// you’re reading...

Assisted Reproduction

Supreme Court: Only Birth Mother, Not Genetic Mother, Can Be on Birth Cert

In a complicated case, the Supreme Court ruled only the birth mother, not the genetic mother, can appear on the birth certificate.
 The supreme court has ruled that only the birth mother can appear as the legal mother of a child.

Despite being critical of the lack of legislation around surrogacy, the top court sided with the State in its appeal in a complicated case this morning.

The case was brought by the genetic mother of twins whose sister gave birth to them as a surrogate. She sought to be named as mother on the children’s birth certs but the State has insisted that only the woman who gives birth to a child can be recognised.

In a landmark ruling last year, the High Court had decided that genetics can indeed be used to determine maternity just as it can paternity. But the State appealed that decision to the Supreme Court where the seven judge panel delivered their verdict this morning.

The case was fought between the family and the state registrar.

The outcome has major implications for the family, as the mother recognised on a birth certificate is legally viewed as a child’s mother – and is therefore given legal standing in matters including inheritance, while the genetic mother will be given no legal recognition.

In this case the woman who gave birth to the children is the sister of their genetic mother – and both consent to having the genetic mother recognised on the children’s birth certificate.


3 comments for “Supreme Court: Only Birth Mother, Not Genetic Mother, Can Be on Birth Cert”

  • Anette

    This is very vague article. What is the source? What country is it talking about? US or elsewhere? Please try to provide more information

  • Vivi

    I have read very interesting concerning the surrogacy case. This court is part of the international organisation called the Council of Europe which is made up of 47 European countries. it was a court dedicating the cases ‘Mennesson versus France’ and ‘Labassée versus France. http://newseurope.info/video/surrogacy-a-form-of-planned-parenting-yet-to-win-eu-wide-acceptance/ Every person must have a right to person. As well as children must have right to an identity.It is great deal from the part of the European Court of Human Rights. I think that The European court does real work. It helped the people to feel the parents. I consider that surrogate motherhood must be allowed. Surrogacy should be allowed because some people are unable to bear children. People should have the right to be happy and breed up their own children.

  • Mandy Berns

    Oh, Europe, clean up your act!!! Infertile couples have the right to be happy parents! And they are guiltless they are not able to become pregnant in a natural way. I think it’s a little out-of-date position concerning surrogacy bans in European countries. I am infertile so I know for a certainty what I am talking about! For 10 years in a row my husband and I tried our best in order to get pregnant but we have a go at… When we decided to use assisted methods of reproductive medicine we chose America firstly. But we spent a great amount of money and didn’t reach positive result :((( After that we visited India, Russia and Thailand. All our attempts were unsuccessful, again and again. And I want to add that low in this country should be strictly regulated. Before it is even dangerous to deal with them in surrogacy sphere. India and Thailand are awful countries for surrogacy, don’t try your chance there. By chance I found information about one Ukrainian clinic and I decided to try once again especially when I saw this video. I hope that Europe will regain self-control and start to help its infertile citizens. It will make our life easier.

Visit Us On TwitterVisit Us On FacebookVisit Us On LinkedinCheck Our Feed