal parent of a child, so that their fitness to be a parent can be determined.

After summarizing the recent conflicting decisions, Judge Abery-Wetstone found Griffiths v. Taylor more persuasive; there, a judge ordered that a gay male couple be treated as legal parents for the replacement birth certificate. But her ruling was bolstered by the recently-announced Kerrigan marriage equality decision.

Abery-Wetstone accepted the plaintiffs' declaration that their sperm created the embryos and, following the Griffiths ruling, found that no genetic testing was needed to match the biological father and the child, since the two men intended to raise the children together as spouses. Abery-Wetstone wrote that the state's laws concerning artificial insemination "in conjunction with the plaintiffs' legally recognized marriage... lend additional support to placing the names of the plaintiffs on each of the replacement certificates." In this very unusual situation, the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision actually served as a precedent before its "official" date of October 28, and before it will actually go into effect on November 12.

The State of the State

2009-01-08T11:04:00.000-08:00

The State of Connecticut is in a state of disarray regarding the issuance of pre-birth orders by the Superior Court. Currently, the CT Department of Health is objecting to the Court issuing orders unless the intended parents are genetically related to the child(ren).

If a genetic relationship between the parents and the child(ren) has not been established, the State’s position is that the carrier will have her name placed on the birth certificate of record with the genetic parent. The carrier will then have to have her rights terminated and the intended parent(s) will have to adopt their child via the CT Probate Court.

This office currently has one of these cases at the Appellate Court level. Until the Appellate Court hears argument on these matters and issues a decision, no representations can be made regarding the ability of an attorney to obtain a pre-birth order without the matter being appealed. Even after an order from the Appellate Court is released, the party denied relief can petition the Supreme Court for cert. Accordingly, the timeframe for a binding ruling from a higher court could take more than two years.

In addition to the courts, this office is lobbying members of the legislature to clarify Conn. Gen. Stat. §7-48a, but do not anticipate an amendment of this statute until after the Appellate Court issues their decision. Without any legislation pending in the General Assembly, this process will also likely take at least two years.

In the final analysis, unless the intended parents are genetically related to the child(ren), a party’s petition to the Superior Court for a pre-birth order will face strong opposition from the state and a likely appeal if successful at the Superior Court level.