Although she has two half-sisters from her dad’s previous marriage, there was nothing in Jess Pearce’s childhood to make her doubt her biological origins. She tanned, her father tanned; he was tall, so was she. Yet when she was 28, her mother dropped a bombshell.
Click here to read the entire article.
theindependent.co.uk by Linda Geddes, August 10, 2015
NEW YORK — On the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, new research suggests that children raised by gay parents are well adjusted and resilient, HealthDay reports. Four new studies were scheduled to be presented this week at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association in Toronto that set out to assess the psychological and sociological health of children raised by same-sex couples. One study looked at the experience of 49 pre-adolescent youngsters adopted by either two-dad or two-mom households. The children’s average age was 8.
Led by Rachel Farr, a research assistant professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, researchers interviewed both children and parents. Nearly 80 percent of the boys and girls said they felt “different” from other children because of their parents’ status, the study found. But less than 60 percent felt they had been stigmatized because of their same-sex family structure. And 70 percent appeared to respond to adversity with resilience, demonstrating an upbeat attitude about their family, the researchers found according to HealthDay. A second study compared rates of anxiety and/or depression among 3- to 10-year-olds raised by 68 gay male couples with those of youngsters raised by 68 heterosexual parents. The team led by Robert-Jay Green, a retired professor of clinical psychology at the California School of Professional Psychology in San Francisco, found that all of the children were psychologically healthy.
Click here to read the entire article.
Washington Blade – by Staff, August 7, 2015
Yesterday, a Nebraska District Court ruled that a discriminatory policy that barred same sex families from becoming foster parents was unconstitutional. The two-decade-old policy, Memo I-95, barred same sex families from obtaining state foster parent licenses.
This change will finally allow child welfare agencies to expand the pool of foster and adoptive families for Nebraska’s children.
“Nebraska’s motto of ‘Equality before the Law’ rings out more truly for all of us on this thrilling day,” Danielle Conrad, Executive Director of ACLU of Nebraska, said in a release. “This is a special victory for thousands of children in Nebraska who now have more options to find loving and stable
homes.”
Earlier this year, Nebraska child welfare officials announced they would stop enforcing the law.
Click here to read the entire article.
HRC.org, by Hayley Miller, August 6, 2015
ibnlive.com, August 7, 2015
Bangkok: A new law banning commercial surrogacy has come into effect in Thailand, a destination popular with foreigners and gay couples looking for cheaper surrogacy services.
The law banning commercial surrogacy was passed in February and came into effect from this month.
The law came after outrage following an Australian couple last year leaving a surrogate twin boy who had Down Syndrome behind in Thailand, taking his healthy sister.
The controversy triggered an immediate backlash in Thailand, forcing commercial surrogate operators to shut down operations.
Under the new law, a couple, a man and a woman, to avail surrogacy must be legally married for at least three years with one or both holding Thai nationality.
The surrogate mother is required to be a sibling of the couple, but not the parents or the couple’s children. The surrogate woman must also have her own child and have her husband’s consent.
If the woman is not a relative of the couple, the woman needs to meet regulations laid down by the Thai public health ministry.
Public Health Minister Rajata Rajatanavin said foreign couples would no longer be able to seek surrogacy services in Thailand.
Click here to read the entire article.
When comparing surrogacy in the UK and surrogacy abroad we can examine 2015, which has already seen a number of surrogacy judgments1 which challenge the law as it currently stands in relation to this increasingly mainstream pathway to parenthood. However, where the issue at hand is whether a parental order should be made2, the focus historically has been on international arrangements. Whilst contentious UK surrogacy cases, happily, remain remarkable (and therefore likely published), these and international arrangements overshadow the reality and prevalence of the undisputed UK surrogacy arrangement. Though uncontentious in nature, such arrangements are commonly peppered with comparable issues to those found in overseas applications, though the latter remain in the realms of the High Court3. It is not denied that international surrogacy arrangements are naturally hazardous and necessitate a cautious approach at court level, but, as demonstrated below, UK arrangements come with equal risks.
