Many intended parents pursue independent surrogacy, or a surrogacy journey that is done without the help of a surrogacy agency, to save money avoiding the fees that an agency charges. When you choose an independent journey, it means that you have to do all of the things that an agency would normally do, although there are consultants and agencies you can work with who can offer their services at a lower rate than the full agency fee. We recommend you read and research as much as you can on the subject if it is your first surrogacy journey and you are thinking about an independent surrogacy journey. Here are some of the major steps you will have to get through before your surrogate can be cleared for an embryo transfer: Finding a suitable surrogate; Obtain medical clearance; Obtain psychological clearance; Obtain legal representation and refer counsel for the surrogate so that the case can be legally cleared. Finding A Suitable Surrogate The first step is one of the most challenging for independent intended parents. We find some of the most common independent surrogacy situations are (1) when a friend or family member offers to be intended parents’ surrogate or (2) it is a repeat journey with a surrogate they previously worked with. For intended parents who do not have suitable friends or family members to act as surrogates or who haven’t completed a journey before, intended parents look for a surrogate through word-of-mouth, sometimes finding a surrogate through friends or professional contacts, or by searching for a surrogate on the internet. For those who search the internet, a big word of caution is to avoid scammers who impersonate surrogates or are simply not qualified to be surrogates. Keep in mind while you can save money without an agency, you may not find the same pool of candidates. Some candidates who are repeatedly turned down by agencies will still hold themselves out to be potential surrogates for independent cases. Be careful with this step as who you find to be surrogate it is probably the most important one you make. Your IVF physician should have guidelines as well such as BMI and a list of disqualifying conditions which should be requested before getting into any deep negotiations with surrogates. Women who have not had a live birth will be disqualified by most clinics because they will lack a record of maintaining a pregnancy. Women who live outside the United States are generally not suitable surrogates for a domestic journey as there is a large potential for fraud, catfishing, or it may just be unrealistic or unsafe from an immigration standpoint. Your gestational surrogate should be a permanent resident or US citizen, have a stable financial situation, not be receiving government benefits (food stamps, Medicare, Section 8, etc.), and should not have a criminal history. At this stage or a later stage, you will also want to consider whether she has health insurance suitable for surrogacy, and contact a broker to review her insurance and offer alternative options. By consulting with an attorney at this stage, you can obtain professional referrals, request a criminal background check and a blank compensation template so that you know you and your potential surrogate are on the same page for compensation. If you work with Tsong Law Group, you can also have the benefit of signing up for Seedcoach at an earlier stage which can help you budget your surrogacy journey or find new ways to fund it. Obtaining medical clearance. The next step is getting your surrogate approved by your IVF physician. This is a step can be one of the most time consuming steps and potentially costly. First, you will need to gather medical records of the surrogate related to her past pregnancies. Your surrogate can attempt to obtain records herself, but unless you know the surrogate well, these records should be coming from the hospital or doctor’s office and not from the surrogate, to avoid omissions or alterations. Your IVF physician will be looking her records to see whether your surrogate is likely to safely carry a pregnancy to term. Once she passes that step, the surrogate will also receive a medical evaluation and screening for infectious diseases. You can read what is specifically needed in the ASRM guidelines. Psychological clearance. With the exception of cases involving a family member surrogate in states where it is not required by law, the parties should make sure the surrogate is psychologically cleared by a licensed mental health professional. Intended parents may also be required to receive a screening or consultation in states such as Washington, Illinois and New York. The Legal Stage. In cases where the match is a first time surrogate who is not a family member or close friend, the legal stage can be challenging. We discuss in several blog articles what to expect during the legal stage from the intended parents’ and surrogate’s side, and why we encourage escrow in independent cases. We recommend that you and your surrogate agree to important terms including compensation prior to having your attorney drafting the contract, otherwise the contract may not never reach a final stage. For more tips on the legal stage, you can watch our Youtube video on independent journeys. Once the parties finalize the surrogacy agreement and sign, and the attorneys issue legal clearance, your surrogate is finally cleared to begin medication and schedule the embryo transfer. Conclusion An independent surrogacy journey is more challenging than an agency surrogacy journey. If you aren’t able make it through these all the stages yourself, you may want to look for the right agency or find a consultant to help. Consulting with a lawyer when you find a candidate for surrogacy or just to ask questions about the legality of different states is a very good idea. As a Fellow of the Academy of California Adoption-ART Lawyers (ACAL), Tsong Law Group brings extensive expertise to the practice of surrogacy law. Our award-winning lawyers are licensed in California, New York, Illinois, Washington, Oklahoma, and Arizona. For a free consultation in surrogacy, contact us now.

The Kardashians are more than just a family; they're a cultural phenomenon, loved by many and criticized by others. Led by Kris Jenner, the family includes her daughters: Kim, Kourtney, Khloe, Kendall, and Kylie. From their reality TV show "Keeping Up with the Kardashians" to their success in fashion and business ventures, they've captured the world's attention. Yet, what truly sets them apart is their willingness to share personal experiences, including their journey through surrogacy, which has resonated deeply with millions of fans worldwide. Gestational surrogacy, a practice where a woman carries and gives birth to a child that is genetically unrelated to her for another individual or couple, is becoming more well-known, especially among high-profile figures like the Kardashians. For celebrities facing fertility challenges, surrogacy offers a viable solution for family planning. It also provides privacy and control over the pregnancy and birth process, shielding them from invasive media attention while allowing them to expand their families. While not the first celebrities to use surrogacy for family building, the Kardashians are some of the first major celebrities to talk about their surrogacy experiences without shame. Through their openness, the Kardashians have humanized the surrogacy experience and sparked important conversations about infertility, pregnancy complications, and alternative paths to parenthood. Disclaimer: It's important to note that the information provided in this article is for informational purposes only. We do not claim any affiliation with the Kardashians or their surrogacy journeys. The details presented here are based on publicly available information and should not be construed as legal advice or endorsement. Kim Kardashian faced health complications including placenta accreta during her pregnancies with North and Saint. She bravely chose surrogacy as a safer alternative to expand her family. Openly sharing her journey on "Keeping Up with the Kardashians" and social media, she welcomed her children Chicago and Psalm via surrogacy in 2017 and 2019, respectively. By transparently discussing her experiences, Kim advocates for surrogacy through conversations about reproductive autonomy and exploring family building options. Kourtney Kardashian, the eldest of the Kardashian siblings, has openly expressed her desire to expand her family and explore alternative paths to parenthood. While she has not yet pursued surrogacy, Kourtney has been vocal about considering it as a viable option for future pregnancies. Recently, reports have emerged that Kourtney Kardashian and her husband, Travis Barker, are contemplating surrogacy for their second child together. The couple may welcome a newborn next year following the recent arrival of their son, Rocky Thirteen Barker. According to insiders, the reality stars are considering surrogacy after Kourtney's 'difficult' pregnancy, which resulted in a terrifying health scare. Khloe Kardashian openly shared her fertility struggles with the world. Despite years of trying to conceive naturally and undergoing various treatments, Khloe and her then-partner, Tristan Thompson, faced heartbreaking setbacks due to issues like polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and endometriosis. These challenges led them to consider surrogacy. In 2018, Khloe welcomed her son, Tatum, through surrogacy, marking a new chapter in her life. Last June 2024, People reported that Khloé Kardashian suggests her brother Rob Kardashian could donate sperm to help Malika Haqq have another baby. Since Rob declined, Malika and Khloé are now exploring other options like using a sperm bank or a surrogate. Kylie Jenner, the youngest member of the Kardashian-Jenner family, has two children, Stormi and Wolf. Both pregnancies were carried to term without using a surrogate. Kendall Jenner has not yet started a family or pursued surrogacy. However, in 2022, Kendall Jenner stated for her birthday she had a horse act as a surrogate for her to sire her a foal. The surrogacy journeys of the Kardashians reflect their resilience in the face of challenges. By being transparent about surrogacy, it has reshaped societal perceptions around alternative paths to parenthood. As you embark on your journey, whether you are considering surrogacy or egg donation as an intended parent, or as a potential surrogate or egg donor, consulting with a surrogacy lawyer is a good place to start. As a Fellow of the Academy of California Adoption-ART Lawyers (ACAL), Tsong Law Group brings extensive expertise to the practice of surrogacy law. Our award-winning lawyers are licensed in California, New York, Illinois, Washington, Oklahoma, and Arizona. For a free consultation in ART law, contact us now.

