Surrogacy

gramarian

Hi all,

Am interested in knowing whether any one knows a legal expert they could recommend to answer some questions about surrogacy in Ireland? I am not looking for legal advise on this sight - I just would like the name of someone, because it seems very new in Ireland and I'd like some information.

Thanks!

tenchi-fan

Hi
I know this thread is a bit old but it didn't get any response so HERE GOES!

There is no such thing as surrogacy in Ireland.

The woman who gave birth is the mother. Her husband is the father. These are the only people who have automatic rights over the child.

If the woman is not married the biological father may have some rights - and obligations (child maintenance)

Our man in Havana

The woman who gave birth is the mother.

Even if she is not the biological mother? Have the courts not heard of DNA?

GerardKeating

Bond-007 wrote: »

Even if she is not the biological mother? Have the courts not heard of DNA?

No-one bothered to update the law in this area yet, the only mother is the birth mother.

seamus

GerardKeating wrote: »

No-one bothered to update the law in this area yet, the only mother is the birth mother.

And afaik, there is no legal mechanism to "sign away" motherhood. Even children put up for adoption can be later claimed by their biological parents mother.

Family law in this country is still back in the 1930's.

Cunsiderthis

seamus wrote: »

And afaik, there is no legal mechanism to "sign away" motherhood. Even children put up for adoption can be later claimed by their biological parents mother.

Family law in this country is still back in the 1930's.

This is not an easy area, and is it right for the state to take away a woman's right to her child (i) before birth or (ii) after birth?

While , in practice abroad, it has often been the intention to give up the right before birth, it has often been the case that the woman changes her mind after birth. Why should the law compel her to give it up in the circumstances where she changes her mind?

it's not an easy area and I am not sure how the desire of motherhood can change between 1930 and 2030. Simply implying that our law is outdated and should be changed does not take into account that changes are not easy and any decision is going to be the wrong one for some mothers.

Our man in Havana

Biologically it may not be her child at all. She may just be used a vehicle to grow the embryo. Most women in this situation enter into a financial arrangement with the biological parents. I would never consider the surrogate the mother in that situation. The law needs urgent reform in this regard.

Of course it is totally different where the surrogate has provided the egg. Then of course she should be free to withdraw from any arrangements made.

Cunsiderthis

Bond-007 wrote: »

Biologically it may not be her child at all. She may just be used a vehicle to grow the embryo. Most women in this situation enter into a financial arrangement with the biological parents. I would never consider the surrogate the mother in that situation. The law needs urgent reform in this regard.

It might be a mistake to assume that the "mother" who carries the baby for 9 months does not have any emotional connection to the baby, and might not want to keep it.

It is a complex area and who is to say the egg donor should have more "rights" to the baby than the "body donor" who carried it for 9 months?

My point is not, and was not, to answer these questions, but to highlight that its not an easy area to legislate for.

seamus

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

This is not an easy area, and is it right for the state to take away a woman's right to her child (i) before birth or (ii) after birth?

While , in practice abroad, it has often been the intention to give up the right before birth, it has often been the case that the woman changes her mind after birth. Why should the law compel her to give it up in the circumstances where she changes her mind?

it's not an easy area and I am not sure how the desire of motherhood can change between 1930 and 2030. Simply implying that our law is outdated and should be changed does not take into account that changes are not easy and any decision is going to be the wrong one for some mothers.

I'm not talking about a black-and-white, "Sign it away" policy, but the rights of the adoptive parents and what's best for the child needs to be considered.

If I bought a car which I realised three years later was a complete junkheap and was a poor buy, I'm stuck with it. I can't go back and claim my other car back from the dealer because I made a poor decision 3 years ago.

Now, children are obviously not a commodity in this way, but at the core we have to enforce a "make your bed and lie in it" policy. So if a woman chooses to give her child up for adoption, she should be given 24 months (from the birth of the child) on which she can go back on this decision. Outside of that 24 months, tough, she loses all of her parental rights and the child becomes the legal child of the adoptive parents.

There have been cases where a mother gave her child up for adoption because it didn't suit her at the time to have a child and then returned years later to reclaim the child because her circumstances changed. Sorry, the world doesn't work like that.

Most of the time, the court will do what's best for the child, but it's all guesswork with very little good legal framework to support it.

As Bond says, the law needs to be updated to recognise the biological realities of parental relationships - both from a surrogate and paternal point of view. At present (afaik), there's no mechanism for a man to claim any paternal rights over his biological child unless he's married to the child's mother.

Cunsiderthis

seamus wrote: »

I'm not talking about a black-and-white, "Sign it away" policy, but the rights of the adoptive parents and what's best for the child needs to be considered.

If I bought a car which I realised three years later was a complete junkheap and was a poor buy, I'm stuck with it. I can't go back and claim my other car back from the dealer because I made a poor decision 3 years ago.

Now, children are obviously not a commodity in this way, but at the core we have to enforce a "make your bed and lie in it" policy. So if a woman chooses to give her child up for adoption, she should be given 24 months (from the birth of the child) on which she can go back on this decision. Outside of that 24 months, tough, she loses all of her parental rights and the child becomes the legal child of the adoptive parents.

There have been cases where a mother gave her child up for adoption because it didn't suit her at the time to have a child and then returned years later to reclaim the child because her circumstances changed. Sorry, the world doesn't work like that.

Most of the time, the court will do what's best for the child, but it's all guesswork with very little good legal framework to support it.

As Bond says, the law needs to be updated to recognise the biological realities of parental relationships - both from a surrogate and paternal point of view. At present (afaik), there's no mechanism for a man to claim any paternal rights over his biological child unless he's married to the child's mother.

I agree that its appalling that a man has no rights over his child unless he is married. However, the man also does not have the right to demand an abortion either, and in the event where he didn't want a child, and the woman did, and he wanted to abort the child, why should he be forced to have responsibilities for the child when, eventually, it is born against his will?

I don't disagree with you that we need to update our legislation. It's how we do it that is much more complex and less clear, as the issue is not one of a commodity, as you say, but one of human life and human responsibility.

And to legislate for a change of mind is also not easy.

Dandelion6

This is one of those areas that the government just doesn't want to touch. Harney previously used the excuse of the pending Roche v Roche (frozen embryos) decision and now says that now that's handed down she plans to bring legislative proposals to cabinet. But I wouldn't put any money on those plans going any further than cabinet.

End result, surrogacy is entirely unregulated in this state and anyone who enters into a surrogacy arrangement does so at their own risk.