DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM

PROJECT ON

CASE COMMENT ON IJ (A CHILD), RE, 2011 EWHC 921(FAM)

SUBJECT

Private International Law

SUBMITTED TO

Prof. (Dr.) Nandini CP Mam

PROJECT SUBMITTED BY ROLL NO., SEMESTER AND SECTION

LOKESH SAI KADIYALA

2018051

eighth semester

Section A
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I deeply express my heartfelt thanks and gratitude to Prof. (Dr.) Nandini CP Mam for
giving me an opportunity to work on the project CASE COMMENT ON IJ (A CHILD),
RE, 2011 EWHC 921(FAM). and I have worked on this project extensively and without the
help of sir, I would not have submitted this project within due dead line.

I thank all my friends and seniors who have encouraged me in doing this research paper and
their help is immensible.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction………………………………………………..

2. Facts in Issue……………………………………………..

3. UK Law in regard to Surrogacy………………………………

4. Human Rights Approach to Surrogacy…………………

5. Conflict of laws in the instant case…………………

6. Conclusion and suggestions………………………..

7. Bibliography…………………………………….
 CASE COMMENT ON IJ (A CHILD), RE, 2011 EWHC 921(FAM)

1. INTRODUCTION

The surrogacy is a new science which has evolved in the recent times and by virtue of this,
the reproduction of child is assisted by someone else and someone else who is not connected
with the child genetically carries the child for intending parents 1. It is apt to mention here that
there are nil international instruments on the surrogacy arrangements and as a result of this,
there are many legal issues which arose in regard to the same which include the nationality of
the child, immigration issues and legal parenthood issues2.

To start with, the surrogacy is an assisted reproduction and, in this surrogacy, the parenthood
can be claimed by the intended parents in three ways: gestation and birth, genetics (the sperm
or egg contributor for formation of such child) and intention (the person who has initiated the
child’s conception and who intends to raise the child) 3. So, keeping in mind about the same,
various legislatures and courts have come up with various tests such as genetics test 4 and
intent test5 in case of surrogacy. Especially in UK, legal parenthood is established by way of
gestational test6.

The difference in surrogacy laws in different countries and the existing void in the
international arena in regard to surrogacy led to many conflicts of law situations in regard to
the surrogacy arrangements. The acquisition of the legal parenthood in the country where the
child is born and the transfer of legal parenthood to intending parents in their home state are
the primary concerns of the cross-border surrogacy. The common law countries usually
follow the lex fori method for determination of legal parenthood and the UK law specifically
mentions that it has extraterritorial effect, that means if any person who resides in UK, if such
person enters in to any cross-border surrogacy arrangements, then, they are subject to the UK
law7. The UK law specifically enunciates about the post-birth transfer of legal parenthood to
the intending parents. The UK regulates the surrogacy and restricts it to only altruistic

1
Natalie Gamble, Made in the U.S.A.—Representing U.K. Parents Conceiving Through Surrogacy and ART in
the United States, Family Law Quarterly, Spring 2012, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Spring 2012), pp. 155-167
2
Mary Welstead, International Surrogacy: Arduous Journey to Parenthood, 9 J. COMP. L. 298 (2014).
3
Ministry of Attorney General Justice Services Branch, Civil and Family Law Policy Office (British Colombia),
Family Relations Act Review: Discussion Paper, August 2007.
4
M V. An t-Ard-Chlaraitheoir & ors (2013) IEHC 91.
5
Buzzanca V. Buzzanca, 61 Cal App 4th 1410.
6
See Section 33(1) of Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, 2008.
7
Home office, UK Border Agency, “Inter-country Surrogacy and the Immigration Rules”.
surrogacy arrangements and further, UK law specifies that surrogate mother obligation to
transfer the child to the intending parents is unenforceable8.

