Prohibiting single fathers from adopting female

This preview shows page 15 - 17 out of 34 pages.

prohibiting single fathers from adopting female children. 100 Ultimately, however, the highest court of India resolved the case, by which time Manji was already three months old, 101 granting the necessary documents on a one-time basis. 102 A similar one-time exception was made in a case that dealt with the same problem of the nationality of children born pursuant to an international surrogacy agreement. 103 In Balaz v. Union of India , 104 Jan Balaz, the intended father to whom the children were related, was stuck in India for two years with twins born to an Indian surrogate mother while the court resolved passport issues. 105 His home country of Germany did not recognize surrogacy agreements and refused to issue the documentation required to leave. 106 India refused to issue a passport as the children were not related to an Indian citizen 107 because a donor egg was used. 108 The case was only resolved after the court granted a one-time exception, similar to the one in Baby Manji , and the children were formally adopted. 109 Despite the highly publicized issues illustrated in the Baby Manji and Balaz cases, commercial surrogacy continues to flourish in India’s unregulated market, where dilemmas concerning the nationality of the resulting children will continue until the bill requiring proof of citizenship passes. 110 99. Id. (“India would not issue a birth certific ate because Indian law requires both the mother and father to be named, and authorities were unsure whether the gestational carrier, the egg donor, or the intended mother was the mother of the child . . . .”). 100. Id. 101. Trisha A. Wolf, Why Japan Should Legalize Surrogacy , 23 P AC . R IM L. & P OL Y J. 461, 474 (2014). 102. Ergas, supra note 88, at 131. The ruling was made cautiously on the condition that it not set any legal precedent. Id. 103. Smerdon, supra note 20, at 64. 104. Balaz v. Anand Municipality, LPA 2151/2009 (Gujarat HC 2009). 105. Mortazavi, supra note 36, at 2275. 106. Balaz , ¶ 5. 107. Id. ¶ 4. 108. Id. ¶ 6; Smerdon, supra note 20, at 63. 109. Balaz , ¶¶ 20-22 ; Mortazavi, supra note 36, at 2275-76. 110 . See Laufer-Ukeles, supra note 20, at 1265-66 ( [B]usiness in reproductive tourism is thriving in India, growing at some seven percent annually ). Letters were sent
6-Guzman FINAL (Do Not Delete) 5/18/2016 10:15 PM 634 HOUSTON JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 38:2 2. Ireland In a more recent case, the Supreme Court of Ireland grappled with the difficult question of whether genetics or birth is determinative of motherhood in deciding who should be listed on a child’s birth c ertificate in the absence of clear laws addressing the issue. 111 The surrogate mother and the genetic mother in this case were sisters who both sought the change to the birth certificate but were refused by the registrar. 112 The Court noted that there was no d efinition of “mother” in the Constitution and therefore nothing prevents the State from legislating regulation on surrogacy.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture