Gamble & Ghevaert

Archive for the ‘Gamble and Ghevaert news’ Category

Independent’s Pink List 2010 honours Natalie Gamble

Wednesday, August 4th, 2010

Gamble and Ghevaert is delighted that founding partner Natalie Gamble has been named in the Independent on Sunday’s Pink List 2010, the paper’s renowned annual review of the 101 most influential gay and lesbian people in Britain.  At number 88, Natalie is recognised as a “pioneer of fertility law” who was “heavily involved in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 and nominated in 2008 as Stonewall’s Hero of the Year”.

The only practising lawyer named, Natalie is ranked alongside British gays and lesbians at the very top of a broad range of professions.  The Pink List 2010 includes politicians Lord Mandelson and Deputy Lib Dem leader Simon Hughes, judges Lord Justice Etherton and Sir Adrian Fulford, former head of the Law Society Dame Janet Paraskeva, business leaders Lord Black (the Telegraph), Sir Michael Bishop (BMI) and Dawn Airey (CEO of Channel 5), theatre directors Sir Nicholas Hytner and Sir Cameron Mackintosh, Director of the British Museum Neil MacGregor, Radio 4 broadcaster Evan Davis, poet laureate Carol Ann Duffy, Turner Prize winning painter Sir Howard Hodgkin, Rabbi Lionel Blue, authors Sarah Waters and Philip Hensher, fashion designers Christopher Bailey and John Galliano, actors John Barrowman, Fiona Shaw and Simon Russell Beale, and celebrities Stephen Fry, Sue Perkins, Matt Lucas, Gok Wan, Alan Carr, Will Young and Radio 1 DJ Scott Mills.  The number one spot - balanced fairly between the sexes - is rightly shared by leading business guru Mary Portas and courageous rugby player Gareth Thomas.

A new entrant to the list at number 88, Natalie is ranked among these pre-eminent individuals as the 25th most influential lesbian in today’s Britain.  Her inclusion recognises Natalie’s groundbreaking work as a leading fertility lawyer, and her work as a prominent champion and advocate of same sex parents.

Prime Minister David Cameron, writing in the Independent on Sunday 1 August, said “The wall of prejudice is chipped away by high-profile role models, by public celebrations, by a positive approach to diversity. That’s why I congratulate everyone on this list for doing their bit to inspire and change attitudes. This is a country where people can be proud of who they are – and quite right too.”

You can find out more about Natalie Gamble and her work or read the Independent’s Pink List 2010 in full.

Times article on unregulated fertility sites quotes Natalie Gamble

Monday, July 19th, 2010

By Mark Bridge, The Times, Saturday 17 July 2010

Shadowy world of web’s unregulated fertility sites

Unregulated “fertility” websites that put their members in touch with sperm donors for a fee are exploiting vulnerable women and risking users’ health and finances, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has warned.

An investigation by The Times this week also found that such sites, which enable people including single women and lesbian couples to obtain sperm outside of the regulated market, are being used by men searching for nostrings unprotected sex.  The HFEA believes that the sites’ role as facilitator may in fact constitute illegal “procurement” of sperm, and it is taking legal action against one website to close it down. A spokesman said: “If you use a site that does not direct you to a licensed clinic, you put yourself at risk that the sample you receive is neither safe nor screened and that the donor is not who they say they are.” The regulator also warns that donors who donate sperm via these sites rather than at licensed clinics will be the legal fathers of any children born to single women or unmarried couples and may be liable for child support.

Natalie Gamble, of Gamble and Ghevaert, a firm of solicitors that specialises in fertility law, said that the legality of the sites was a grey area. “What is illegal is procurement of gametes [sperm and eggs]. It comes down to the definition of what procurement is. Putting sperm in the post would seem to be clear. Less clear is helping individuals to make contact with one another.”

Membership of the websites, such as Co-ParentMatch.com and Feeling-Broody.com, costs about £10 to £15 a month. Dr Allan Pacey, senior lecturer in andrology at the University of Sheffield, claimed: “They’re in it purely for ‘If a man wants to impregnate the South East… he will be in poor sexual health’ money. It’s blatant profiteering.” He added that the sites profited from the relative expense of licensed clinics which charge about £800 for frozen sperm and one insemination cycle and from a shortage of sperm at clinics now that children born to donor sperm are allowed to contact their natural father when they are 18.