Section 33(1) of Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as
Act of 2008) specifies that UK follows gestational test for determination of legal motherhood
but whereas the legal fatherhood is determined as per the marital status of the surrogate
mother and further, section 33 states that the woman who has either carried or is carrying a
child by placing an embryo or egg or sperm in her is the legal mother of the child 9. The
surrogate mother will be the legal mother of the child and her husband is legal father but
there is a specific procedure contemplated under the Act of 2008 by virtue of which the
parenthood can be transferred to the intending parents’ post-birth of the child and further, for
this transfer, parental order applications are to be filed with the high court under the section
54 of the Act of 2008 and it is also, governed under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology
Regulations, 201010. If the parental order is granted by the high court, then, the child will be
treated as the legitimate child of the intending parents and such child gets inheritance rights
and the child also gets the right to acquire the UK citizenship if one of the intending parents
is UK citizen11 and such a parental order, will give an exclusive parental right on the child to
the intending parents and not to anyone else12. In the case of IJ (A child), Re, the case is filed
before the High court of Justice, Family division for seeking parental order in regard to a
child named AJ.

2. FACTS IN ISSUE

IJ is a child who is born in Ukraine in the year 2010 and further, there was an agreement
entered in to between the applicants and the respondents in the instant case for carrying of IJ
in the womb of respondent no.1 and the egg was from anonymous donor but the sperm was of
one of the applicants. The respondent No.1 had no genetical connection with IJ and under the
Ukrainian law, the legal parents of IJ were applicants but whereas in UK the respondents
were legal parents and hence, an application was filed with the High court of justice in UK
under section 54 of Act of 2008, seeking parental order for IJ for transfer of legal parenthood
of IJ from respondents to the applicants who are intending parents and also, they have
pleaded court to grant retrospective approval of the funds that the applicants had given to the
8
Section 1A of Surrogacy Arrangements Act, 1985.
9
Supra at 5.
10
Part 13 of Family Procedure Rules, 2010
11
Explanatory Memorandum to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Parental Orders) Regulations, 2010,
No. 985/2010, at (2.1).
12
Lowe and Douglas, Bromley’s Family Law at Pg. 281.
respondents which are beyond the reasonable expenses as contemplated under the section
54(8) of Act of 2008. The payment made beyond reasonable expenses is valid in the
Ukrainian law whilst it is invalid in UK law and further, another question arose as to whether
the home office is to be given with a notice whenever an overseas surrogacy has been made?
This conflict of law led to immigration issues when the applicants wanted to bring IJ to UK.

Issues:

1. Whether Parental order can be granted in the instant case?

2. Whether the issuance of notice to the home office in cross-border surrogacy cases is
essential?
3. Whether the payment made beyond reasonable expenses can be retrospectively
approved by the court under section 54(8) of Act of 2008?
4. Whether the principle of lex fori can be made applicable in the instant case?

3. UK LAW IN REGARD TO SURROGACY

As discussed earlier, the Act of 2008 deals with the surrogacy in UK and even it has got
extra-territorial effect and further, the section 54 of the Act of 2008 contemplates certain
requirements which are to be satisfied by the applicants in order to get a parental order
against a child and further, the parental order can be made by the court by application of
Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Parental orders) Regulations, 2010 and these
regulations follow and apply section 1 of Children and Adoption Act, 2002 which specifies
that the court must give primacy consideration to the child’s welfare throughout lifetime13.

3.1 Requirements as contemplated under the section 54 of Act of 2008:

3.1.1 Domicile:

The section 54(4)(b) of Act of 2008 states that court can exercise its jurisdiction in regard to
issuance of parental order only when one of the applicants is domicile of UK and further, it is
not necessary that the child on whom the parental order is sought is habitual resident in the
courts jurisdiction and the section 54(4)(a) mandates that the child on whom the parental
order is sought must be at the applicants home at the time of application and at the time of
order and further, either the child or the applicants need not have their home in UK as long as

13
Schedule 1of Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Parental Order) Regulations, 2010 at 2; See also AB and
Anr V. GH (2016) EWHC 2063 (Fam) at pg.32.
the domicile requirement is met and if the domicile requirement is met, then, the parental
order can be issued by the court even if the child and applicants are residing in overseas14.

It has been observed in numerous cases that the English courts have followed a liberal
approach whilst dealing with the aspect of domicile 15 and for example in the case of AB V.
GH16, wherein since 2013, the intending mother who was primarily a German, has acquired
domicile of England out of her choice and she did not abandon the same yet she was
compelled to live out of the jurisdiction due to her own circumstances but even in this case
the English courts have accepted her to be the domicile of UK.

3.1.2 Personal Status: It is imperative to mention here that under section 54(2) of Act of
2008, to get a parental order against a child, the applicants must be married 17 or same sex
partners18 or shall be living as partners in enduring family relationships 19 and further, it is apt
to mention here that if the one of the intending parents dies subsequent to filing of application
for seeking parental order, then, the parental order can be issued by the court20.

3.1.3 Genetic Link and Minimum Age: The section 54(1) mandates that at least one of the
applicants must have genetic link with the child 21 and further, both the applicants must be
aged 18 or more years22.

3.1.4 Child’s Home: It is imperative for the applicants to show that the child is placed in
their home during the filing of the application seeking for parental order 23 and whilst such
order is made and, in a case, where the intending parents have made arrangements in regard
to the child’s living which was split between them as they are living separately whilst filing
application, the court considered that the child was living in the home of the applicants 24. The
said condition is said to have been fulfilled even if the child is living with one of the
intending parents in abroad25.

14
CC and DD, Re, (2014) EWHC 1307
15
Re G (Parental Orders), (2014) EWHC 1561, in this case the court has accepted a French same sex couple to
be domicile of UK, when they have moved to UK just two months prior to the birth of the child by considering
their intention to settle in UK indefinitely and permanently.
16
AB and Anr. V. GH (2016) EWHC 2063(Fam)
17
ibid
18
AB V. CD, (2015) EWFC 12.
19
Re F (Children) (Thai Surrogacy: Enduring Family Relationship), (2016) EWHC 1594.
20
A V. P, (2011) EWHC 1738.
21
Re A (2015) EWHC 1756.
22
Re WT (A Child) (2014) EWHC 1303.
23
ibid
24
Re X (A child) (Surrogacy: Time limit), (2014) EWHC 3135.
25
Re Z (Foreign Surrogacy: Allocation of Work: Guidance on Parental order reports), (2015) EWFC 90.
3.1.5 Time Limit: The section 54(3) of Act of 2008 when interpreted purposively 26 suggests
that the application for the parental order is to be made within 6 moths time from the birth of
the child27. However, in the case of Re X (Surrogacy: Time Limit) 28, the court has issued a
parental order after 2years and 2 months after birth of the child stating that section 54(3) is
not sensible.

3.1.6 Consent:

The section 54(6) of Act of 2008 enunciates that the consent of the surrogate mother along
with her husband’s consent must be taken at the time of application for parental order and
further, such consent must be given by her at least not less than 6 weeks after birth of the
child29 and further, the surrogate mother who is giving consent must understand the nature of
the agreement for which she is consenting as it is and such consent must be unconditional 30
and further, the requirement of six weeks is similar to the adoption legislation 31 and further, in
case of cross-border surrogacy, the consent may be obtained twice by the surrogate mother
because the overseas agency may require the consent of the surrogate mother at or during the
handing over of the child32. The independent legal advice is to be given to the surrogate
mother and she with her husband must provide evidence that she understood the terms clearly
and her consent is free33 and further, the legal expenses for this shall be paid by the intending
parents and further, these expenses would come under the reasonable expenses paid by the
intending parents as contemplated under the law and further, in absentia of surrogate mother,
by concerning the child’s welfare a parental order can be passed even without requirement of
surrogate mother’s consent34.

3.1.7 Payments:

26
Cf X &Y (Foreign Surrogacy), (2008) EWHC 3030 (fam).
27
Supra at 21
28
Re X (Surrogacy: Time Limit), (2014) EWHC 3135 (Fam).
29
Section 54(7) of Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, 2008.
30
Section 54(6) of Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, 2008.
31
Section 52(3) of Adoption and Children Act, 2002.
32
Daniel Gruenbaum, Foreign Surrogate Motherhood, The American Journal of Comparative Law , SPRING
2012, Vol. 60, No. 2 (SPRING 2012), pp. 475-505
33
Supra at 21.
34
Re D (Children) (Parental Order: Foreign Surrogacy), (2012) EWHC 2361.
The section 54(8) of Act of 2008 mandates that the intending parents must not indulge in
commercial surrogacy agreement and they shall not pay beyond the reasonable expenses. If
they have paid any, then the same must be authorised by the high court.

Hence, all the conditions which are explained earlier have been met by the applicants in the
instant case except the payment made by the applicants beyond reasonable expenses and
further, the applicants in the instant case are domiciles of UK and further, the applicants are
married and the child against whom the parental order is being sought is having genetical link
with the one of the applicants (Viz., Father) and further, the child’s home is at the applicants
when they have filed the application seeking for parental order and the time limit and the
consent aspects were also fulfilled by the applicants in the instant case. Further, the applicants
have pleaded before the court to authorise the payments made by them which is beyond
reasonable expenses as contemplated under section 54(8) of the Act of 2008. Hence, to
analyse this issue, it is apt to deal with the authorisation of payments by courts law.

