Archive for the ‘Surrogacy’ Category
May 14th, 2012 | Posted by Leah | Posted in Assisted Reproductive Law, Surrogacy
Brian and Misty Baker had been trying over 10 years to have a child. After several failed IVF attempts, the couple knew that their next option was a gestational surrogate. For many couples, finding a surrogate and be a long, painstaking process. For the Bakers, they were fortunate enough to know exactly who their surrogate would be; Misty’s best friend, Amber.
In September of 2011, the couple, and Amber, went through the IVF process. Fortunately for them, they ended up with six embryos available for transfer. The couple chose to have two embryos transferred to Amber (the surrogate) and four embryos transferred to Misty. Their doctor told them that it would be a long shot for Misty to get pregnant with those embryos; after all, it hadn’t worked the previous times. However, the couple held out hope.
Two excruciating weeks later, the couple found out that both Misty and Amber were pregnant! A true miracle had occurred! Shortly after, they found out the both women are carrying twins.
Now, Misty and Brian are preparing themselves to be parents of quadruplets. Since the embryos were conceived at the same time, Misty and her surrogate, Amber, are due on the same day. There are some logistical birth details to work out. Brian and Misty now live in Seattle, while Amber lives in Indiana. Brian has committed that if Misty has given birth, he will travel to Indiana to be there when Amber gives birth. Once the babies are safe to travel, Brian and Misty will bring them home where they will finally realize their dream of having a child times FOUR! These are four additional reasons that we are so proud to be involved in building families.
The Bakers have been inundated with media attention, here in Indiana and nationally. Check out their interview on WRTV 6 here.
To follow the Baker’s journey go here.
Tags: infertility, IVF, surrogacy
April 30th, 2012 | Posted by Leah | Posted in Assisted Reproductive Law
An Indiana woman is claiming she was fired from her Catholic school teaching job for ungergoing in vitro fertilization treatments. The woman is now suing the diocese in what could be a legal showdown over reproductive and religious rights.
Emily Herx’s lawsuit accuses the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend and St. Vincent de Paul school in Fort Wayne of discrimination for her terminating her last June. Herx says that the church pastor told her she was a “grave, immoral sinner” and that she should have kept quiet about her fertility treatments because some things are “better left between the individual and God,” the complaint said. The diocese responded saying it “views the core issue raised in this lawsuit as a challenge to the diocese’s right, as a religious employer, to make religious based decisions consistent with its religious standards on an impartial basis.” The Catholic church is against any type of infertility treatments. In fact, when Herx appealed the termination decision to Fort Wayne Bishop Kevin Rhoades, he told her IVF was “an intrinsic evil, which means that no circumstances can justify it.”
We’ve posted previously (HERE) about the possibility of discrimination against children conceived via Assisted Reproductive Technology. Is seems that this now is extending to the potential parents as well. It will be interesting to follow the case to see what the future holds for Reproductive Rights.
Tags: assisted reproductive technology, infertility, IVF, Michele Jackson
April 27th, 2012 | Posted by Leah | Posted in Assisted Reproductive Law
Picture of the week. One of these kids was born using Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) and one was not. The chicken or the spider?
Tags: ART, infertility, Michele Jackson
April 13th, 2012 | Posted by Leah | Posted in Assisted Reproductive Law, Surrogacy
Have you heard about the Family Act ( S 965/HR 3522) that is before Congress this session? This bill was introduced in Congress in May of 2011 and if passed, will create a tax credit for the out-of-pocket costs associated with infertility medical treatment. As you can imagine, this bill could have a major impact for intended parents and may help them overcome some of the financial barriers associated with Infertility.
Infertility groups across the nation have rallied support for this bill. RESOLVE, the National Infertility Association is taking that a step further. RESOLVE is sponsoring Advocacy Day on April 25th, 2012 in Washington D.C. Participants will spend the day talking to Members of Congress about the disease of Infertility. The message from RESOLVE is that, “Congress can help make a difference in the lives of patients battling infertility by making vital medical treatment options more accessible, and strengthening the federal commitment to research that will lead to prevention of and treatments for infertility.”
Once registered, the organization will make appointments with the participants’ Congress person, and then provide training and materials for participants to make the most of their meeting. Participants will also be paired with other advocates from their state or RESOLVE staff members at these meetings to ensure effective communication of their message.
If you are interested in attending Advocacy day, you may find more information at: http://familybuilding.resolve.org/site/PageServer?pagename=advday_home
Tags: infertility, Michele Jackson, surrogacy
April 6th, 2012 | Posted by Leah | Posted in Adoption, Assisted Reproductive Law, Surrogacy
Have you heard about the ICFI Fertility and Family Building Fair on April 24th? Attorney Michele Jackson will be speaking about foster parenting and adoption.
