Gamble & Ghevaert

Archive for the ‘Louisa Ghevaert’ Category

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.

Bringing up baby (the options for gay men)

Tuesday, May 4th, 2010

This month’s Out in the City magazine for gay men features an article titled ‘Bringing up Baby’ by Natalie Gamble and Louisa Ghevaert.  The feature reviews the options for building a family through conception as a gay man, including surrogacy, co-parenting and known sperm donation, including the recent changes to UK surrogacy law.

You can read the article here (Bringing up Baby) or see the Gamble and Ghevaert website for further information about surrogacy for gay men, and co-parenting and known sperm donation.

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.

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.

“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.

Natalie Gamble and Louisa Ghevaert published in leading journal International Family Law

Friday, December 4th, 2009

Natalie Gamble and Louisa Ghevaert have been published in the November edition of leading international law journal, International Family Law.  The substantial article (entitled ‘The chosen middle ground: England, surrogacy law and the international arena’) discusses the problems of international surrogacy law from the UK perspective.  It takes stock of the history of surrogacy law in the UK, explaining how the law has evolved over the past 25 years through the Warnock Report, the 1985 Surrogacy Arrangements Act, the 1990 legislation, the Brazier Report and the most recent changes in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, and examines where surrogacy law in the UK now stands. 

Without harmonisation of international surrogacy laws, and in an increasingly globalised world in which prospective parents are increasingly crossing borders for fertility treatment, UK fertility law simply has not kept pace.  The article examines the legal problems which arise for foreign couples coming to the UK for surrogacy, and the difficulties for British couples conceiving through surrogacy abroad (looking in particular at the importance of the Re X and Y case which involved a British-Ukrainian surrogacy arrangement and which Natalie and Louisa dealt with in the High Court a year ago).  The article considers the way forward, arguing that international surrogacy law desperately needs to be reviewed.

If you would like to read the article in full, please contact us for a copy.

More information about international surrogacy law from the Gamble and Ghevaert website.

Louisa Ghevaert at the American Bar Association’s national family law conference in Montreal

Monday, October 26th, 2009

Louisa Ghevaert was delighted to be a conference speaker at the American Bar Association’s national family law conference in Montreal (9-11 October 2009). 

Speaking at a session attended by in excess of 50 specialist assisted reproduction lawyers from across the USA and Canada, Louisa spoke about the complex legal issues associated with cross-border surrogacy arrangements, as part of a panel which also included leading lawyers and academics from the USA, Canada and India.  Louisa’s talk reviewed the history and context of English surrogacy law, practical problems and issues for British couples considering foreign surrogacy, the key case of Re X and Y (Foreign Surrogacy) 2008 and the implications this has for UK-US surrogacy arrangements.

The Times’ Lawyer of the Week is Louisa Ghevaert

Thursday, October 1st, 2009

Louisa Ghevaert has today been featured in the Times as their Lawyer of the Week.  We are delighted with this accolade, which follows Gamble and Ghevaert’s representation of Melanie and Robert Gladwin in their bid to save their embryos from destruction, and the government’s decision to change the law as a result.

More from our blog about the Gladwin case and the government’s decision to change embryo storage law.

More from the Gamble and Ghevaert website about Louisa Ghevaert.

Louisa Ghevaert named as Law Society lawyer of the week

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

The Law Society Gazette has today celebrated Louisa Ghevaert in its weekly ‘Lawyer in the News’ feature.  The Gazette, published each week and sent to all solicitors in the UK, has chosen Louisa as this week’s featured lawyer.  It follows our success in achieving a change to embryo storage laws allowing our clients Robert and Melanie Gladwin to continue to store their much-wanted embryos, reported in the press last week.

More information about Louisa Ghevaert from the Gamble and Ghevaert website. 

More information on embryo storage law and the Gladwin case from the Gamble and Ghevaert website and blog.

Government bows to pressure on embryo storage rules

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

 

Gamble and Ghevaert LLP has welcomed the Department of Health’s announcement today that embryos which exceed their five year storage period before 1 October 2009 will not now have to be destroyed (article in the Times today).

 

We have been in contact with the Department of Health on this issue for some time, arguing the case for various couples who are fighting to save their embryos because they were stored too early to benefit from new rules coming into force on 1 October.  These couples include Melanie and Robert Gladwin from Gloucester, who stored embryos in anticipation of Melanie’s treatment for cancer in 2003 in order to preserve their chance of having a family, but who were told their embryos would be allowed to perish because their storage period expires before 1 October.  Robert and Melanie’s story was reported in the Daily Telegraph on 7 August and is covered again today in response to the government’s announcement.  Robert and Melanie, who have been fighting to save their embryos, have won political support for their campaign and yesterday were invited to present a petition at 10 Downing Street.  They are not the only couple to fall into this gap in the law.  Michelle Hickman has also been a vocal campaigner on this issue for several years, and there may be many other couples who are affected.

 

In response to today’s decision that such ‘out of time’ embryos can now be stored for at least ten years, Melanie Gladwin has said:  “We are ecstatic at the news from the Department of Health.  It has been a tiresome and stressful time and are extremely thankful they have been able to consider our case so promptly. We eagerly await further news that we can keep our embryos for the full period. We hope this announcement brings joy to the other couples and families affected like us.”

 

Natalie Gamble and Louisa Ghevaert, who are representing Robert and Melanie, say:  “While the announcement today gives much needed hope to men and women whose precious embryos have already reached the end of their five year storage term, we need to make sure that the proposed changes go far enough to give the time needed.  For young women who suffer infertility prematurely, these embryos in storage often represent their last chance of having a child of their own.  We will be looking very closely at the proposals to confirm that couples like Robert and Melanie will be able to extend their chance of having a much-wanted child for as long as possible, and not just for a few more years.”

 

Further note to this blog on 11 September 2009: 

 

Gamble and Ghevaert is also now delighted to report that the Department of Health has now confirmed that, after the publication of the Minister’s Order, additional special regulations will be made to ensure that ‘out of time’ embryos like Robert and Melanie’s will be able to be stored, not just for ten years, but for the full extended period normally allowed for these kinds of medical situations. 

 

More information on embryo storage law from the Gamble and Ghevaert website.