3.2 Authorisation of Payments:

The section 54 contemplates that only reasonable expenses must be paid by the intending
parents and the courts have been retrospectively approving the payments which are beyond
reasonable expenses especially in the cases of foreign surrogacy arrangements. It is
imperative to mention the case of Re X & Y (Foreign Surrogacy case)35, wherein the Hedley
J has enunciated three questions which are to be asked by court to itself whilst dealing with
the authorisation of payments retrospectively: (1) whether money paid to the surrogate
disproportionate are to reasonable expenses, (2) whether the applicants have acted in good
faith not contributing to the moral taint when they dealt with surrogate, (3) Whether the
applicants have tried to defraud the authorities? This case is referred in the instant case and
the judge opined that all the conditions are met and hence, the authorisation of the payments
can be done in the instant case.

In Re S (Parental Order)36, the court opined that the commercial surrogacy is against to the
public policy and even then, it can be approved in case of applicants who are not having
children under any set of existing arrangements in UK and who are not making payment for
buying children from overseas and who haven’t paid money in such a way that it will
35
Re X & Y (Foreign Surrogacy case), (2009) 1 FLR 733, wherein the court was hearing a matter which dealt
with Ukrainian Surrogacy arrangement and surrogate was paid an amount equivalent for her to put-down a
deposit on a flat along with payment made to her for loss of earnings was considered not to be disproportionate
to the reasonable expenses and was held not have detrimental effect on the public policy.
36
Re S (Parental Order), (2009) EWHC 2977.
overbear the will of surrogate and the applicants have entered in to arrangement with an
intention to circumvent the childcare laws in UK.

As discussed earlier, the child’s welfare is given the paramount consideration whilst deciding
the cases of parental order and further, when the courts have conflict between the public
policy and the welfare of the child, then, the courts must adopt the latter decisively and
whenever there is clear violation of public policy with an intent to violate the same, then, the
order may be withheld by the court and the cases of retrospective authorisation of payments
must be dealt basing on facts and circumstances of each case37.

By the decisions mentioned above, its quite evident that the high courts have took a liberal
approach whilst dealing with the retrospective approval of payments which are beyond
reasonable expense and further, the courts have always treated the cases by bearing-in-mind
about the child’s welfare rather than the public policy even when they were dealing with the
commercial surrogacy cases and further, the courts in numerous cases have considered the
child’s welfare over the public policy in order to evade the detrimental impact on the child
who is born out of cross-border commercial surrogacy and it would be unfair on the part of
the judges to implement the domestic policy stringently, when the child’s welfare is at stake.

Hence, even in the instant case the court has approved the payments made by the applicants
which are beyond reasonable expenses by stating that the conditions laid down in the case of
Re X & Y (Foreign Surrogacy case)38 are met and hence, the court has considered the case of
IJ and held that the parental order can be granted against him to the applicants by keeping in
mind about the child’s welfare.

4. HUMAN RIGHTS APPROACH TO SURROGACY

The European Court of Human Rights (in short ECHR) has delivered two judgements
namely: Mennesson V. France39 and Labasse V. France40, wherein intending parents have
filed a petition with the ECHR stating that article 8 of European convention of Human Rights
37
Re L (A Minor), (2010) EWHC 3146; In Re P-M (Parental Order; Payment to Surrogacy Agency), (2013)
EWHC 2328, the court held that the payments made to the intermediaries as well as the surrogacy agencies may
be approved the court; In Re C (Parental Order), (2013) EWHC 2408, wherein the court held that the payments
made to the egg or sperm donor are excluded under section 54(8) of the Act of 2008.
38
Supra at 33
39
Mennesson V. France, (2014) ECHR 185
40
Labasse V. France, (2014) ECHR 185
is violated by the France government as the said government has not accepted and recognised
the legal parenthood of the children born out of surrogacy arrangement despite the fact that
children are genetically related to the intending father and further, the article 8 guarantees
about the right to respect for private and family life and the ECHR held that the determination
of legal parenthood has direct link with the right of private life as contemplated under the
article 8 and hence, the ECHR held that the French government has imposed such restriction
on recognition of legal parenthood for the children born out of surrogacy arrangements
because the French government intended to protect the children and surrogate mother (Viz.,
Protection of health and protection of freedom). Further, the court has dealt the issue from the
perspective of intending parents as well as children and from the side of intending parents
side there was seen no violation of article 8 as the French government permitted the intending
parents to live with the children like normal families but whereas the violation of article 8
was seen from the side of children as the children were denied with the right to private life as
their legal relationship with the genetic fathers is not recognised and also, the genetic
parenthood is a person’s identity and hence, rejection of the same is contrary to the children
best interest and a registration of foreign birth certificate to that extent was ordered by the
ECHR.

