Monday, July 22, 2019
Note on Baby Got Back? Enforcing Guardianship in International Surrogacy Agreements When Tragedy Strikes
Chelsea E. Caldwell recently published a Note entitled, Baby Got Back? Enforcing Guardianship in International Surrogacy Agreements When Tragedy Strikes, 49 U. Mem. L. Rev. 848-882 (2019). Provided below is an introduction to the Note.
R.H. and her husband M.H., Italian citizens, have tried for eight years to conceive a child - utilizing every avenue of fertility services available to them in Italy, to no avail. Her doctor advises R.H. that it is unlikely she will ever be able to carry a child of her own and that adoption is the only option in Italy for the couple to expand their family. Not ready to give up yet, R.H. contacts a surrogacy agency located in the United States. After timely consultations, the couple is matched with surrogate mother C.E., who lives in Chicago. R.H. and M.H. fly to Chicago several times to complete a cycle of In Vitro Fertilization ("IVF"), creating several viable embryos. To the couples' long-awaited success, surrogate mother C.E. becomes pregnant after the embryo transfer. Nine months go by swiftly and R.H. and M.H. board a flight to Chicago for the birth of their son, S. Unfortunately, their plane crashes, leaving no survivors. The couple indicated in their International Surrogacy Agreement ("ISA") with surrogate mother C.E. that R.H.'s sister in Italy would be the appointed guardian should something happen to them. However, that agreement was drafted and completed in the United States. Italy does not recognize such contracts and, in fact, forbids them. What happens to stateless baby S?
International parents, like R.H. and M.H., come to the United States from foreign destinations where surrogacy is illegal or against public policy in their country of origin; they contract with surrogates in the United States to carry out their pregnancies, fulfilling their dreams of parentage to have a child of their own. The surrogacy agreement, however, is often the easiest part in this situation - international intended parent(s) ("international intended parents") must circumvent their countries' laws not only to carry out the surrogacy agreement but also to successfully establish legal parentage and desired citizenship of the child in their country of origin once the child is born.
Within this delicate situation comes the need for intended parents to address estate planning, specifically considering the possibility of a tragedy befalling them while their child is in utero with a surrogate in the United States. Currently, there is a disconnect in the estate planning realm, even domestically between American intended parents and American surrogates; most patients rely on inadequate consent forms provided by fertility clinics. The legal issues are more complex when considering cross-border surrogacy arrangements and international intended parents who face restrictive and conflicting laws regarding surrogacy.
With rapid medical advances in the Assisted Reproductive Technology ("ART") field and progressive hesitancy in foreign countries toward surrogacy, complexities resulting from prevalent cross-border surrogacy arrangements are sure to only increase, which is this Note's broad focus. Part II of this Note provides a brief introduction to international surrogacy: tracing the history of surrogacy's prevalence beginning in the United States to its expansion across borders and how estate planning is significant in this area. Part III delves further into surrogacy in an international context, offering a comparative view of surrogacy laws in different countries and some resulting, notable but common examples of challenges international intended parents face to establish parentage and citizenship in their country of origin. Thereafter, Part IV circles back to the main issue of estate planning for guardianship purposes and analyzes possible protections and future outlooks on existing international conventions: the Washington Convention and the Hague Convention. Finally, Part V presents a proposed standard of international comity, and Part VI concludes. Taken together, this Note hopes to bring greater clarity to the doctrinal tensions one finds in the contemporary law of international surrogacy.