Introduction As surrogacy lawyers, we know from experience even though most journeys go smoothly, it's important to be ready for possible legal complications. While rare, a specific legal challenge can arise: What if the surrogate wants to keep the baby at the time of birth? Or, what if a surrogate decides not to go through with contract once she is pregnant? These situations are considered uncommon and can lead to complex legal issues. In this blog, we'll explore these scenarios and answer this common question, providing a comprehensive understanding of potential outcomes in gestational surrogacy. It's important to note that the resolution may vary based on the laws of the jurisdiction involved and the details of the surrogacy agreement. Note that this analysis is for gestational surrogacy. We discuss what the outcome would be in traditional surrogacy (where the surrogate uses her own egg) in a Newsweek article here. What happens if the surrogate decides to keep the baby? From our extensive experience, spanning over hundreds of surrogacy matches, we have never encountered a surrogate who desired to keep a child not genetically hers—it is an exceedingly rare occurrence. Despite its infrequency, it is a question and worry that all intended parents have. Legal protections in surrogacy-friendly states In surrogacy friendly states, surrogacy agreements clearly specify that the Intended parents are the legal parents of the child and the surrogate and her spouse relinquishing any parental rights or presumptions of parentage they might have. The agreements state it is in the best interest of the child to be with the intended parents. In California, when surrogacy cases addressing this issue reach the court, the surrogate is not expected to prevail in a legal action. This is because of a legal precedent set by the California Supreme Court in the 1993 case of Johnson vs. Calvert. The Court ruled that they must uphold the intentions outlined in the surrogacy agreement signed by the parties involved. Why a judgment of parentage is critical However, if the surrogate desires to keep the baby and is contemplating taking it away at birth, that cannot happen after the court has issued a judgment of parentage. This legal document is usually obtained well before the surrogate gives birth, directing the hospital to recognize the Intended Parents as parents. It's crucial to provide ample notice of the surrogate's pregnancy to allow sufficient time for your attorney to obtain the judgment. In the event that the surrogate decides to change her mind after the judgment is in place, the judgment ensures that the Intended Parents take custody of the child at birth. What happens if a surrogate decides to back out with the arrangement? We will address the scenario regarding how to handle the situation after the surrogate decides to change her mind. If a surrogate decides to withdraw before pregnancy, the outcome depends on the surrogacy agreement's specific provisions. These contracts typically allow either party to terminate before pregnancy occurs. What if a surrogate backs out after pregnancy begins? However, if the surrogate is already pregnant, most contracts prohibit termination once the surrogate is carrying the Intended parents’ child. If a pregnant surrogate refuses to cooperate with confirming the parentage of the intended parents, there are two remedies: 1) Intended Parents may declare a breach and stop payments and (2) Intended Parents may pursue a parentage action without the surrogate's cooperation. Legal remedies for intended parents in case of breach In cases of declaring material breach, where the surrogate violates the contract, she would be obligated to reimburse expenses incurred as a consequence of the breach, as may be required under the contract. In a state like California where the law is clear about parentage, the intended parents should be able to obtain a parentage judgment with the contract and a showing that the child to be born is a result of an embryo transfer. Conclusion In summary, when a surrogate decides to keep the baby or withdraws from the arrangement, the individuals involved must have a well-drafted and negotiated surrogacy agreement. These agreements form the basis for handling unexpected events, providing clear guidelines on the rights and duties of everyone involved. Furthermore, it can act as a legal roadmap, aiding in dispute resolution and ensuring the well-being of all individuals, including the intended parents, surrogate, and the child. As you embark on your journey, whether you are considering surrogacy or egg donation as an intended parent, or as a potential surrogate or egg donor, consulting with a surrogacy lawyer is a good place to start. As a Fellow of the Academy of California Adoption-ART Lawyers (ACAL), Tsong Law Group brings extensive expertise to the practice of surrogacy law. Our award-winning lawyers are licensed in California, New York, Illinois, Washington, Oklahoma, and Arizona. For a free consultation in ART law, contact us now.

