TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 8 °C Tuesday 18 June, 2013

High Court to issue ruling in landmark surrogacy case

The parents of twins born to a surrogate mother believe only the genetic mother should appear on their birth certificates.

Image: reidrac via Flickr

THE HIGH COURT will rule this morning in a landmark case which could pave the way for couples who need to use the services of a surrogate mother to still both be recognised on their child’s birth certificate.

Justice Henry Abbott will rule this morning in the case of M R versus the Registrar General, in which a couple who used a surrogate to carry their twins to birth argue that their rights to be identified as their children’s parents are being denied.

The State has insisted that only the woman who gives birth to a child can be recognised on its birth certificate as its mother.

The outcome has major implications for the family, as the mother recognised on a birth certificate is legally viewed as a child’s mother – and is therefore given legal standing in matters including inheritance, while the genetic mother would be given no legal recognition.

In this case the woman who gave birth to the children is the sister of their genetic mother – and both consent to having the genetic mother recognised on the children’s birth certificate.

However, the ruling may need to take into account the possibility of other circumstances arising in the future, where the genetic and birth mothers could both seek inclusion in the birth certificate.

The couple has argued that the State-endorsed practice where DNA tests are used to establish parenthood is in conflict with its stance on registrations, as a DNA test would establish that the genetic mother was not the woman who gave birth to the child.

Read next:

Comments (29 Comments)

  • See that’s where I disagree Carl. She is the childs aunt, not the child’s mother. She gave birth to her yes but the dna belongs to the child’s parents. They are the mother and father.

    I know I would have no problem carrying a child for either of my sisters if god forbid they couldn’t, but I would never consider myself that childs mother.

    Reply
  • “However, the ruling may need to take into account the possibility of other circumstances arising in the future…”

    Surely all rulings should be designed to be as futureproof as possible?

    An interesting case highlighting how out dated the constitution is on many issues.

    Reply
    • I don’t think the Constitution was the barrier in this case. It was the Registrar of Births, and by extension the State, that refused to register the genetic mother as the legal mother. Her legal team used the Constitution to support her case, so it might be helping her, not hindering her.

      Reply
  • the auntie isnt the mother..shes a surrogate.. a carrier.. why would you call the surrogate the mother?
    if you did want to explain it to the child sometime .surely , you would say mommy couldnt carry you , so auntie did it for me. simple carl , bizarre no, not in this enlightened world most of us live in.

    Reply
  • Of course the genetic parents should be on the birth cert as the parents, the surrogate is just a carrier, maybe all three should be on birth cert, genetic mother and father and surrogate mother, seriously why haven’t all matters surrounding surrogacy been legislated for, what are our elected representatives doing?

    Reply
  • A much needed judgement but I will put all of my worldy belongings on the government failing to acknowledge the judgement and will fail to enact legislation to provide some form of guidelines for medical professionals.

    Reply
    • Its not guidelines for medical professionals that was needed. The chief registrar refused to acknowledge the genetic mother as they only place the birth mothers name on the birth certificate. I’m glad to see this family have won their case. It just hasn’t said if they will place both the genetic mothers name and the surrogates name on the birth certificate or simply replace the surrogates name with the genetic mothers name.

      Reply
    • Well guidelines are needed for Assisted Human Reproduction, as there are currently none that are legally binding. This will hopefully develop the impetus for the government to get going. And hopefully the government will legislate for the allowing of the natural mother to be placed on the birth cert, not necessarily the birth mother.

      Reply
  • Glad to see this couple win their case.

    Reply
  • Alien8 05/03/13 #

    By the state’s perspective, is it the surrogates husband who is also on the birth certificate? Like the surrogate mother, he had nothing to do with producing the child. This was being sarcastic, but now will the surrogate husband be able to divorce his wife on the grounds that she had a child with his wife’s husband?

    It’s ridiculous by the way. The genetic parents are the fecking parents, but it seems like one law for men and another for women. Again.

    Reply
  • Hey Paul,

    “A DNA test would show that the genetic mother was not the woman who had given birth to the child” is just an awkward way of phrasing it. It would have been syntactically better (and easier to follow) had they said “….would show that the woman who gave birth to the child was not the genetic mother.”