The website of Fertility 1st, which the HFEA is taking legal action against, states that customers should budget £150 for sperm to be couriered. The other sites leave such arrangements up to the donor and recipient, who might decide that his sperm should be delivered to her home, or that he should visit to “produce”, or have sex with her. Whatever the arrangement, Dr Pacey cautioned that sperm obtained using the sites is not adequately screened, so puts the recipient at risk of blood-borne and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV. It may also carry genetic disorders such as Down’s syndrome. He says that the risk was even greater if, as our investigation suggests, some donors have predatory intent. “If a man wants to impregnate the South East, that ups the risk that he will be in poor sexual health.” He added: “A licensed clinic will run tests before taking samples and again six months after the last sample was taken and frozen. Sperm can only be used after this final check.”

Seyi Joseph, of FeelingBroody.com, said that her site only covered its costs. She added that it has links to documents that explain the rules on legal paternity. She advises that donors be tested for a range of diseases. Nigel Woodforth, of Fertility 1st, said that donors at his site must take regular health tests. He added that donors at the website do not give identifying details to the recipient, and that their records are destroyed after their membership expires. Co-ParentMatch.com did not return our calls.

Time spent undercover on unregulated websites revealed a sad world frequented by men eager to “help” vulnerable women. When I joined one site under the alias of luciex, or Lucy, a 29-year-old nurse, I was contacted by a queue of donors keen to offer “NI”shorthand for natural insemination, as in sex (Mark Bridge writes). As Lucy I signed on at Co-ParentMatch.com, which claims to be the “No 1. Leading website of its kind”a “regulated environment” that uses the slogan: “After all, there’s no time to waste, the biological clock is ticking…” Having uploaded a picture of an attractive brunette and paid £9.95 a month, I was contacted by, among others, men claiming to be a 30-year-old studio manager and a “ready and able!” 58-year-old American “peacebuilder”. Profile photographs showed mainly thirtysomething and middle-aged men, some engaged in manly outdoor pursuits, others dressed for a hot dateone in a crisp white jacket. The tone of conversation was hardly clinical. One man sent “Lucy” a blunt “I am from Manchester and available for NI if you can travel when you are ovulating.” He said that he was a married man and donated to overcome both the national shortage of sperm and narrow-minded attitudes to lesbian parents.

Another tried charm, writing: “Hello Lucie! You reallly [sic] look so gorgeous and I would be happy to donate my sperm so you can become pregnant [...]” Meanwhile, a man whose photo loosely resembled AliG wrote: “Hi how u doin?My names [...] im 30 from London would you like to chat? x”, adding his mobile phone number. When Lucy failed to respond he asked: “Hi Lucie how r u hun? Good i hope… What did u decide to do? Id like to help you become a mother x” Most, when asked, said that they were willing to donate by natural or artificial means, so came across as opportunists rather than full-on predators. Some offered meaningless reassurances about their sexual health. One wrote: “I have also been checked for STDs two weeks ago, in case you wondered.”

Not one asked Lucy why a single woman of only 29 would want to conceive with donor sperm or how she intended to bring up the child, although three professed some interest in a co-parent role. On the other hand, two said that they would be unwilling to take on parental responsibility. One wrote: “I am a donor only and cannot offer financial or parenting support.” It is illegal for donors to charge, and none of the men who made contact requested payment. One did say: “Expenses may be travel costs or hotel costs etc if donation was done on neutral ground.”

Laura Witjens, left, of the National Gamete Donation Trust (NGDT), says that the casual nature of agreements on expenses leaves them open to abuse. “It is common for guys to insist on natural insemination so ‘pay me and sleep with me’, she said, adding: “Some even sent me photos of themselves ‘donating’. It was shocking, and I’m Dutch, so that’s saying something.”

In spite of this dubious donor-base, the sites manage to entice women “and the odd sincere gentleman”, Ms Witjens said, in part by presenting a clinical façade, using stock photographs of babies to play on emotions. I have spoken to several women who have used the sites who were angry at first when I criticised them. They said, ‘Why make it difficult for people to conceive?’ But they were surprised and grateful when I explained the dangers and the legalities.”

Why can’t I have a baby on my own?

Thursday, May 20th, 2010

From The Independent, Thursday 20 May 2010

At 37, Lulu le Vay found herself single, infertile and craving a child. She decided to try surrogacy – but discovered that only stable couples need apply

One evening last September I was sitting in my consultant’s office after a checkup following the fifth surgery on my uterus, when he dropped the bombshell: due to the unlikelihood that my womb would be able to sustain a pregnancy, surrogacy might be a fertility option I would need to consider, if I wanted a child.

It was, strangely, a comical moment. “What?” I remember saying, my cheeks going as white as his collar. “This can’t be happening,” I protested, giggling. “Things like this happen to Sarah Jessica Parker, not me!” I didn’t cry. I went home, chain-smoked a few fags, and went to bed feeling shocked and void of emotion. When I woke up the next day, this alien idea that had been presented to me hovered over me in the abstract ether. Over the following few weeks, as much as it sat on my shoulder pecking at my thoughts, I refused to let it in as something real – as something I would seriously, at some point, have to consider.

Eventually, curiosity got the better of me and I hit Google and contacted some surrogacy support agencies. Within a couple of hours any decision-making process on my part had been obliterated. There it was, in black and white: “I am afraid that, as a single person, surrogacy in the UK is not an option for you. This is because a parental order – the legal device by which you would become the legally named parent of a child born through surrogacy – is only open to couples in a long-term stable relationship.” From an innocent investigation of an area I knew little about, the shock felt like a punch in the stomach.

This wasn’t supposed to be how my life was going to turn out. Since my early twenties I’d had it all mapped out. Throw myself passionately into my career and have as much fun as possible – the things I was good at – and the family stuff could be put off until later. Pah! what’s the rush? But a decade later the trouble started: fibroids (non-cancerous tumours in the uterus); a ruptured ovarian cyst; more fibroids (lots more). By January 2008, aged 37, I’d had three surgeries which had left me with some knock-out scars, emotionally and physically. Recovery from an operation to remove multiple fibroids that January was tough. Blood transfusions resulted in severe anaemia, as well as a bout of E. coli, which the hospital kindly packed me off home with. The C-section-style wound opened and took months to heal.

By the summer, just when my life was back on track – great job, smashing bloke – the pain and the haemorrhaging dominated my life to such an unbearable degree that I had no choice but to undergo uterine artery embolisation, a new-ish procedure which cuts off blood supply to the tumours by pumping radiation particles into the uterus. The pain that followed was untouchable, not even by morphine. I was in fake labour for 12 hours, my lowest life-point to date. Within days the bleeding disappeared – as did the boyfriend – and I became depressed.

More than a year later, in September last year, I was back in hospital with what I might call the nuclear fallout. The scar tissue had caused havoc. My fallopian tubes had twisted around the uterus, and one was badly infected and swollen. The organs had started sticking together and there was a mountainous ovarian cyst. This mess left me with permanently blocked tubes, a severely damaged uterus, and one sympathetic consultant trying to give me a glimmer of hope for the future of my fertility: it seemed that surrogacy might well be my only option. But not as the law currently stands, I found.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990 underwent a major overhaul in 2008, and single women were given the right to receive IVF treatment with donor sperm. And as of last month unmarried and same-sex couples can apply for a parental order for a child delivered by a surrogate. This order formally transfers parenthood from the surrogate mother. Yet single persons seeking to become parents through surrogacy have been deliberately excluded from this measure.

“We called for an amendment to the HFE Bill, while it was being debated in Parliament in 2008, which would have allowed single people to obtain a parental order,” says Louisa Ghevaert, a leading expert in surrogacy and fertility law and a founding partner of the law firm Gamble and Ghevaert. “This is a ticking time bomb. The law is discriminating against single people, and to make matters worse, it is completely inconsistent with other parenting laws. A single person can legally go to an IVF clinic and conceive with donated sperm. Current laws should be updated to allow single people to become parents though surrogacy.”

Peter Bowen-Simpkins, medical director of the London Women’s Clinic concurs: “I am astounded to learn that single people are barred from applying for a parental order. The reasons for surrogacy are usually congenital malformations, or surgery that has removed the womb or rendered it no longer able to bear a pregnancy. Neither of these reasons is the fault of the woman, and it seems gross discrimination, especially when we are offering single women donor insemination or IVF.”

We are living in a society in which the family comes in all colours, shapes and sizes. Gay mums and dads, Brangelina’s rainbow family, Madonna’s little Africa, and people like Sarah Jessica Parker creating a family with the help of a surrogate. Families are being built in more contemporary ways, and single parents play a growing role in this mix.

“I myself am a single parent following divorce, and there are plenty of us out there doing a great job,” continues Ghevaert. “It is unfair for people with health problems, or those on a difficult fertility journey, to then be denied the option of a parental order just because they are single. It makes no sense.”

Surrogacy is complex and expensive, and the international laws surrounding it are riddled with contradictions. With the sprawling World Wide Web, couples are leaping unprepared into other territories to bag their surrogate baby, which can lead not only to pressure and the breakup of their own relationships but may also put the well-being of the child in jeopardy.

In 2008, a Japanese couple used a surrogate mother in India. The intense pressure led to the couple divorcing after the baby was conceived, leaving the child abandoned in a hospital in Western Rajasthan. Under Indian law, single men of foreign origin are not able to apply for a parental order.

The SJP story may have sparked public awareness, as the demand for surrogacy is on the rise. But laws need to be in place with equal rights for all people who have a desire to pursue this avenue, and also with protection in place to support the well-being of children born from a surrogacy arrangement.

I’m still unsure what my fertility outcome will be, as I undergo a final round of treatment. But I do know that the surrogacy path is not for me. I may well look into adoption, if and when it feels right. This is a decision not steered by the current law – surrogacy is just not instinctively right for me. But having a choice would’ve been nice.

 

More information about surrogacy for single people.

Gamble and Ghevaert welcomes the completion of the UK’s new fertility laws today

Tuesday, April 6th, 2010

By Partners Natalie Gamble and Louisa Ghevaert

The last piece of the government’s flagship Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 came into force today, completing the first major overhaul of the UK’s fertility laws in twenty years.  The HFE Bill is a major piece of government legislation which has updated the UK’s 1990 laws to bring them into line with 21st century scienific and social advances.  It has introduced important changes including:

* new rights for lesbian partners to be recognised as parents after sperm donation,

* the abolition of clinics’ obligation to consider a child’s need for a father before offering fertility treatment,

* the broadening of the extended storage rules for gametes and embryos, allowing more people to store precious embryos for longer,

* new rights for donor conceived people to make contact with genetic siblings,

* a clearer legal framework for preimplantation genetic diagnosis, and

* the widening of surrogacy laws to allow same sex and unmarried couples to apply for legal parenthood.

The Act has been brought into force in stages, with the new parenthood rules on donor conception in force first for conceptions after 6 April 2009 and the bulk of the Act in force on 1 October 2009.  The final pieces of the jigsaw, which came into force today, are the changes to surrogacy law, allowing same sex and unmarried couples to apply to court to become the parents of a surrogate born child and updating the court rules and procedures.  This completes the implementation of this major piece of government legislation, rather fittingly today, the day on which it has been announced that this Parliament will be dissolved.

The partners at Gamble and Ghevaert have been proud to have played a role at the forefront of these important legal changes, championing the position of fertility patients and same sex parents.  Our contributions to the public and Parliamentary debate and to the legal changes include:

* Helping to secure the important new rights for same sex parents (work for which Natalie was nominated by gay rights organisation Stonewall as their Hero of the Year 2008, named by Diva magazine as one of the UK’s most influential gay women, and invited to 10 Downing Street to meet the Prime Minister last month);

* Winning a last minute government U-turn on embryo storage which allowed surrogacy patients to save embryos from destruction and store them for an extended period (for which Louisa was named as Times Lawyer of the Week in October 2009);

* Lobbying for changes to surrogacy law, which were debated in Parliament (but sadly not adopted) - we are continuing to campaign on this;

* Winning improvements to nationality law for British parents of children born through surrogacy abroad following our contribution to the Department of Health’s consultation on the new parental order regulations.

Find out more about the legal changes on our website, relating to donor conception, surrogacy and fertility treatment.

Natalie Gamble at 10 Downing Street

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

Natalie was delighted to meet the Prime Minister Gordon Brown, at a reception to celebrate the contribution of the LGBT community to Britain.  The event was attended by leading gay and lesbian professionals, business leaders and celebrities, and Natalie was invited in recognition of her championing of UK gay and lesbian families, and her work at the forefront of winning new legal rights for same sex parents conceiving together through donor conception and surrogacy.

 

downing-street-1

 

downing-street-3

Today’s Observer: New surrogacy laws ease the path to parenthood for gay men

Sunday, March 28th, 2010

By Robin McKie, science editor, The Observer, Sunday 28 March 2010

Changes to legislation will recognise growing trend for same-sex couples to become parents, say campaigners.

Gay male couples will be able to use a fast-track route to become the legal parents of surrogate children from next week. On 6 April, changes to the law will permit two men to be named as parents on a child’s birth certificate for the first time in British history.

The transition will take effect following the implementation of the final piece of the 2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. This last section is aimed at helping same-sex and unmarried couples who seek to have surrogate children and will allow them to secure legal parenthood in a new, simplified manner. At present, only married, heterosexual couples can use this route.

“These changes bring the law up to date with the realities of modern 21st-century life and recognise that increasing numbers of same-sex and unmarried couples are having children together,” said Natalie Gamble, of the fertility law firm Gamble and Ghevaert.

Surrogacy has become increasingly common and offers couples an alternative route to parenthood if all other methods, including IVF treatments, fail. Current legislation allows heterosexual, married couples to get a parental order to give them a birth certificate for a child born to a mother with whom they have entered into a surrogacy agreement. But gay, lesbian and unmarried couples cannot do this. The surrogate mother has to be named on the birth certificate. If she is married, her husband is legally considered to be the father.

An example is provided by the story of Steven Ponder and his partner, Ivan Sigston. Both are police officers. Last year, they became one of the first gay couples to father a baby in Britain when Ponder’s married sister, Lorna Bradley, gave birth to a boy, William.

Crucially, however, Lorna Bradley’s name appeared on the birth certificate, which made her a legal guardian of the child. Ponder and Sigston could have applied to adopt the baby. If successful, they would have been given an adoption certificate to replace his original birth certificate. But adoption is complex and involves the intervention of social workers and other professional groups.

The new system is far more streamlined. Provided that a court is satisfied that two men are in a stable relationship; that no fees, other than expenses, are paid to the surrogate mother; and that it is in the child’s best interest, then it will award a parental order for a birth certificate to be drawn up with both men named as parents, and therefore legal guardians. “Lesbian couples and unmarried couples usually have other routes available to them if they want to have children, but surrogacy is particularly important to gay men, so they will get most out of this change in legislation,” said Gamble.In effect, the law has now opened the doors in order to make it easy for a gay man and his partner to have children.

This point was backed by Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, the gay rights campaign group: “We are delighted that the reality of people’s family lives is being recognised at last, that both lesbian and gay couples no longer have to go through the unpleasantness of an adoption procedure.”

Gamble warned, however, that while the new legislation would make it easier for gay couples to have children, the rules governing surrogacy in the UK remained badly out of date.

“There are particular pitfalls for single parents and those going abroad. In the latter case, a couple returning to England with a surrogate child find that the law does not recognise their right to parenthood. It can cause immense distress. There are a lot of aspects of surrogacy that now need to be addressed urgently.”

 

More information about surrogacy law, international surrogacy law, and how the law is changing for same sex and unmarried couples from Gamble and Ghevaert LLP.

Fertility law, assisted reproduction and the importance of specialist legal advice

Friday, February 19th, 2010

By Louisa Ghevaert, partner at Gamble and Ghevaert LLP

If you are thinking about or undergoing fertility treatment or assisted reproduction you will no doubt spend time and energy thinking about a range of factors including success rates, clinics, cost, treatment options, egg and sperm donation, timescales and process.  However, will you stop and think about the importance of specialist fertility law advice?  You wouldn’t buy a house, get divorced or make a Will without first obtaining legal advice.  So why take any unnecessary risks when you are building your much wanted family?