The Wrong Mother is a drama thriller movie produced by Reel One Pictures in 2017. It stars Vanessa Marcil as Kaylene, Brooke Nevin as Vanessa, and Stephen Snedden as Kaylene's husband Drew. The movie revolves around Vanessa, who is apparently a nurse, who provides home care to Kaylene, the mother of two who is happily married to commercial pilot Drew after she is a victim of a hit and run. Vanessa soon seeks to usurp Kaylene’s role as mother and wife of Drew while keeping Kaylene drugged and isolated from her family. Spoiler alert: Turns out Vanessa is Kaylene’s anonymous egg donor and after Vanessa learns she cannot have children of her own due to lack of egg reserve, she goes crazy, uses her guiles to find out information about her intended parents and plots to upend their lives. (It doesn’t appear to cross Vanessa’s mind she could be an intended parent through egg donation herself.) Vanessa’s end game is to be the mother of Kaylene and Drew’s kids, and she will go to any lengths to remove anyone who is in the way of her plans. Legal and Other Accuracy I’m not sure any lawyers were consulted in this movie. Vanessa’s actions are operating on the theory that “possession is 9/10th of the law” which is not actually grounded in law at all. In reality, egg donors sign a contract in which they relinquish all legal rights or responsibilities to any resulting children or embryos. If Vanessa donated eggs in a typical contract situation, she would have her own attorney who would make sure she read the contract and understood it. Vanessa can’t reverse the donation because Kaylene is legally the birth mother as a result of being the natural parent of the child, and being on the birth certificate. While it is a fear of expressed by some intended parents entering into an egg donation, especially a known donation, that their egg donor might seek to become a parent to the children, I am not aware of any instance of this happening, nor am I aware of any donors replacing intended mothers. Furthermore, egg donors receive psychological and medical screenings and should receive an explanation during those screening exactly what they are doing. Egg donors also understand, via the egg donation contract, that there may be medical and psychological complications as a result of the egg donation and agree to assume those risks. If you are wondering, there does not appear to be a medical correlation between egg donation and depletion of ovarian reserve. Conclusion: We wanted to review this movie because there are a lot of similar movies about surrogacy with the Fatal Attraction formula where the surrogate lives with the family, and tries to seduce the husband and kill/take over the role of the wife, yet this one was about an egg donor, and maybe it would be different in some way. Unfortunately, it isn’t different and its potential “campiness” appeal is limited by its slow-moving pace and Lifetime movie-style predictability. It would have been an interesting take if Vanessa, upon learning of her own infertility and obtaining information about the children, the movie shifted and considered what would the legal outcome be of an egg donor who makes a claim of maternity via a DNA test (spoiler: she would likely lose). But that would prevent a Cape Fear/Single White Female kind of thriller that The Wrong Mother was aiming for. The movie is not to be taken seriously. If you are a donor or parent through egg donation with a sense of humor who feels left out that there are a lot of cheesy surrogacy thrillers but almost none about egg donors, check it out and let us know how you feel about the movie. The movie is available to watch on Freevee on Prime Video. If you are considering surrogacy or egg donation as an intended parent, or as a potential surrogate or egg donor, consulting with a surrogacy lawyer is a good place to start. As a Fellow of the Academy of California Adoption-ART Lawyers (ACAL), Tsong Law Group brings extensive expertise to the practice of surrogacy law. Our award-winning lawyers are licensed in California, New York, Illinois, Washington, Oklahoma, and Arizona. For a free consultation in ART law, contact us now. This article is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon without additional research or consulting an attorney. This article is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship with the reader.

A surrogacy lawyer is knowledgeable about the legal aspects of surrogacy agreements. If you are seeking to build a family through surrogacy, going alone with your journey will be challenging until you have a surrogacy lawyer to help you ensure a legally secure and successful surrogacy journey. They play a crucial role in providing legal guidance and support to the parties involved in the surrogacy process which includes, among others, handling financial compensation, child custody, and a variety of other issues that can arise during the journey. In this article, we will discuss why you need a surrogacy lawyer, when do you need a surrogacy lawyer, and how you can choose the right surrogacy lawyer. Why you need a surrogacy lawyer As intended parents, the surrogacy lawyer you choose for your journey is important and should not just be an afterthought. Here are some of the reasons why you, as an intended parent, need a lawyer for your surrogacy journey. To explain the law and draft the surrogacy agreement. The contract between you and the surrogate is one of the most important parts of the surrogacy journey. A well-drafted contract will prevent disputes and keep the parties on the same page. So that you can be involved. In surrogacy, you can experience every milestone of their surrogate's pregnancy, from the embryo transfer to their child's birth. This ability to attend appointments and the delivery will be part of the surrogacy agreement. Ensuring a healthy pregnancy. You would like a surrogate to carry a pregnancy as they would, if they could. Your lawyer will draft the surrogacy agreement which will provide activity restrictions and require the surrogate to follow medical instructions. Respecting the Privacy of the Parties. While you and the surrogate will be known to each other, the arrangement can be kept confidential under the terms of agreement. When do you need a surrogacy lawyer Usually, you need a surrogacy lawyer after your surrogate is medically cleared and before you can start medication for an embryo transfer, usually. However, it may benefit you to find a surrogacy lawyer at an earlier time. If you are on an independent journey, you may want to consult with a surrogacy journey while you are looking for a match to know about the legality in different states. In addition, the lawyer can help by providing a blank compensation template so you can come to an agreement on compensation before the lawyer drafts. If you are working with a surrogacy agency, you can wait until a surrogate has been chosen or you can contact a surrogacy lawyer at the time you are selecting an agency to help review the agency agreement. The fee for reviewing an agency agreement should be lower than for other contracts, and it can help you decide whether to move forward with an agency or what to look out for. You can also get their opinion on their experiences with the agency, and get an idea of how it will be to work with that lawyer in the future. How can you choose the right surrogacy lawyer If you are new to surrogacy, It’s not a good idea to take the first lawyer you find or the cheapest lawyer, it is important to check the background of the lawyer and the law firm you will be working with this includes the number of years they have practiced, the state they are barred in, organizations they are involved in, and the distinctions they have. Law firms like Tsong Law Group have been are subject matter experts at egg donation and game donation, Surrogacy and Family Law with experience spanning over two decades and as a Fellow of the Academy of California Adoption-ART Lawyers (ACAL). Their lawyers are admitted to California, New York, Illinois, Washington, Arizona and Oklahoma. With the experience of hundreds of cases each year in third party reproduction, they will be able handle any issue that comes up. After you find a well-qualified lawyer, you should find out how long it will take to draft the contract, and whether they will charge extra or the fee includes answering questions after the contract is drafted, including making amendments or assisting with disputes. You should also ask if the lawyer will review the contract with you or if it is left with a paralegal or legal assistant. The lawyer should be reviewing with you, and there should be no extra charge beyond the flat fee for answering questions or helping with problems during the journey. If you have questions about how a surrogacy attorney will help you on your journey, contact us for a free consultation.

On September 22, 2026, a high-profile multistate surrogacy dispute in the United States came to an end, at least for now. Justice Elena Kagan denied an emergency application from McKenna West, an Alaska gestational carrier who had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to halt a California judgment recognizing Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, the California intended parents, as the legal parents of the child West delivered in Texas. The denial came without an opinion, leaving the lower-court rulings in place, including the California parentage judgment and the Texas rulings permitting the child to be transferred to California for medical treatment. What Happened In August 2025, West entered into a gestational surrogacy agreement with Gilkar and Ahmed to carry and give birth to their genetically related child through assisted reproduction. The surrogacy agreement provided that the intended parents could request and West would comply with an abortion request if the intended parents requested one for abnormalities. On April 17, 2026, when West was approximately 20 weeks pregnant, an ultrasound revealed that the fetus had hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), a serious congenital heart condition. According to the parties' court filings and testimony, Gilkar and Ahmed asked West to terminate the pregnancy. West refused. By mid-July, she had moved without permission to Texas, where abortion is generally prohibited. On August 12, West gave birth in Texas to the child the intended parents named Rumi and West has referred to as Gabriel. In the span of less than a year, West and the intended parents moved from a surrogacy arrangement to litigation in multiple courts and three states, with each side asking courts to give legal effect to a different part of their understanding of the arrangement. The Whole Three-State Legal Saga California: Parentage Judgment On May 22, 2026, Gilkar and Ahmed, as California residents, filed a petition with the Los Angeles Superior Court seeking a judgment establishing their parentage of the unborn child. California law expressly permits an action to establish the parent-child relationship for a child conceived through a gestational-carrier agreement to be filed before birth. Under California Family Code § 7962, when presented with a petition and a surrogacy agreement that complies with California law, a court shall issue a judgment finding that the intended parents are the parents of the gestated child and the gestational carrier is not a parent of the child. West made a special appearance to contest California's jurisdiction and the forum and moved to quash service. Her position was that California was not the proper forum for the dispute, pointing in part to the agreement's Alaska forum-selection provision. The California trial court rejected that threshold challenge. According to West's September 9 Supreme Court filing, the court concluded on June 12 that West's jurisdictional filings constituted a general appearance, which the court treated as consent to its jurisdiction. The court subsequently entered a judgment of parentage on June 22, declaring Gilkar and Ahmed the legal parents. The judgment was stayed until the child's birth. West appealed the judgment and separately sought writ relief and a stay from the California Court of Appeal. Those petitions were denied between July 27 and August 7. On August 7, she petitioned the California Supreme Court for review and a stay; that request was denied on August 26. The California proceedings therefore established two facts that became central to legal proceedings that were pursued afterwards: California had entered a parentage judgment before the child's birth, and West had exhausted her available challenges to that judgment in the California courts before turning to the U.S. Supreme Court. Alaska: honors CA parentage judgment Alaska was the forum contemplated by the parties’ agreement and the state where West lived. The parties also previously initiated a joint parentage proceeding there before the dispute moved to California. After the California action was filed, West brought her own action in the Alaska Superior Court, McKenna West v. A.B. et al., No. 3AN-26-07180 CI. In her Alaska complaint, West challenged provisions of the surrogacy agreement and argued that portions of the agreement were unenforceable under Alaska law and the Alaska Constitution. She also relied on the agreement's forum-selection provision in challenging the move to California. On the other hand, intended parents have independent basis under California law to seek a parentage judgment there, and the California judgment was also entitled to recognition in Alaska under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, § 1. On June 29, the Alaska Superior Court gave the California parentage judgment full faith and credit. That result illustrates an important separation between a contractual choice of forum and interstate recognition of a judicial judgment. A provision selecting Alaska as the forum for contractual disputes did not necessarily determine which state could exercise statutory jurisdiction over parentage, nor did it by itself prevent another state’s final judgment from receiving recognition under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Texas: Medical Decision-Making Before the birth, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton intervened in the Dallas County proceeding at West's request for judicial protection. Paxton's office sought an emergency order requiring that the newborn receive medically necessary, lifesaving treatment and remain in Texas while the court considered the parties' competing claims. His filing framed the issue separately from the enforceability of the surrogacy agreement: the immediate question, in the Attorney General's view, was whether a newborn with a serious but potentially treatable heart condition could be denied lifesaving care because of a dispute among adults concerning parental authority. On August 11, the intended parents obtained a temporary restraining order preventing West from making medical decisions, taking custody of the child, representing herself as a decisionmaker, parent or guardian for the child, one day before West gave birth. On the same day, the Dallas court granted AG Paxton’s request for an emergency order which required the hospitals to provide lifesaving care after the child's birth and restricted his removal from Texas while the matter remained pending. It also appointed a guardian ad litem for the child and provided for further judicial intervention if medically necessary treatment were refused. These orders provided Baby Rumi receive care and West not have a role or any access to Baby Rumi but did not resolve whether Gilkar and Ahmed, rather than West, had parental authority and the ability to make medical decisions. After the child was born, he received treatment in Texas, including the Norwood procedure. AG Paxton subsequently withdrew from the case. The temporary restraining order obtained by Gilkar and Ahmed remained in place, however, limiting West's ability to make medical decisions, exercise possession of the child, or remove him from the hospital. The Texas proceedings then shifted from emergency medical protection to the parties' competing claims of parental authority. West sought sole conservatorship of the child and argued that she should have a legal role in protecting and making decisions for him. On September 2, the Dallas court ultimately rejected West's claim and dismissed her from the proceeding. West's subsequent appeal and reporting on the proceeding indicate that the court gave effect to the existing California parentage determination rather than treating the child's Texas birth as creating a new parentage question. The medical question nevertheless remained. Because the child was born with HLHS and required complex cardiac treatment, the intended parents sought to transfer him to Los Angeles for continued specialized treatment, while West sought to prevent the intended parents from transferring him from Texas to California. At an August 25 hearing, the Texas court heard evidence from the child's physicians and from a court-appointed guardian ad litem concerning the proposed transfer who favored the transfer, and the court approved the transfer and converted the temporary restraining order to a temporary injunction. West appealed, and the appeal delayed the transfer of the child to California. The matter eventually reached the Texas Supreme Court. On September 17, that court denied West's request to prevent the transfer. The court emphasized the time-sensitive medical circumstances and the child's immediate interests, stating that the limited record before it contained uncontroverted medical testimony that an ICU-to-ICU transfer was in the child's best interest to preserve his life. The court's reasoning rested primarily on the medical record and the child's immediate welfare, rather than on a new rule concerning the enforceability of surrogacy agreements. Taken together, the proceedings in the McKenna West case produced a series of rulings, rather than a single definitive answer to every issue raised by the dispute. California’s judgment rested on its statutory framework for gestational-carrier agreements under Family Code § 7962. That framework reflects California’s