Commercial surrogacysome troubling family law.docx

Commercial surrogacysome troubling family law.docx

《Commercial surrogacysome troubling family law.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Commercial surrogacysome troubling family law.docx（19页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

Commercialsurrogacysometroublingfamilylaw

Commercialsurrogacy–sometroublingfamilylawissues

MaryKeyesandRichardChisholm

Theachingdesireforachildfeltbythoseunabletoconceivebynormalmeans,povertyandtheprofitmotivecanbeaterriblecombinationresultinginexploitation（especiallyofthepoor）,abuseofhumanrightsandthecommodificationofchildren.JohnPascoe

Introduction

Commercialsurrogacyhasflourishedinrecenttimes,apparentlyincreasingby1000%internationallybetween2008and2010.Countrieshaverespondedtotheproblemindifferentways.

InAustralia,surrogacyhasrecentlybeenmadethesubjectofspecificlegislationinallstatesandterritoriesapartfromtheNorthernTerritory.Thelegislationdrawsafundamentaldistinctionbetweenaltruisticsurrogacyandcommercialsurrogacy（thesubjectofthisarticle）.Surrogacyiscommercialifthecommissioningparentshaveagreedtopaythebirthmothermorethanreimbursementofherexpensesincurredinthepregnancyandbirth.Underthesurrogacylegislation,itisusuallyacrimetoenterintoacommercialsurrogacyagreement,advertiseforsurrogacyarrangements,andprocuresurrogacyarrangements.Inthreejurisdictions,theoffencesareexpresslystatedtoapplywithextraterritorialeffect,inorder,ithasbeensaid,topreventevasionofthelegislationandexploitationofwomenindevelopingcountries.Bycontrast,unpaid（‘altruistic’）surrogacyispermitted,subjecttoextensiveanddiverseregulationswhicharedesignedtoprotectthepartiestosurrogacyarrangementsandthechildrenbornfromthem.

Thus,makingcommercialsurrogacyarrangementsinvolvesseriouscriminaloffencesunderthelawsofmostAustralianjurisdictions.YettheFamilyCourthasseenanincreaseinapplicationsforparentingandotherordersundertheFamilyLawAct1975arisingfromcommercialsurrogacyarrangements,mainlyinvolvingchildrenfromThailandandIndia,wheresucharrangementsare（asyet）permittedbylawandwherepoorwomencanbefoundwho,forapayment,willdonateeggs,carryandgivebirthtoachild,andthenrelinquishthechildforevertotheAustraliancommissioningcouple,whoreturntoAustraliawiththechildren.Inmostofthecases,oneofthemalecommissioningparentsisthegeneticfatherofthechild.Inthepublishedcases,theapplicantcommissioningparentsthencometotheAustralianfamilycourtsseekingordersthattheyhaveparentalresponsibility,and,lesscommonly,thattheapplicantwhohasdonatedthespermfromwhichthechildwasbornshouldbefoundordeclaredtobethechild’sfather.AtthetimeofwritingthereweresixteenreportedcasesinwhichthecommissioningparentsappliedtotheFamilyCourtforparentingorders.

Notsurprisingly,thiscontroversialtopichasbeenthetopicofanumberofrecentpublicationsinAustraliaaswellaselsewhere.Inthisarticlewehopetocontributetotherapidly-evolvingdiscussionabouthowAustraliamightachieveacoherentpositiononcommercialsurrogacythatreflectsinformedanddeliberatedecisionsaboutsomedifficultpolicyissues.

Thepresentdiscussionislimitedtofamilylaw,andespeciallytheissuesthathavesurfacedinthereportedcases.First,itaddressestheapparentlysimplequestion:

Whoaretheparentsofsurrogacychildren?

Wereviewthelegislationandcaselawandtrytoidentifywhatpointsareclearandwhatissuesstillneedtoberesolved.

Second,wereviewdiscretionarydecisions,suchasmakingparentingordersanddeclarationsofparentage.Shouldthecourtbemakingsuchordersifdoingsogiveseffecttocriminalarrangements?

Andwhenitappearsthatthecommissioningparentsorothershaveactedcriminallyinparticipatinginthesurrogacyagreement,shouldthecourtreferthepaperstotheappropriateauthoritytoconsiderprosecution?

Wereviewtheanswersthatfirstinstancejudgeshavegiventothesequestions,andsuggestthatasatisfactoryoutcomewillrequiretheFullCourttoaddresscertainfundamentalquestionsofprinciple.WeconcludethatachievingaprincipledandconsistentAustralianapproachtocommercialsurrogacywillrequireacooperativeeffortbetweentheCommonwealthandthestatesandterritories.

Part1:

Whoaretheparentsofsurrogacychildren?

Introduction

Itissurprisinglydifficulttoidentifythelegal‘parents’ofchildrenbornasaresultofinternationalsurrogacyarrangements.Thissectionexaminestherathertechnicallawinvolved.ItdealsespeciallywiththeAct’spresumptionsofparentage,sections60Hand60HB,andtheadmissibilityofDNAevidencebasedonsamplesillegallytakenfromchildren.Italsoraisesaquestionyettobethesubjectofjudicialdecision,namelywhetherparentageistobedeterminedbyAustralianlaw,orthelawofthecountryinwhichthechildwasborn.Weconsiderlaterwhetherthecourtshouldgrantdeclarationsofparenthoodinsurrogacysituations:

thatquestioninvolvespolicyissuestobereviewedinPart2.