The Fertility and Family Building Fair is the concentrated effort to bring as many local resources together as possible for those working to build their families. The event will feature local REs and physicians, complementary and alternative medicine practitioners, financial assistance resources, fostering and adoption resources, local organizations dedicated to assisting those on their journey, and five educational presentations . The event is free to the community and takes place during National Infertility Week.
Tags: adoption, ART, Michele Jackson, surrogacy
March 21st, 2012 | Posted by Leah | Posted in Assisted Reproductive Law, General Law
On March 19th, 2012, the US Supreme Court began hearing arguments on whether a child who was conceived via in vitro fertilization after the death of his biological father can receive Social Security benefits as his father’s surviving child (Astrue v. Capato). This issue is increasingly relevant as the Social Security Administration is dealing with cases such as this and other complicated issues due to advanced technology in Reproductive practices.
In this particular case, Robert Capato deposited semen for storage at a local Sperm Bank in 1999 when he was diagnosed with cancer. Mr. Capato died in 2002. In 2003, his wife, Karen, used his sperm to become pregnant and give birth to twins. At the time of his death, Mr. Capato only named his three existing children as his beneficiaries in his will.
Mr. Capato resided in Florida when he died, so when Karen Capato applied for Social Security benefits in Florida she was denied due to Florida’s intestacy law. Florida law allows a postmortem child to inherit only if provided for in the decedent’s will, the court held that the twins were not eligible for child’s insurance benefits. In part, the legal issue hinges on the Social Security Administration’s definition of “child”, which a federal appeals court agreed that the Capatos did meet the definition as they are biologically Mr. Capato’s. However, the Social Security Administration’s position was that the issue should be decided by the wage-earner’s home state and whether that state would let a posthumously conceived child inherit property in the absence of a will. In the Capato’s case, the agency concluded that since Mr. Capato was a resident of Florida and it is a state that wouldn’t permit such an inheritance, the denial of benefits was upheld.
It is impossible to decipher the intent of Mr. Capato, but it seems clear that he had intended for children (or at least the possibility of children) after his death given that he had stored his semen at a Sperm Bank. Also, what if Karen Capato had been pregnant at the time of Mr. Capato’s death? The child would have been born after his death. Would that child have been denied Social Security benefits? Is there discrimination against children conceived via Assisted Reproductive Technology versus naturally?
This case brings up very important legal questions that the Social Security Administration will be forced to recognize and resolve in the very near future. Assisted Reproductive Technology has brought forth issues that haven’t existed before. Hopefully, the court can make precedential decisions to address these issues. Ultimately it comes down to the best interest of the children and hopefully that is reflected in the rulings that are handed down.
Tags: ART, Michele Jackson, social security benefits, sperm bank, third party reproduction
February 3rd, 2012 | Posted by Leah | Posted in Family Law, General Law, Surrogacy
In recent news, a sperm donor has led to a topic of debate regarding the need to regulate the number of children each sperm donor should be allowed to father. There is growing concern among parents, donors and medical experts about potential negative consequences of having so many children fathered by the same donor, including the possibility that genes for rare diseases could be spread more widely through the population. Another concern is the increased odds of accidental incest between half sisters and half brothers, who often live close to one another.
Critics say that fertility clinics and sperm banks are earning huge profits by allowing too many children to be conceived with sperm from popular donors, and that families should be given more information on the health of donors and the children conceived with their sperm. They also desire legal limits on the number of children conceived using the same donor’s sperm and a re-examination of the anonymity that cloaks many donors.
Although other countries, including Britain, France and Sweden, limit how many children a sperm donor can father, there is no such limit in the United States. There are only guidelines issued by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), a professional group that recommends restricting conceptions by individual donors to 25 births per population of 800,000.
The number of children born through sperm donation is unknown. The estimated number is between 30,000-60,000, perhaps even more. Mothers of donor children are asked to voluntarily report a child’s birth to the sperm bank, but an estimated 20-40% of them actually report the birth. Most families turn to the registry’s web site, donorsiblingregistry.com, for more information about a child’s half brother or half sisters.
The donors are given a number that identifies them and the children or families can look up how many siblings they have if they registered on the website identifying that donor number as their father also.
There are certainly competing interests at stake: the privacy of the sperm donor and the genetic or mental health concerns of the donor child, as well as concerns that the donor’s offspring will be a result of incest relationships and pose health concerns to those fetuses. The question of whose interests win out is still to be decided.
One major issue of liability and child support still remains in many states. Many states do not use the resources of a lawyer with known or unknown sperm donation arrangements. Often the sperm bank (or clinics) use consents and releases to add protection and limit liabilities in the arraignment. In recent years, there has been cases in which sperm donors that did not have a contract or agreement in place, were deemed financially responsible for the child as well as the intended parent(s). While this area of law is still “grey”, it is a hot topic to discuss amongst assisted reproduction professionals (medical and legal). A word to the wise, protect yourself and be sure that the medical facility, doctors, donors and recipients are all aware of the need for legal analysis of the sperm donation arrangement.
Tags: ART, contracts, Michele Jackson, sperm donor
January 31st, 2012 | Posted by Leah | Posted in General Law, Surrogacy
The attorneys at Harden Jackson LLC are dedicated to helping both couples and individuals achieve the dream of building a family. We understand that creating a family through surrogacy may seem daunting. However, we are eager to provide sound legal representation about an often confusing and emotional area of the law.
WHAT IS SURROGACY?
Surrogacy is a method of reproduction whereby a woman agrees to become pregnant and deliver the child for a contracted party.
A Traditional Surrogate is genetically related to the child she is carrying, as she is both the Egg Donor and the Surrogate. This option is not a recommended method due to the ethical, medical and legal complications involved.
A Gestational Surrogate has no genetic link to the child she is carrying. Rather, the egg is provided by either the Intended Mother or an Egg Donor. To begin a Gestational Surrogacy, the Intended Mother or Egg Donor will participate in an egg retrieval process. The eggs of the Intended Mother or Egg Donor are then mixed with the sperm of the Intended Father or Sperm Donor to create an embryo. Finally, one or more of these embryos are implanted within the Gestational Surrogate via In Vitro Fertilization (IVF).
FINDING A SURROGATE, EGG DONOR, AND/OR SPERM DONOR
Generally, Gestational Surrogacy arrangements are set up by Surrogacy and Donation Agencies that match you with a Surrogate, Egg Donor, and/or Sperm Donor. Should you require the services of an Agency, Surrogate, Egg Donor, and/or Sperm Donor you will enter into a separate contractual relationship with each party. Harden Jackson LLC works with numerous professionals who specialize in Gestational Surrogacy and Egg/Sperm Donation, and we will gladly refer you to an Agency that meets your needs. In the event that you are already working with an Agency, we are happy to coordinate with the existing Agency to provide your legal services.
If you have already found a suitable Surrogate, Egg Donor, and/or Sperm Donor, you may choose to proceed without the assistance of an Agency. This type of arrangement is typically referred to as an Independent Surrogacy.
Keep in mind that Gestational Surrogacy is a complex process which is difficult to accomplish successfully without expert assistance. Working with an Agency can often reduce stress, as the Agency will find a qualified Surrogate, source an egg and sperm donor (if necessary), guide you through the medical and psychological components, and provide you support.
RESOURCES
Generally, Gestational Surrogacy is a four-pronged process. Intended Parents typically work with an attorney, a counseling service, a medical provider, and a Surrogacy and Donation Agency. Before you begin the surrogacy process, understand that you will be faced with legal, psychological, and medical issues. By entering into these four relationships, you will receive expert assistance in each component of the surrogacy process. Our office is happy to provide intended parents with a list of recommended counseling, medical, and Agency providers. Before entering in a contract with an agency and committing sums, we suggest you consult with an attorney at the beginning of the process to have the contract with the agency reviewed prior to execution.
SURROGACY LAW
Surrogacy law is a relatively new field, and we recognize that the laws may seem confusing. It is important to note that surrogacy laws vary by state. In fact, surrogacy agreements are prohibited in several states. Indiana law currently holds that all surrogacy contracts are against public policy and are unenforceable. However, Indiana law does not prohibit the act of surrogacy itself and recent rulings by the courts in Indiana have been favorable to surrogacy. It is essential that you consult with an attorney prior to entering into a contract to understand the legal and financial risks associated with the surrogacy process.
Do not enter into an agreement with a Surrogate, Egg Donor, and/or Sperm Donor until you have confirmed the laws of the state in which you, the Surrogate, Egg Donor, and/or Sperm Donor reside
MEDICAL, EMOTIONAL, AND FINANCIAL RISKS
While the surrogacy process is truly thrilling, it is necessary to consider the risks associated with entering into a surrogacy relationship. There is a possibility that the pregnancy may result in a caesarian section, which may subsequently cause a painful and long recovery for the Surrogate. Potentially, additional fees may be incurred to compensate the Surrogate for her pain and suffering, as well as for increased medical expenses.
The risk of premature birth or even fetal death is also present. Further, a variety of other medical expenses may be incurred whereby the Surrogate could be entitled to compensation for medical expenses, as well as pain and suffering. An example of an added expense is the invasive procedure, amniocentesis, which may cause the Surrogate significant discomfort. It is important to contemplate these risks and to create a plan for how you might deal with these situations.