    Does that make any more sense to you? :-)

    Basically what the sentence is saying is that they would take a sample from the child, and the “birth mother”, which under normal circumstances would match to the extent a child and mother’s DNA would, except in this case it wouldn’t, leading to the conclusion that the genetic mother, whoever she was (for this example it’s not necessary for her to be known or a DNA sample to be available, as is the case in paternity tests) was not the woman whose sample was tested, the woman who gave birth.

    Reply
  • Oh and call me stupid (….) but how would a DNA test not show that the genetic mother was not the woman who gave birth? I thought DNA was all about the genes, and if she’s the genetic mother then the DNA would reflect that, wouldn’t it? Does the woman that carries the child “add” in DNA/genes? I wish I’d listened in Biology now.

    Reply
    • I don’t think it says that anywhere unless the article has been updated, the genetic mother does show up through dna testing, which is in conflict with the idea that the woman who gives birth is the mother

      Reply
    • Am I misreading the last paragraph then?

      Reply
    • The DNA test will show the genetic mother ie the woman who is now raising the twins. Their argument is that while they are parents biologically and are the ones with custody of the children the woman who gave birth to them – the surrogate – is legally recognised as their mother even though she has no genetic link to them.

      Reply
    • Paul – I think you’ve misread it. Your summary in your first comment has a double negative that doesn’t appear in the article.

      Reply
    • Thanks both. You’re right, and my random & incorrect double negative doesn’t help.

      “..as a DNA test would establish that the genetic mother was not the woman who gave birth to the child.” I misread this line completely. Obviously now I see that a DNA test does not establish who gave birth per se but it would prove that the genetic mother was not the ‘mother’ registered on the birth cert.

      Thanks, I thought I was being really thick.

      Reply
  • How odd would that be having your sister give birth for you? Bizzare! “Johnny, this is your Auntie and also your other mother”.

    Reply
    • Bizarre indeed. Why not just adopt a child? I guess this just adds to an already upside sown society where male, female, inbetweener, dad, mother could mean anything and everything. I however opt out, thanks.

      Reply
    • That’s right mypolitics1 – nobody is forcing you to get gay married or have a surrogate child.

      Other people want to do these things though so please ensure your ‘opting out’ doesn’t include trying to stop them.

      Reply
    • Carl, it doesn’t seem that bizarre to me. What’s more bizarre is why you think the parents would mention the circumstance of the child’s conception in such a manner as “this is your auntie/mother”. I’m sure if they tell the child, it will be in a more appropriate and sensitive manner.

      Mypolitics, domestic adoption in Ireland is rare, less than 50 such adoptions last year. So why shouldn’t a couple be able to avail of surrogacy?

      Reply
    • I wasn’t saying there is something wrong with surrogacy I just think using your sister (a direct blood relative) to birth the child is a bit much. To all those red thumbs, do you mean to tell me it would not be a bizzare thing to have to tell your child that your Auntie is also your mother?!

      Reply
    • The reason people use blood relatives or close friends is the lack of outsiders willing to do the job for them. Surrogates don’t get a cent and its a big ask. And the rules as they stand would put women off too. I doubt there are enough altruistic women out there willing to offer their body for strangers only to be regarded as the childs “mother”

      Reply
    • Carl, if you think your sister giving birth to your child is bizarre, then don’t ask your sister to give birth to your child.

      In this particular case, the aunt isn’t being referred to as the mother by any of the family involved, so there’s no need to worry about what to tell the children.

      Reply
    • Carl, any child that has to have explained to them that the circumstances of their birth are not strictly to the norm, be it adoption; IVF; surrogacy etc. are not likely to be sent over the edge by the fact that their aunt is one of the parties involved.

      If anything, it should make the process of coming to terms with what they’ve just been told easier, as the questions about the ‘other’ person are instantly resolved.

      Reply
    • Bizarre? I think it’s incredibly loving to give your sister a much-wanted family (especially as most surrogacy occurs after infertility.) It’s lovely that this woman has been willing to do so and I’m sure it will be nice for the child to know the auntie who gave birth to him is still a member of his extended family.

      Reply
    • Obviously it’s just my opinion but it think it’d be less weird to ask her sister than to ask/pay a stranger

      Reply

Add New Comment