longstanding recognition of intended parents in gestational surrogacy, including the principles articulated in Johnson v. Calvert, 5 Cal. 4th 84 (1993). Alaska’s recognition of the California judgment added an interstate dimension, but did not independently resolve the underlying dispute over the surrogacy agreement. Texas, in turn, addressed the circumstances after the child’s birth, including emergency medical care, conservatorship, and transfer to California. U.S. Supreme Court: Emergency Application On September 9, after the California Supreme Court denied her request for review and a stay, West filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court. She asked Justice Elena Kagan, who handles emergency applications arising from the Ninth Circuit, to stay the California parentage judgment while she pursued further review and to preserve her ability to seek relief concerning the child. The constitutional question presented was narrower than the underlying surrogacy dispute. West argued that the California court had violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by treating her limited appearance to contest personal jurisdiction and forum as a general appearance consenting to California's jurisdiction. In her telling, she had expressly appeared only to challenge the court's authority over her; the California court instead concluded that her challenge in the court amounted to a consent to its jurisdiction. On September 22, Justice Kagan denied the application without an accompanying opinion. The order left the California judgment and the relevant Texas rulings in place, but it did not constitute a merits decision by the full Supreme Court on the enforceability of surrogacy agreements or interstate parentage. Conclusion In the end, the outcome of the case seems like it was never in doubt with all the court decisions in favor of the intended parents, but this likely could have ended up differently had the intended parents given up at some point and not been willing to fight tenaciously for their parentage and ability to make medical decisions. It appears that Gilkar and Ahmed had to rely on their own funds to litigate and defend the various court actions. In West’s case, her lawyers were provided by anti-abortion group Alliance Defending Freedom, which took on the Dobbs litigation that overturned Roe v. Wade, and was supported by a GiveSendGo campaign that raised over $135,000. The legal victory for the intended parents only restored them to what the parties had agreed to in their contract: the status of legal parents who have the exclusive right to name the child, be on the birth certificate, and make medical decisions for the child. One can only wonder if West’s appeals, which delayed the transfer of the child to a high-level ICU in California, adversely affected the health outcome of Baby Rumi. For surrogacy professionals, there is a very important positive development in the legal saga: the courts of Alaska and Texas consistently held that a surrogacy parentage judgment from another state had to be afforded full faith and credit. Secondly, even though the forum selection clause indicated Alaska was the proper forum for parentage, a contested parentage judgment was obtained in California and recognized by all three states. The fact that two states’ courts recognized the California parentage judgment, even though contested by the surrogate, could strengthen the certainty of parties to enforce surrogacy contracts in other states which have no surrogacy laws or even a negative law like Arizona, where a parentage judgment could be obtained in a different state. As the legal proceedings were a long and winding discussion, we plan to have a part two article on the West case. In our next part, we will discuss what practical lessons can be learned from the matter. The McKenna West case shows how a surrogacy journey can take unexpected turns. Careful planning and honest discussion with your surrogacy lawyer can help intended parents and gestational carriers understand their rights and responsibilities before those turns become disputes. Tsong Law Group specializes in assisted reproduction law across the United States, with attorneys licensed in California, New York, Washington, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Illinois. We help intended parents and gestational carriers navigate every stage of the legal process, from pre-birth orders to parentage judgments. If you're building your family through surrogacy, contact our team to schedule a consultation.

Sometimes, a surrogate birth happens earlier than the estimated date. While it sounds alarming, for intended parents and their attorneys who have been informed along the way, it should not be a crisis. After a gestational surrogacy contract is complete, the legal timeline does not end there. The next key step of a surrogacy journey is a prebirth order. The prebirth order, also called a “PBO,” is one of the last steps in a legal journey. The timing of PBO matters, as it ensures that the legal parentage is established before the child is delivered. In many cases, the process of a PBO can take longer than the contract stage of the legal journey. In this article, PBO will refer to the entire case filing rather than the judgment of parentage, which it can also refer to. Once an embryo transfer results in a pregnancy, the legal side of your surrogacy journey may start in motion again in preparation for PBO, but when it restarts depends on different considerations of the intended parents and realities on the ground. Here's what intended parents can expect at each stage following the embryo transfer, and why informing your attorney to start preparing PBO documents at the right moment makes all the difference. Notice of Pregnancy, Around Week 13 As attorneys, we are sometimes informed of a positive fetal heartbeat pregnancy, which is typically six or seven gestational weeks. This is a great milestone for you and your surrogate to reach, but in general, it may still be early to start the PBO. On rare occasions, intended parents start the PBO at fetal heartbeat, but as there is still a significant risk of miscarriage, it is only with specific requests that we would start the PBO. A more significant milestone for the PBO process is when the gestational carrier "graduates" from the IVF clinic's care to her own obstetrician (OB), which usually happens around 13 weeks. At that point, you or your agency should let your attorney know the pregnancy is confirmed and ongoing. The Intake: Gathering What the Court Will Need Once your attorney has notice of the pregnancy and the gestational carrier’s graduation to the OB, they'll send an intake for you or your agency to complete. This intake collects the information needed to prepare a prebirth order in states that allow one. Even in postbirth-order states, your attorney will gather information and prepare the postbirth order paperwork in advance, so there will be no delays in getting documents signed. Filing At or Before Fetal Viability Some intended parents prefer to wait on starting the PBO until the anatomy ultrasound, which typically occurs between 18 and 22 weeks of pregnancy. Once it is confirmed that the pregnancy has progressed well and is free of abnormalities, the intended parents ask their attorney to file. Others will request preparing the PBO before the anatomy scan. Both approaches can be reasonable, but the right choice may depend on other factors, such as how long the local courts tend to take, and how long the parties may take to review the PBO paperwork before signing. Some courts can take two months or more to actually issue a PBO judgment on their own. This has to be considered so the attorneys have enough time before the due date in order to obtain a judgment. When unsure, it may be helpful to ask your attorney how long the court could take to issue a judgment once a PBO is filed, and factor in an extra month in terms of preparing a PBO. This way, you are less likely to be caught off guard if delivery happens early. Another possible timeframe to take into consideration is when a fetus is viable. What "viability" Actually Means Viability means a baby has a real chance of surviving outside the womb with intensive care. Doctors generally put that threshold at 23 to 24 weeks, and doctors call the stretch from 22 weeks 0 days to 25 weeks 6 days the 'periviable period.’ Survival is possible in that window, but unfortunately uncertain. Survival improves fast, week by week, during the periviable period. In NICHD's Neonatal Research Network data, infants who received active treatment survived to discharge at roughly 30% at 22 weeks, 55–56% at 23 weeks, 70% at 24 weeks, and 80% at 25 weeks, climbing quickly from there. Even the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the leading OB/GYN professional group, says there's no single week that works as a date of viability, and has warned against writing one fixed number into law. That's part of why the legal process doesn't wait to pin down an exact medical moment of viability. Preparing to file at or before this window is how a judgment can be signed in time for a premature but still viable birth. Since you may only know the number of weeks since the embryo transfer rather than the date of a last period given the period suppression medication while using IVF, our IVF calculator can convert your transfer date into a current gestational week as well as calculate the date of a specific gestational week. If Labor Starts Early Even if the attorney has filed a PBO with the court or has obtained the judgment, intended parents or the agency should notify the attorney right away if the gestational carrier goes into labor or the delivery is expected to occur prior to the previously estimated date. This allows your attorney to best advise you regarding the next steps, including notifying the hospital and preparing documents for issuing the birth certificates after the child is born. If the judgment is already in hand, the process is usually straightforward. You can work with your attorney to notify the hospital and confirm any paperwork it requires to list the intended parents on the birth worksheet, if applicable. This will allow the intended parents to be recognized on their child’s birth certificate. If the attorney doesn’t have the parentage judgment, this is the point where people worry the most, but it's worth observing that in most states, you do not need to panic. Vital records offices don't require a completed birth certificate right away. In California, for example, you generally have about two weeks; other states' timelines vary: some may have no hard deadline to issue a birth certificate. What matters is that your attorney knows the baby is arriving. From there, they can call the court to see the status of the judgment and decide whether to seek an emergency order to obtain the judgment. Emergency orders can be granted very quickly. In addition, in the event of an early delivery, the attorney can often notify the hospital about the filed PBO and pending judgment and prepare a power of attorney (“POA”) if the hospital requires one. A POA allows an agent designated by the intended parents to visit the child and make medical decisions on behalf of the intended parents in the interim. This is especially useful as an emergency safeguard when intended parents cannot quickly arrive at the hospital. Some hospitals allow visitation or medical decision-making without a POA, but sometimes it is hard to ascertain this, and a POA can often come in handy when the hospital wants additional documents for their records. For Gestational Carriers: When to Contact Your Attorney If you're the gestational carrier, let your attorney know if you're past 20 weeks and haven't received your parentage order paperwork, and especially let them know if a delivery looks imminent. Sometimes, the intended parents or agency simply forget to loop the attorneys in, or tell them about the latest changes in delivery date, so if you haven’t heard anything from your attorney, you can tell them yourself. Even if the intended parents’ attorney is responsible for the PBO, speaking to your attorney can make sure that they get the important updates and be able to remind other parties when necessary. Multiples Move Up the Timeline If the gestational carrier is carrying more than one baby, all of the above matters even more. Assisted reproductive pregnancies deliver preterm more often than the general population to begin with, and that gap widens considerably with twins or higher-order multiples, well into the periviable range discussed above. That means less time between filing and birth, and more reason to file earlier in the pregnancy. If you are expecting twins or more, treat every one of the previous points as more urgent, not less. Conclusion A successful PBO relies on proper case management. An early delivery will not jeopardize your surrogacy journey if the legal preparation is managed in organized stages rather than all at once. Keep your attorney informed at each of these points: pregnancy confirmation, the intake, filing, and any change in delivery timeline. It can take weeks for a PBO to be prepared and weeks or longer for a judgment to issue depending on the court it is filed in. Your attorney should be experienced enough to factor in signing delays and court delays when considering when to start a PBO. Choosing the right attorney matters: if you have, you shouldn't have to worry about the legal side even if the baby comes early. In our experience, we have never had a case where we handled the prebirth order and the judgment failed to issue, leaving a child with no legal parents or the gestational carrier as the legal parent by default. Tsong Law Group specializes in assisted reproduction law across the United States, with attorneys licensed in California, New York, Washington, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Illinois. We help intended parents and gestational carriers navigate every stage of the legal process, from pre-birth orders to parentage judgments. If you're building your family through surrogacy, contact our team to schedule a consultation. This article is for general educational purposes and is not medical or legal advice. For guidance specific to your pregnancy, talk to your OB or maternal-fetal medicine specialist.

Update: September 2, 2026. US District Court Judge Deborah Boardman of Maryland issued a preliminary injunction stopping Executive Order 14418 "Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship" from affecting the citizenship rights of the certified class of plaintiffs. The certified class includes mothers who are temporarily legally present at the time of birth and where the father is not a US citizen or permanent resident. On September 4, 2026, the US State Department issued guidance on the implementation of EO 14418 stating that no agency or department shall issue documents recognizing citizenship to a child born in the U.S. where neither parent is a citizen and either parent engaged in a commercial transaction to purchase or access citizenship, including “when the parent(s) engage in a commercial transaction with a surrogate present in the United States to give birth.” At the passport agencies at the time of application, or at the time of review of an application, if neither parent is a U.S. citizen, each parent will have to attest under penalty of perjury whether they meet the EO conditions. Any misrepresentation could subject them to legal liability, including criminal prosecution. On September 9, 2026, the ACLU filed a motion in the existing case Barbara v. Trump to expand its existing certified class to include surrogacy intended parents. If successful, this could result in an injunction to protect the children of all international intended parents. Recently, the Trump administration issued two new Executive Orders which could affect surrogacy for intended parents who are not US citizens. First, Ending Birth Tourism (“first Executive Order”). This executive order, signed August 6, 2026, directs the State Department and DHS to treat coming to the U.S. on a temporary visa in order to give birth as a misuse of that visa. It gives both agencies authority to deny visas, revoke them, bar or remove people who do this, and take action against businesses that help arrange it, with exceptions available on humanitarian or national-interest grounds. While there is rhetoric that surrogacy is birth tourism, this Executive Order does not mention surrogacy and by its wording does not cover intended parents. Second, Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship (“second Executive Order”). This order, also signed August 6, 2026, says federal agencies will not issue citizenship documents to, or accept state-issued citizenship documents for, a child born in the U.S. when neither parent is a citizen and one of several conditions applies: (1) a parent is a designated terrorist; a parent is an employee of a foreign government or international organization with international organization immunity; (2) the parents engaged in a commercial transaction to purchase or access birthright citizenship for the child; or (3) the birth occurred in a U.S. territory where citizenship isn't granted by statute. Of note, provision (2) applies (i)  when the parent(s) of the person engage in a commercial transaction to ensure that the person’s mother is present in the United States, or a territory of the United States, to give birth; or (ii)  when the parent(s) engage in a commercial transaction with a surrogate present in the United States, or a territory of the United States, to give birth. This subsection (ii) would appear to affect intended parents who are not US citizens and who enter into a compensated surrogacy agreement, and have the effect of preventing them from obtaining passports and social security numbers. What Does This Mean for Surrogacy Prior to these Executive Orders taking effect, children born to international parents are eligible for US passports when born in the US. These US passport were obtained for the child to return to the intended parent’s home country; they have not been used to allow an intended parent to stay in the US or migrate to the US, and international intended parents have no intention to stay in the US. Within 30 days, or by September 5, 2026, USCIS will issue policies that affect whether the USCIS will issue a passport to international intended parents where neither is a US citizen. First, any child born before the 30-day implementation will not be affected. Second, as with the original Executive Order “Protecting the Value and Meaning of American Citizenship” (“original Executive Order”) which we previously discussed at length, it is