RESPONSIBILITIES
As Intended Parents, both you and the Surrogate will have responsibilities associated with the surrogacy relationship. The Surrogate will be responsible for attending medical appointments and providing you medical release information. You, in turn, will be responsible for prompt payment of expenses as set forth in the contract. Further, the Surrogate may be prohibited from engaging in certain activities pursuant to your agreement. It is advisable to maintain open communication with the Surrogate throughout the various stages of the surrogacy relationship.
If you have any questions on Surrogacy or Egg Donation, please contact our office at 317.569.0770 or www.hardenjacksonlaw.com.
Harden Jackson LLC’s services are focused in Gestational Surrogacy. We do not assist in contractual arrangements for traditional surrogacy arrangements. If you are involved in a traditional surrogacy, we will provide legal services for the adoption process.
Tags: Michele Jackson, surrogacy, surrogate
December 28th, 2011 | Posted by Leah | Posted in Adoption, Surrogacy
Often, in our business, we meet with clients that are desperate. Desperate to achieve their goal of having a family. Fortunately, we can often help them with their plight to have a child. However, one of the most common obstacles intended parents face is money. Utilizing ”non-traditional” methods to become a parent can range anywhere from $5,000-$40,000. Whether adopting, undergoing In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) or obtaining a surrogate, the cost can often prevent parents from realizing their dream.
However, we’ve seen some creative methods for funding a family. Recently, Jessica and Sean Haley decided to use crowdfunding to finance their IVF treatments. What is crowdfunding? Crowdfunding describes the collective cooperation by people who network and pool their money and other resources together, usually via the Internet, to support efforts initiated by other people or organizations.
After three years of trying to conceive, the Haleys were told they only had a 1% chance of conceiving naturally. In June, the couple started a “Help the Haleys Have a Baby” campaign on IndieGoGo to raise funds for their fertility treatments. The campaign managed to raise $8,050, far above the $5,000 they were asking for initially. In July, the couple began IVF treatments that led to Jessica being pregnant. The Haleys aren’t the only couples turning to this crowdfunding option. A quick search on the IndieGoGo website lists over 20 couples and singles requesting funds to help them achieve their dream of having a family.
We love to hear of these creative funding ideas. When money is not an issue it removes at least one obstacle from the path for intended parents and our goal is to make that path as smooth as possible.
To learn more about the Haley’s campaign, go to: http://www.indiegogo.com/babyhaley
Tags: crowdfunding
September 7th, 2011 | Posted by Leah | Posted in Family Law, General Law, Surrogacy
An article published September 5, 2011 in the New York Times addresses emerging concerns for multiple children born to a single donor. It’s an issue that will only become more common as an increasing number of single or same sex parents turn to donors to conceive children.
As children born from donors age and begin dating, the nature of their parentage presents a rather awkward scenario – in the event two young adults who happen to be born from donors meet and find themselves attracted to one another, they inevitably will have to compare their donor numbers to make sure they aren’t half-siblings. It’s the stuff that seems like a plot of some contrived Lifetime Network Movie, but it’s a reality for those who were born during the earlier days of alternative reproductive technology and are now old enough to be dating.
Estimates for the number of children born using sperms donors vary from 30,000-60,000 per year. The NY Times article was spurred by the story of a Washington woman who used a sperm donor to conceive a child seven years ago. She started a web registry to track the half-siblings of her child. With donor children, it is not uncommon for a child to have as many as a dozen siblings, but in the case of Ms. Daily’s child, the number of siblings on the registry kept growing, now totaling 150. That number is alarming to many health care and legal professionals who work in assisted reproductive technology. It’s a frightening statistic showing that agencies are profiting significantly from popular donors with little regard to the long-term consequences of producing so many children who are related. Not only is there the concern for an accidental incestual relationship among sibling offspring, but the frightening possibility that genes for rare diseases could be more easily spread through the population.
While 150 is the highest number of offspring tracked from one donor, results show that it is not uncommon for as many as 50 children to be born from a donor. This number exceeds the industry’s recommended guidelines, but those guidelines are not law and there is little in the way of oversight or legislation to restrict the use of popular donors. Industry regulations and practices in countries such as Britain, France and Sweden restrict the number of children that can be born of a single donor to 10. However, alternative reproductive law regulations still vary greatly from state to state in the US, and the variation or lack of regulation creates confusion and allows for unethical practices. Another statistic that does not bode well for the accuracy of information for the number of children in the US born to a donor is that less than 40% of parents who use a donor register their child’s donor number – it’s a voluntary practice that isn’t required or regulated. Nor do all parents tell their children the circumstances of their conception – which creates an even bigger dilemma.
For more about this topic, read the article on the NY Times website.
