v

Legal Parentage in Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART)

Legal parentage in Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) refers to the determination of who is recognized by law as the “mother” and “father” (or legal parents) of a child conceived through methods such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF), sperm/egg donation, or surrogacy. Unlike natural conception, ART separates genetic parentage, gestational parentage, and intended parentage, which creates complex legal questions.

Most legal systems—including India—have gradually shifted toward recognizing intention-based parentage, especially in surrogacy arrangements, but the law still varies depending on statute, contract validity, and public policy.

Core Principles of Legal Parentage in ART

1. Genetic Parentage

The person(s) whose sperm or egg is used.

2. Gestational Parentage

The woman who carries and gives birth to the child.

3. Intended Parentage

The person(s) who commissioned ART and intend to raise the child.

4. Intention Theory (Modern Dominant Approach)

Courts increasingly prioritize who intended to parent the child, especially in surrogacy cases.

5. Public Policy and Child Welfare

Courts prioritize:

• Best interests of the child
• Avoiding statelessness
• Preventing exploitation of surrogate mothers

Legal Framework in India (Brief Overview)

India’s position has evolved through:

• Judicial decisions (before regulation)
• Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021
• Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021

Key principles now include:

• Only altruistic surrogacy is permitted
• Intended parents are generally recognized as legal parents after compliance
• Commercial surrogacy is prohibited
• Written consent and eligibility conditions are mandatory

Important Case Laws on Legal Parentage in ART

1. Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India (2008)

• A Japanese child born through surrogacy in India.
• The intended parents divorced before birth.
• Legal issue: citizenship and custody.

Held:

• The Court recognized the complexity of surrogacy and emphasized that the child cannot be left stateless or parentless.
• The grandmother was allowed to take custody.

Significance:

• Highlighted absence of clear surrogacy law in India at the time.
• Recognized intended parent issues in ART arrangements.

2. Jan Balaz v. Anand Municipality (2009, Gujarat High Court)

• German couple commissioned surrogacy in India.
• Children were born but Germany did not recognize surrogacy.

Held:

• Children were granted Indian citizenship initially due to statelessness concerns.
• Court emphasized need for legislative clarity.

Significance:

• Showed conflict between nationality laws and ART parentage.
• Highlighted importance of legal parent recognition for citizenship.

3. Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1984)

• Though primarily about inter-country adoption, it laid foundational principles.

Held:

• Child welfare is paramount.
• Court must ensure ethical safeguards in cross-border child transfer.

Significance:

• Frequently applied by analogy in ART and surrogacy cases.
• Reinforced “best interests of the child” doctrine.

4. Johnson v. Calvert (1993, California Supreme Court, USA)

• Dispute between gestational surrogate and genetic parents.

Held:

• Intended parents were declared legal parents.
• Court introduced the “intent test.”

Significance:

• Landmark case establishing intention-based parentage doctrine.
• Widely cited globally in ART disputes.

5. In re Marriage of Buzzanca (1998, California Court of Appeal)

• Embryo created via donors implanted in surrogate.
• Neither surrogate nor genetic contributors claimed the child.

Held:

• Intended parents were legal parents.

Significance:

• Strengthened principle that legal parentage follows intention, not biology.

6. Re G (Surrogacy: Foreign Domicile) (2008, England)

• Dispute over recognition of surrogacy arrangement involving foreign elements.

Held:

• Court emphasized need to consider welfare and intention.
• Legal parentage orders can be granted post-birth.

Significance:

• UK courts began formalizing parental orders in surrogacy.

7. Mennesson v. France (2014, European Court of Human Rights)

• French couple used surrogacy in USA; France refused to recognize children.

Held:

• Refusal to recognize parent-child relationship violated the child’s right to identity under Article 8 of ECHR.

Significance:

• Strengthened international obligation to recognize ART-based parentage for child welfare.

8. Evans v. United Kingdom (2007, ECHR)

• Embryos created with former partner; dispute after separation.

Held:

• Biological father’s withdrawal of consent was upheld.

Significance:

• Reinforced importance of consent in ART parentage decisions.

Key Legal Issues Emerging from These Cases

1. Conflict between Biology and Intention

Courts increasingly favor intention over genetics in surrogacy disputes.

2. Citizenship and Statelessness

Children born through international surrogacy risk statelessness if parentage is not recognized.

3. Surrogate Mother Rights

Whether she has parental rights after birth depends on jurisdiction and contract validity.

4. Consent as Central Element

Withdrawal or absence of consent can defeat parentage claims.

5. Need for Statutory Regulation

Most disputes arose due to lack of clear ART laws.

Conclusion

Legal parentage in ART is no longer purely biological. Modern legal systems increasingly adopt a hybrid model, where:

• Intention is the primary determinant,
• Genetics and gestation are secondary,
• Child welfare remains paramount.

The evolution of case law—from Johnson v. Calvert to Mennesson v. France and Indian decisions like Baby Manji Yamada—shows a global shift toward protecting children’s identity and stabilizing parentage in increasingly complex reproductive technologies.