In Paradiso and Campanelli V. Italy41¸the Chamber has to deal with the issue of legal parent-
child relationship and in this case, as there was no genetical link with the parents and the
child, the Italian authorities have separated the child and further, the chamber has held that
there existed a de-facto family life between the applicants and the child and this was reversed
by grand chamber stating that there was no violation of article 8.

From the above decisions laid down, the following aspects can be deduced:

(1) The article 8 mandates that the child born through surrogacy and either of the intending
parents must have a genetical link and the identity of the child is connected with the genetic
parents and hence, the article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights is interrelated to
the establishment of the child’s identity as it guarantees right to respect for private life.

(2) It is open for the states on ethical grounds to outlaw the surrogacy and further, albeit, the
state banning the surrogacy, the state must recognise legal parenthood between the applicants
and the child only if: (a) The child and at least one the applicants are genetically related when
the recognition concerns for legal parenthood; (b) The legal parenthood is established

41
Paradiso and Campanelli V. Italy, ECLI: CE:ECHR:2015:0127JUD002535812.
between the applicants legally in the country of birth; (c) There exists no other way by virtue
of which legal parenthood can be established in the receiving state. And these conditions
apply to cross-border cases and further, the welfare and interest of the child is to be given
paramount consideration than the public policy.

By applying even the European Convention on Human Rights in the instant case, it can be
safely concluded that the High court in the instant case has rightly granted parental order in
respect of a child named IJ to the applicants and even, the conditions like genetical link and
legal validity of the legal parenthood of child and the applicant in the country where child is
born are also met as in the instant case, the IJ was born in Ukraine and in Ukraine, the
applicants are considered to be the legal parents of the child and hence, the issuance of
parental order in the instant case is correct even in light of human rights approach and further,
the Act of 2008 lays down a procedure for seeking parental order and the applicants have
followed the same without fail and hence, the law of the UK is also complied with by the
applicants in the instant case.

5. CONFLICT OF LAWS IN THE INSTANT CASE

In the instant case, the Ukraine was the place where the applicants and the respondents have
entered in to surrogacy arrangement whereby the respondent has carried the child named IJ
and applicants had even the genetical link with the child and further, the applicants have
faced some immigration issues as there existed a conflict of laws in Ukraine and UK.

According to the Ukrainian law, the applicants are the legal parents of the child but whereas
under the UK law the respondents are and the birth of the child IJ is in Ukraine and further,
the applicants are domiciles of UK and hence, the applicants have sought the parental order
for establishment of the legal parenthood for the child IJ under section 54 of the Act of 2008.

The court has followed the lex fori that means law of the forum in determination of the legal
parenthood of the child as the legal parenthood determination and establishment is
determined by the principle of lex fori and hence, the law of the UK is being applied in the
instant case. The UK court has jurisdiction in the instant case because the Act of 2008 and the
Inter country surrogacy and immigration rules issued by the UK Border agency specifically
state that if one of the intending parents are domiciled in UK, then, UK law will apply to the
inter-country surrogacy agreements and hence, the court has extra-territorial jurisdiction to
hear the matter42.
42
Supra at 6
The court in the instant case has also classified the case on the laws and has chosen the lex
fori as the law which is to be applied in the instant case and hence, the said Act of 2008 has
been applied and further, the court has considered and retrospectively authorised the
payments made by the applicants as discussed earlier by keeping mind about the best interests
and welfare of IJ.

