Check out this article discussing Chinese couples who travel to the USA for surrogacy. This is an interesting addition to the increasingly complex network of transnational commercial surrogacy routes. In this case, the legal status of commercial surrogacy in the USA and trust in a well established system are important factors drawing IPs from China to the US, and US citizenship for children born via a surrogate mother in the US is an added bonus. It is interesting that the IPs highlighted in this article have also become entrepreneurs of this novel connection between China and the USA. Jiang, like other IPs through transnational surrogacy, acts a facilitator between surrogacy agencies in one country, in this case the US and IPs in his home country, in this case China:
He now consults with eight surrogacy agencies, connecting them with Chinese clients, the vast majority of whom suffer from infertility, Jiang says. Others clients have included gay men and heterosexual couples barred from having a second child in China.
Transnational commercial surrogacy seems to be a new space for entrepreneurship: new forms of facilitation, agencies, consultants, ‘match making’…. in all of this surrogate mothers are central, yet make the least profit (or even find themselves out of pocket in domestic altruistic surrogacy arrangements).
Great news for families in California formed with the help of an egg or sperm donor :
“It is critical that judges have the ability to recognize the roles of all parents so that no child has to endure separation from one of the adults he or she has always known as a parent,” state Sen. Mark Leno told the LA Times.
You can read the full story here: http://gawker.com/california-children-can-now-legally-have-three-parents-1441519480
According to a report in The Foreigner Norway does not yet have clear guidelines when in comes to surrogacy arrangements. On the one hand it is not surprising seeing as many western countries are only just beginning to clarify where they stand in surrogacy arrangements on the other it is strange to have such conflicting advice coming from the same bureaucratic organisation. A Norweign couple chose to use a gestational surrogate in the US after carefully researching the procedures in Norway and taking advice from the NAV (labour and welfare organisation). The couple went ahead with the surrogacy arrangement and had twins. When registering the children upon returning to Norway the couple were told that according to the state the children were considered to be the children of the surrogate, rather then the genetic parents. The genetic parents have been told that they must adopt their children, a long and drawn our process.
It seems that logic and reason fail once again where the state is drawing on laws that do not relate to the current situation. It seems that Australia is not the only country in need of more research into surrogacy in relation to families and law.