highly likely that a private lawsuit will be filed in court that will enjoin the Executive Order from taking place. Following the Supreme Court decision of Trump v. CASA, Inc., a class action must be filed to enjoin (stop) the original Executive Order from taking place. A class action is a lawsuit where one or more persons represents a class of people who are negatively affected by the lawsuit. This requires persons who actually will be harmed by the order to sue and represent the class of intended parents who are not US citizens. Finally, a question will be how the USCIS will know that the birth is through surrogacy. Parentage orders are issued in state courts and in most states these are confidential records. The birth certificate will not state that the birth is from a gestational surrogate so it is possible that the USCIS will not deny all parents passports. This is where the First Executive Order would broadly apply to block those intended parents who are on a temporary visa from eventually obtaining U.S. citizenship through their US-born children. However, we expect the first Executive Order is highly likely to be enjoined. In our opinion, both Executive Orders cannot survive Constitutional challenges for the same reason the original Executive Order predictably did not survive legal challenges. The President cannot define what class of people are exempt from citizenship, the Supreme Court was clear in the case of Trump v. Barbara that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to all persons born in the US with limited exceptions expressly stated. Even if the concurring opinion of Justice Kavanagh that Congress can pass a law to define who is a foreign invader could expand who is excluded, President Trump is not signing a law defining who is a foreign invader, so direct and immediate court precedent should invalidate these Executive Orders. What Do You Do Now? If you are not a US citizen and you are matched with a surrogate, should you cancel the match or delay moving forward? As the legal grounds for the Executive Orders are extremely weak after the Trump v. Barbara decision which overturned the original Executive Order, you could wait to see if lawsuits are filed and whether an injunction takes place stopping the Executive Orders. Some intended parents can also weigh the risk that if the second Executive Order remain in effect, that they can still proceed. It is likely that intended parents in most countries can bring home their children born to surrogates, although in some countries and situations, it may be more challenging. Overall, the risk to international intended parents remains small until the Executive Orders are in effect. It is our belief that President Trump cannot determine who is a citizen or who can obtain proof of citizenship. While he may continue to issue executive orders in an attempt to stop children from becoming citizens, these orders will be struck down as long as individuals continue to challenge him in court. Organizations that sued Trump for the original Executive Order will be filing new lawsuits to stop the Executive Orders from taking place. The ACLU brought the Trump v. Barbara lawsuit. Please consider contacting them if you believe you will be a good class representative. If the second Executive Order is enjoined, it will have no legal effect. It will remain enjoined until a trial occurs. The injunction will be subject to appeal, but as long as the Supreme Court composition does not change significantly before it receives the appeal, it seems likely the Executive Order will have no effect on international surrogacy. In the unlikely event that the second Executive Order is not enjoined and does go into effect, talk with your attorney. The federal government cannot stop state governments from issuing birth certificates and intended parents ability to be on the birth certificate will not be affected. While citizenship documents may not be available, in many countries, there will be means to travel without a passport as during the COVID-19 shutdown. Tsong Law Group specializes in assisted reproduction law across the United States, with attorneys licensed in California, New York, Washington, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Illinois. We help international intended parents secure pre-birth orders, navigate citizenship documentation, and protect their parental rights from the outset. If you are an international intended parent planning surrogacy in the United States, contact our team to schedule a consultation and ensure your family’s legal protection. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship with the reader.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, who catch the attention of the media and the public with their every single move, are no strangers to controversy. Yet, recently the British tabloids have started speculating on yet another potential aspect to this couple: surrogacy. Speculation has recently swirled about whether the Duke and Duchess of Sussex may have used a surrogate to carry and give birth to their children Prince Archie and Princess Lilbet, who are sixth and seventh in line for the British throne. Some critics argue Meghan should provide more proof that she gave birth.  First off, from our review, there is currently no evidence or admission that Harry and Meghan had a surrogate for either birth. It's possible these rumors are their critics looking for another reason to harass and doubt the couple for living independently in the United States and apart from the rest of the Royal Family. Surrogacy contracts are normally governed by confidentiality clauses, so if Harry and Meghan did have a surrogate, their surrogate would likely be bound to not disclose the identity of who she carried for. In most states, the parentage action in which the court finds the intended parents are the parents, it would be sealed to the public. In a state like California, only one birth certificate is issued naming the intended parents as a child’s legal parents, while in some states, a birth certificate with the surrogate’s name will briefly exist before being sealed. Nonetheless, the scenario raises unique questions: why would it matter if a child born is born via surrogacy, if genetically the child of Harry and Meghan? What legal issue would arise under royal succession laws if a child was born by a surrogate as opposed by the Duchess herself?  Challenges to Conventions Meghan Markle, as a biracial, American-born royal, has already challenged several conventions, from speaking openly about mental health to addressing racism within the royal institution. We would think that Meghan and Harry would not be reluctant to embrace surrogacy publicly just as they are willing to talk about other aspects of their life. No doubt, it would further their reputation as modernizers while igniting a cultural conversation about family-building alternatives. Nonetheless, it is surprising to learn that the method of giving birth could matter for legitimacy. The line of succession to the British throne is governed by centuries-old traditions and legal frameworks, primarily the Act of Settlement (1701) and the Succession to the Crown Act (2013). These laws ensure a clear lineage, emphasizing legitimacy and birthright. Having said that, surrogacy introduces complexities that these statutes never anticipated. Central to the legal debate is the Roman law principle of mater semper certa est—"the mother is always certain"—which underpins UK family law. This legal concept reinforces the surrogate's initial status as the mother, potentially complicating the royal child's claim to legitimacy. The Succession to the Crown Bill discusses the necessity for an heir to be the "offspring of both parties" in a royal marriage, raising questions about the legitimacy of children born via surrogacy. Interestingly, while the British royal family has yet to address surrogacy publicly, other royal families have faced similar challenges with modern reproductive methods. For instance: Viscount and Lady Weymouth: Viscount and Lady Weymouth became the first members of the British aristocracy to have a child via surrogacy. This event has sparked conversations about the acceptance of surrogacy within the upper echelons of British society. Prince Gustav and Princess Carina of Sayn-Wittigensten: These German royals welcomed their second child via surrogate via surrogate 11 months after the birth of their first child. This couple overcame strict royal rules to get married before, which makes historian and royal house commentator Lars Hovbakke Sørensen thinks that such experience "can help to create more understanding around their decision about surrogate motherhood." These examples highlight that royalty worldwide navigates the delicate balance between tradition and modernity, with varying degrees of transparency. The Legal and Cultural Debate If Harry and Meghan were to announce the use of surrogacy, the implications would extend far beyond tabloid headlines. Royal rights and privileges remain undecided for a child born via surrogacy. Legal experts suggest that a parental order, which transfers parental rights to the intended parents, might satisfy succession requirements. Nevertheless, this would likely require additional scrutiny or even new legal precedents. Legal experts point out that the monarchy’s approach to succession has evolved over time