The country's family court heard the guardianship case last week.
The case involved Kha, 43, and Chris, 42, a gay couple who married in 2023 and subsequently decided to have children.
As Kha, originally from Trung Quoc, had resided in England for over two decades, the couple sought assistance from relatives in his home country. They located Ms. Dao, who came from a remote rural area, the specific location of which the court did not disclose.
In 5/2023, the couple, via an intermediary, paid Ms. Dao 93,000 GBP (3,2 ty VND) for surrogacy using Kha's sperm.
The signed contract stipulated that Ms. Dao would refund the couple if the baby was unhealthy, and required embryo selection to ensure the child was male.
During the pregnancy, the court heard that the two men had only brief contact with Ms. Dao: once when she was 7 months pregnant, and again shortly after the baby's birth.
Ms. Dao received no regular payments during the pregnancy, only a lump sum after delivery. The couple confirmed the baby was a healthy boy.
Last month, upon their return to England, they applied for a guardianship order at the English family court.
Court: agreement illegal, but child's welfare paramount
English law prohibits commercial surrogacy, strictly limiting payments to reasonable expenses, typically not exceeding 20,000 GBP.
During the trial, the court also informed the couple that surrogacy is illegal in Trung Quoc.
The couple, however, claimed they were "completely unaware" of this when they signed the surrogacy agreement in Trung Quoc.
In his ruling, the judge stated that despite condemning the couple's actions, he believed recognizing their parental rights was the best option for the boy's welfare, prioritizing the child's interests above all else.
This incident prompted activists to condemn the "unethical" surrogacy contract. They highlighted its impact not only on the child but also on the surrogate mother, particularly the refund policy if the "product" did not meet specifications.
"Nothing is more backward than turning childbirth into a transaction where the child's gender dictates the payment", an English activist stated.
She argued that the court should not condone this practice, nor commercial surrogacy in general, which she likened to "international child trafficking".
Hai Thu (According to Telegraph)
