Couple Sues Surrogate for Not Aborting Baby with Cleft Lip
A legal dispute in Canada involving a surrogate mother and the intended parents of a child she carried has raised difficult questions about surrogacy agreements, prenatal medical decisions, and the limits of contractual obligations. According to the National Post, a same-sex male couple filed a lawsuit in Ontario Superior Court in May against the surrogate […]
A legal dispute in Canada involving a surrogate mother and the intended parents of a child she carried has raised difficult questions about surrogacy agreements, prenatal medical decisions, and the limits of contractual obligations.
According to the National Post, a same-sex male couple filed a lawsuit in Ontario Superior Court in May against the surrogate who carried their son. The lawsuit alleges that she failed to keep them informed about the pregnancy, placed the child at risk, caused them emotional distress, and breached confidentiality provisions in their surrogacy agreement.
While the court filing does not specifically mention an earlier request to terminate the pregnancy, both the surrogate and the agency involved have indicated that the relationship between the parties deteriorated after a significant disagreement during the pregnancy.
The conflict began after an ultrasound reportedly showed the baby had a cleft lip, along with concerns about a possible cleft palate and a potential heart defect. According to the National Post, the intended parents sent the surrogate a written request asking that the pregnancy be terminated under a provision of their surrogacy agreement addressing serious fetal abnormalities.
The surrogate did not agree to the request. She later sought additional medical evaluation at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, where physicians reportedly concluded that the baby was healthy aside from the cleft lip. The pregnancy continued.
Under Canadian law, the decision to terminate a pregnancy ultimately belongs to the pregnant woman, regardless of the wishes of intended parents or other parties to a surrogacy agreement.
Additional disagreements followed as the pregnancy progressed. The surrogate preferred an at-home birth attended by midwives, while the intended parents wanted the child delivered in a hospital. The birth ultimately took place at home before the newborn experienced breathing difficulties and was transported to a hospital for treatment.
Communication between the parties reportedly broke down after the birth. The surrogate later requested approximately $10,000 in reimbursement for lost income related to the pregnancy. After receiving no response, she filed a claim in small claims court.