to adapt to changing societal norms. One great example is the Succession to the Crown Act (2013) abolished male preference primogeniture, allowing female heirs to take precedence over younger male siblings. This reform demonstrates that royal laws can be flexible. Culturally, surrogacy remains a polarizing topic. It has gained acceptance in many parts of the world, including the UK, but traditionalists often view it as incompatible with royal lineage. “The queen was this wonderful blank canvas,” says longtime royals expert Richard Fitzwilliams, on which Britons could project their own views and perceptions onto.6 However, after the queen’s passing, royalties are facing challenges. The institution still enjoys a broad support, a recent YouGov survey shows that the rate has declined from 62% to 58%.7 To maintain its popularity, even the monarchy must eventually reconcile its traditions with contemporary realities. In the meantime, surrogacy needs increasingly grow in the UK. The number of parents having a baby using a surrogate in England and Wales has almost quadrupled in the last 10 years. Family Law Commissioner Professor Nick Hopkins commented: “The use of surrogacy to form a family has increased in recent years, but our decades-old laws are outdated and not fit for purpose.” All this evidence proves that reformation is urgently needed. As Lord Michael Jopling of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom mentioned: “Surrogacy is becoming much more common and it is not impossible that this could happen in the future……It is rather important that this should be clarified now because it could give rise to considerable difficulties in the future.”10 Surrogacy, although once seem to disrupt the “ideal” image, it is now a topic that requires the royal family’s opinions. Public Opinion and the Future of the Monarchy While the story has yet to ignite without further evidence, this controversy also sheds light on perceptions of surrogacy in British society. In the UK, surrogacy arrangements are legal but heavily regulated. Public acceptance has grown, particularly among younger generations, but a stigma persists.  Public opinion will undoubtedly shape how the Royal Family approaches this issue. Surveys indicate a generational divide: younger Britons tend to support alternative family-building methods, while older generations remain more conservative. One poll shows that 55% of respondents aged 18-24 and 50% of respondents aged 25-49 viewed surrogacy positively, compared to only 36% of those over 65. When it comes to the public’s perception, transparency could play a key role. A candid acknowledgment of surrogacy might help destigmatize the practice and align the royal family with modern values. Alternatively, silence or ambiguity might instead fuel further speculation and criticism.  If handled thoughtfully, the British monarchy could use this moment to demonstrate its relevance in a rapidly changing world. By embracing progressive values while respecting tradition, the royal family could reinforce its place as a unifying institution.  Conclusion: Tradition Meets Change A possible surrogacy controversy surrounding Harry and Meghan reflects the evolving nature of family-building in the 21st century. While surrogacy raises complex legal and cultural questions, it also offers an opportunity for the British monarchy to demonstrate adaptability and inclusivity.  If a royal child were to be born via surrogacy, it would undoubtedly spark debates about legitimacy and succession. However, it could also set a powerful precedent, by challenging outdated norms and normalizing diverse paths to parenthood.  If there is a surrogacy birth in the Royal Family, the world will be watching. Whether through transparency, legal reform, or quiet acceptance, we hope the British Royal Family redefines what it means to be royal in an era of change.  If Harry and Meghan's situation raised questions about your own path to parenthood, our surrogacy lawyer can guide you through the legal process with confidence. Contact us today to schedule a consultation. Other References https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/love-sex/amid-divorce-rumours-prince-harry-meghan-markle-now-embroiled-in-surrogacy-controversy/articleshow/116961681.cms?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/Surrogacy-law-in-the-UK-ethical-considerations.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.tatler.com/article/surrogacy-law-change-uk?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.financeuncovered.org/stories/surrogacy-law-reform-law-commission-cafcass-low-cost-surrogates-new-life-baby-broker https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/22/world/europe/prince-harry-murdoch-lawsuit.html?unlocked_article_code=1.rE4.j5a9.wecDYt_l0p1V&smid=url-share

The Sinister Surrogate is a 2018 drama and thriller film that stars Brian Ames and Kelly Thiebaud. The movie features a perfect couple Danielle and Josh having everything in their lives: a beautiful house and successful lives. Despite this, there is one thing that the couple feels like missing: a child. They had multiple attempts to start a family, however, it all ended up in failure, giving them the chance to go for surrogacy route. While on their surrogacy journey, they meet Kailee, their perfect candidate as a surrogate. She is cheerful and lively and her pregnancy goes along smoothly. All is well, until after she gives birth. Kailee the surrogate kept on coming to Danielle and Josh’s family surprisingly offering them different gifts. Although this is supposed to be normal, Danielle can't help but feel there's something dark lurking behind Kailee the surrogate. This left the couple unsettled thinking that perhaps she felt attached to their daughter. As the story progress, it is revealed Kailee’s plan is to take Danielle and Josh’s daughter and claim her as her own. Real-World Accuracy In the first act, the movie examines how couples choose surrogacy as an option after unsuccessful fertility treatments. When Kailee was picked as the ideal surrogate candidate for the Danielle and Josh, the latter are very supportive and engaged throughout the pregnancy. In reality, intended parents are allowed to attend pregnancy appointments (though not birthing classes), and the delivery of their surrogate. One major issue portrayed in the movie is the contact by Kailee post-pregnancy. In reality, while many parties can continue to have contact after the delivery, others choose to have no contact with their surrogate post-pregnancy. There is no indication in this movie that the parties addressed contact after delivery in their gestational surrogacy contract. If Danielle and Josh were clients of Tsong Law Group, they would have had a section in the surrogacy contract on permissible contact. This section would allow either party to cease contact in writing, and hold the other in breach. It should also be noted that there is no legal uncertainty about who is the parent. Kailee should have signed paperwork that relinquishes and waives all her claims to claim parental rights and stipulated to a judgment that Danielle and Josh are the parents. One thing that is also disappointing in the movie was the ability of the agency to put a stop to Kailee’s plan but failed to do so. Kailee’s interference would have been prevented only if the agency had properly screened Kailee in the first instance. It is apparent that Kailee has never given birth before. Under ASRM guidelines, surrogates must have experience delivering babies so that the doctors know they are ideal candidates without complicated deliveries. I am unaware of any U.S. agencies that allow surrogates who have not given birth. Even had she were qualified, Kailee would have undergone a psychological screening to assess whether she had any mental illnesses or understood her role as a surrogate or would be attached to a child. Further, she should have had her own separate attorney to review the surrogacy contract, ensuring she understood her role as the surrogate, understood permissible contact, and understood she had a right to receive psychological support during the journey. Assistance from the agency during the journey would also be warranted. Agencies often provide support group meetings as well as psychological assistance. If Kailee was surrounded by surrogates who understood their role, and had to discuss how she felt, she might have appropriate feelings for the child she was carrying, or perhaps red flags would be raised to show she needed more psychological assistance. Conclusion: If you’re into thrillers or dramas, The Sinister Surrogacy is a movie still a miss. Perhaps not surprising, the movie is another by-the-numbers that calls on the trope of the obsessive surrogate who wants the baby, though the actors playing Danielle and Josh do a good job. Although the movie depicts a bit of what happens in reality in the first scenes of the movie, it veers into camp with the all-too familiar storyline of the obsessed surrogate. We don’t think that The Sinister Surrogacy is realistic and the concept of the surrogate wanting to claim the baby is extremely overblown in movies. However, whether you are an intended parent or a surrogate, you should always have competent, experienced counsel for your journey, who can answer all your questions. Get in touch with a surrogacy lawyer, contact us today.