The court further held that the intending parents whosoever want to enter into cross-border
surrogacy agreement must seek legal opinion from the lawyer expertise in domestic law as
this would prevent them from getting mislead from the foreign surrogacy agencies. Another
issue which has come up for consideration was about the issuing of the notice to the home
office43 and the court held that it is not necessary to issue a notice to home office whilst
hearing the parental order as the border agencies in the cross-border surrogacy cases is
minutely involved in the immigration of the child44 and further, the border agencies allow the
child on satisfaction of requirement that some parental order will applied on such child etc.

Hence, the court has considered the welfare of the child and it has given paramount
consideration to the child’s interest and thereby it has retrospectively authorised the payments
which would have not been reasonable under section 54(8) of Act of 2008 and accordingly, a
parental order has been passed to the applicants on the child IJ.

The court has delivered a very well-reasoned and very good judgement as the court has given
paramount consideration to the human rights of the child, welfare of the child over public
policy as in UK only altruistic surrogacy is allowed and not the commercial surrogacy. The
court has delivered judgement on a liberal interpretation by bearing in mind about the best
interest of the child IJ in the instant case.

6. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

IJ is a child on whom a parental order has been sought by the applicants in the instant case
and the same was granted by the court and further, the court has applied the lex fori for
hearing the case and the Act of 2008 was applied by the court in the instant case and the court
has also authorised the payments made by the applicants retrospectively by bearing in mind
about the best interests of IJ and further, the court held that issuance of notice to the home
office in case of cross-border surrogacy case is not necessary. The court has delivered the

43
Re W (A Minor) (Adoption: Non Patrial), (1986) 1 FLR 179, wherein whilst making adoption order, the
issuance of notice to the home office is made mandatory.
44
Charles P. Kindregan & Danielle White, International Fertility Tourism: The Potential for Stateless Children
in Cross-Border Commercial Surrogacy Arrangements, 36 Suffolk Transnat'l L. REV. 527 (2013).
judgement by giving paramount consideration to the welfare of the child IJ than to the public
policy of UK.

There is void in respect of regulation of international surrogacy arrangements and even the
UK law as well as the ECHR judgements also state and deal with only legal recognition of
the surrogacy arrangements and they are ex post facto laws. There are several concerns
related to the cross-border surrogacy and these concerns are left unanswered and there may
be exploitation of the surrogates and children in the commercial surrogacy cases which is to
be dealt with. There is a need for the international convention on surrogacy whereby all the
unification of laws is possible.

This international convention must be compatible in such a way that it must deal with all the
issues related to the commercial and cross-border surrogacy. A Hague conference on private
international law has been conducted and a council and policy meeting held in the year 2015
and the council decided that an experts’ group is to be setup with respect to dealing of
international surrogacy arrangements and an expert group was constituted and the expert
group had their first meeting in the year 2016 wherein they decided that they will look into
the aspects like legal parentage and other recognition issues.

It is imperative to mention here that it is need of the hour for a international convention on
surrogacy which not only deals with the legal recognition of parenthood but also which
addresses the complex issues in regard to surrogacy and commercial surrogacy.

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books Referred:

1. Cheshire, North & Fawcett, Private International Law, Oxford University

Publications, 2017.

Articles Referred:
 1. Natalie Gamble, Made in the U.S.A.—Representing U.K. Parents Conceiving
Through Surrogacy and ART in the United States, Family Law Quarterly, Spring
2012, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Spring 2012), pp. 155-167.
2. Mary Welstead, International Surrogacy: Arduous Journey to Parenthood, 9 J. COMP.
L. 298 (2014).
3. Daniel Gruenbaum, Foreign Surrogate Motherhood, The American Journal of
Comparative Law , SPRING 2012, Vol. 60, No. 2 (SPRING 2012), pp. 475-505
4. Charles P. Kindregan & Danielle White, International Fertility Tourism: The Potential
for Stateless Children in Cross-Border Commercial Surrogacy Arrangements, 36
Suffolk Transnat'l L. REV. 527 (2013).

Online resources:

1. HeinOnline, https://home.heinonline.org/ (last seen on March 14, 2022).

2. Lexis India, https://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal/ (last seen on March 14, 2022).

3. Manupatra, http://www.manupatrafast.com (last seen on March 14, 2022).

4. SCC Online, http://www.scconline.com/ (last seen on March 14, 2022).

5. Westlaw India, http://www.westlawindia.com/ (last seen on March 14, 2022).