Repeatedly overshadowed by uncertainty as to the surrounding legalities, surrogacy is in fact very achievable in the UK and arrangements take place in their hundreds every year. However, due to the lack of an overtly supportive legal framework, its practice varies widely and the resulting disparity between arrangements can be vast.
Often the best option, for those who have the choice, is to use a surrogate who is a family member or close friend. Arrangements where trust is implicit invariably make for the most altruistic and straightforward. For those who need to look elsewhere there are a number of independent organisations which facilitate arrangements between prospective parents and surrogates4, by enabling introductions and supporting the resulting relationships. However, a growing method of establishing a surrogacy arrangement is to look online. The increase in social networking has enabled prospective parents to find a willing surrogate (and vice versa) through Facebook groups and online forums, where regulation is scarce and support informal.
The risks of working with a previously unknown surrogate (or indeed prospective parents) are obvious, but some arrangements forge ahead with a surprising lack of communication to determine the other side’s true motivations. As surrogacy agreements are not legally binding in the UK, there is no obligation or obvious trigger for prospective parents to meet with a lawyer at the outset. Although it is not possible to draft an agreement on their behalf (this is an offence for professionals5, though something the parties are encouraged to do amongst themselves), a consultation at this stage provides an opportunity to set out the legal position and explain what must be done to reassign parenthood in due course. Some parents are made aware of this and seek initial advice; others are not and will proceed having had no professional input (sometimes without any written agreement in place at all). Though not enforceable, parents and surrogates can agree whatever they wish in terms of payments, restrictions and obligations during pregnancy, contact before and after birth and any other matters they consider important.
There is also a choice of how to conceive. If no fertility procedure is strictly required6, and particularly if cost is an issue, it is not unusual for conception to take place via artificial insemination at home. This not only throws up further issues as to the surrogate’s investment and attachment to the pregnancy, but by not having treatment at a licensed UK clinic parents and surrogates do not benefit from the built-in counselling and professional support provided before conception.
It is easy to see how the lack of structure and obligatory professional oversight here can lead to a culture of casually-set-up surrogacy arrangements based on hopes of aligned intentions and well-placed faith in the unknown. In the absence of a robust UK legal system to fall back on, for those arrangements where problems do arise, a lack of guidance and support from experienced professionals can exacerbate matters and put the relationship of the parties under considerable strain. Even where these issues do not affect the outcome of the arrangement7, they can cause difficulties during the subsequent court process.
The parental order process8 provides the first formal oversight that many arrangements will see, though this comes too late across the board, since there can be no application until the child is born (leaving him or her legally vulnerable for a period of at least several weeks). It is at this stage that the applicant parents are faced with conforming to the parameters set by section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008; some of whom will not already be familiar with the requirements.
Whilst applications following UK surrogacy are dealt with relatively straightforwardly in practice, the ambiguous surrogacy backdrop in this country provides the potential for just as many legal quandaries to arise as do so in cross-border surrogacy arrangements. The difference lies in the level of scrutiny of the two.
Click here to read the entire article.
by Nicola Scott August 6, 2015
The Indian Society for Assisted Reproduction (ISAR) has moved an application before the Supreme Court asking it not to quash a notification under which trading of “human embryo” is allowed. In the absence of a legislation to regulate commercial surrogacy, doctors and couples wanting surrogate children take refuge under the 2013 notification.
“There are hundreds of surrogates who have started their own small scale businesses like catering, beauty parlours, food joints and sewing coaching classes. They now own houses, their children study in English medium schools, their husbands have bought passenger rickshaws and their social status is markedly raised,” the society stated.
The petitioner claims to be a representative body of several scientists, doctors and research experts engaged in the field of assistive reproduction for childless parents. It has protested against advocate Jayashree Wad’s petition asking the court to strike down the 2013 notification.
Wad has contended that trading of human embryo under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act is opposed to public policy, unethical and violates the principle of doctrine of reasonableness. “Embryo is a life in the miniature form and cannot be considered as goods,” Wad has contended.
Click here to read the entire article.
Bhadra Sinha, Hindustan Times, New Delhi – August 5, 2015