Fertility treatment and assisted reproduction is often time consuming, stressful, expensive and emotionally draining.  Why potentially make matters worse by failing to get to grips with the legal issues? Fertility law often overrides biology and this can create the wrong legal outcome for the unwitting, particularly as many people have complicated personal lives and family arrangements.

If you need third party assistance to conceive are you confident that the law will recognise you as a legal parent?  Are you sure you can be named as parent on your child’s birth certificate?  Will you be able to exercise parental responsibility and for example consent to medical treatment and vaccinations for your baby? Are you sure about the legal status your partner, spouse, surrogate or donor will have for your child?

If you adopt a laissez-faire approach or lull yourself into a false sense of security that the legal side of things will be alright you could be doing yourself and your family a huge disservice.  Once you have conceived it’s often too late to avoid some of the legal pitfalls and you may then need complicated legal solutions further down the line.

If you take early specialist fertility law advice before you conceive and you tackle the legal issues as they apply to your particular circumstances you may save yourself a lot of heartache.  A well drafted donor agreement if you’re involving a known donor or a clear understanding of surrogacy law if you plan to conceive through surrogacy or a specialist Will could save you time, money and worry.

Don’t leave the legal side of things to chance.  Fertility law isn’t always well designed for modern twenty first century living.  Invest in specialist fertility law advice at the start and take control of your family’s future.

For more information about family building see our family building service.

Natalie Gamble invited to 10 Downing Street

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

We are delighted to report that Natalie has been invited by the Prime Minister to a reception at 10 Downing Street to celebrate the contribution of leading lesbian and gay people to Britain.  

The invitation to Number 10 recognises Natalie’s work as a prominent champion of same sex families.  Natalie has both spoken openly and about her own experiences as a mother and given legal help and support to many hundreds of gay and lesbian families conceived through assisted reproduction.   She was at the forefront of securing groundbreaking legal changes in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008,  allowing lesbian couples conceiving together through donor insemination to be named on the birth certificate together, and from April this year allowing gay couples who have a child through surrogacy to apply to court to be recognised as equal legal parents.  The changes were controversial in Parliament (with MPs given a free vote to decide whether clinics should consider a child’s need for a mother and a father before offering fertility treatment) but were passed last year, and now ensure that same sex parents are treated in the same way as heterosexual couples conceiving through assisted reproduction.

You can find out more about Natalie and her work, about the new legal rights for lesbian parents and about how the law works for gay men considering surrogacy on our website.

“International Surrogacy, Fertility Tourism and the American Bar Association” article by Louisa Ghevaert published in The Review

Tuesday, February 9th, 2010

Back in October 2009, Louisa Ghevaert was invited to speak to the American Bar Association’s Family Fall Conference in Montreal and give an English law perspective on international surrogacy arrangements.  Read her published account in The Review, the journal of the Association of Family Lawyers (Resolution) with a membership of 5,500.

US assisted reproduction attorneys were keen to get to grips with English surrogacy law as it applies to British people thinking about building their family through surrogacy in the US and the legal pitfalls they face navigating a safe legal path home to the UK after the birth of their surrogate born child.

US assisted reproduction lawyers expressed concerns that British parents may breach British immigration control by travelling home using their surrogate born child’s US passport.  They expressed further concern that US court orders recognising British intended parents as legal parents are not automatically recognised in England and Wales and that British intended parents could in certain circumstances commit a criminal offence in caring for their surrogate born child in the UK if they failed to apply for a parental order to be legally recognised as parents.

For more information about international surrogacy and the legal issues surrounding this visit our international surrogacy pages.

Prime Minister responds to Gamble and Ghevaert clients’ embryo appeal

Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

Back in October, Gamble and Ghevaert clients Melanie and Robert Gladwin succeeded in winning a last minute change to the law on embryo storage, allowing them (and other prospective parents like them) to keep their precious frozen embryos.  Their campaign included a petition presented at 10 Downing Street, and the Prime Minister’s office has now formally responded, explaining the action taken to change the law and saying that “the Government recognised that [the law] could prevent these couples from having a much-wanted genetically related child“.  You can read the response on the official site of the Prime Minister’s office.

For more information on the Gladwin’s story and campaign, read our blog entry ‘Government bows to pressure on embryo storage rules’.

There is also more information on embryo storage law and how it works available on our website.

 

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page21835