TheinternationalsurrogacyarrangementsthathaveappearedintheAustraliancaselawgenerallyfollowapattern.Thecommissioningcouplemakeanarrangementwherebyawoman,whoisnotrelatedtothecommissioningcoupleandisunknowntothembeforethearrangement,becomespregnantwithanembryocreatedfromthespermofoneofthecommissioningcoupleandaneggobtainedfromanotherwomanwhoisalsounrelatedtoandunknowntothecommissioningcouple.Theintentionisthatthechildwillbehandedtothecommissioningcoupleatbirthandbroughtupbythemastheirchild,andinallthecasesthisiswhathashappened.Bythetimethecasecomestocourt,thechildhasbeeninthecareofthecommissioningparentsforsomemonths,andhashadnocontactwiththebirthmotheroreggdonor.

WewillneedtoconsidercertainprovisionsoftheFamilyLawAct1975dealingwithparentageinparticularsituations.ButitisusefultoputthemincontextbyfirstconsideringwhatwouldotherwisebethepositionundertheFamilyLawAct.

Thereisnorelevantgenerallyapplicabledefinitionof‘parent’intheAct.Ithasbeenheldthattheword‘parent’whenusedintheActmeans‘apersonwhohasbegottenorborneachild’–abiologicalmotherorfatherofthechild,asdistinctfromapersonwhoismerelycaringforachildasaparentwoulddo.ItfollowsthatforthepurposeoftheFamilyLawActtheidentityofachild’sfather,motherorparentisprobablydeterminedbyreferencetofactsexistingatthetimeofthebirth.Thesubsequentcareofthechildwouldnotseemrelevanttodeterminingwhoisthe（biological）‘father’,‘mother’or‘parent’（ofcoursethecourtmaymakeordersplacingthechildinthecareofanon-parentifitconsidersthatdoingsowillbeinthechild’sbestinterests）.

IfitwerenotforthespecificprovisionsoftheActthatwillbeexaminedbelow,identifyingthechild’sfatherinthetypicalcommercialsurrogacysituationwouldseemstraightforward.Ifthespermisthatofthemalecommissioningparent（oroneoftheminthecaseofasame-sexmalecouple）,incircumstanceswhereeveryoneenvisagesthathewillactasthefather,hewouldnaturallybeseenasthebiologicalfather.Ifthespermhadcomefromsomeotherman,thecommissioningparentwouldnotbethefather.

Identifyingthemotheringestationalsurrogacysituations,however,wouldnotbequitesosimple.GiventheauthoritiestotheeffectthattheActreferstobiologicalparents,itseemsclearthatacommissioningwomanwhoseekstomotherthechild,buthasnobiologicalconnectionwiththechild,wouldnotbeseenasthechild’smotherundertheFamilyLawAct.Isthe‘mother’,then,thewomanwhogivesbirthtothechild?

Whenachildisborntoawomanfromherownegg,sheisobviouslythebiologicalmother.Butin‘gestational’surrogacysituationssuchasthoseintheinternationalcases,wemighthesitatetosaywhetherthe‘mother’istheeggdonororthewomanwhogavebirthtothechild.Neitherconformsentirelytotheconventionalmeaningofmother–theeggdonorprovidedhalfthechild’sgeneticinheritance,butwasnotpregnantwiththechild;andthebirthmother,whowas,lacksageneticlinkwiththechild.Underthesurrogacyarrangement,neitherwomanisintendedtohavearoleinthechild’slife,butifwordslike‘parent’intheActrefertobiologicalparents,thismaynotnecessarilyprecludeeitherthebirthmotheroreggdonorfromthestatusofaparent.Onemightcontemplatethepossibilityofsomekindofrecognitionofbothwomen,butithasbeenpointedoutthatmanyprovisionsassumethatachildwillhaveonefatherandonemother,sothisdoesnotseemanoptionundertheFamilyLawActaspresentlydrafted.Aswewillsee,therearenowspecificlegislativeprovisionsaboutparentage,butasfarasweareawarethereisnoAustraliancourtdecisiononwhetherasidefromsuchspecificlegislationthe‘mother’ofachildbornfollowingeggdonationwouldbeseenasthebirthmotherortheeggdonor,orwhethertheanswermightturnonparticularcircumstances.

Inshort,intheabsenceofanylegislationspecificallydealingwiththequestion,inagestationalsurrogacysituationthemalecommissioningparentwhosuppliedthespermwouldprobablybethelegalfatherundertheFamilyLawAct,butitwouldbeuncertainwhetherthe‘mother’wouldbethebirthmotherortheeggdonor.

WenowconsidertheimpactofthespecificprovisionsoftheActrelatingtoparentage,startingwiththosethatcontainpresumptionsofparentage.

PresumptionsofparentageundertheAct

TheFamilyLawAct1975containsanumberofpresumptionsofparentage（wedealbelowwithsection60HBand60H,whichdonotcreatepresumptionsbutarerelevanttodeterminin