Surrogacy Defies 'Best Interests Of The Child' Doctrine

The plight of 21 babies in California shows how children's well-being is subjugated to the whims of gay couples, single people, old people, thin-waisted actresses, and potential child molesters.

The concept of “best interests of the child” is a foundational legal principle dating back to English common law and the 19th century.

Technically, it is still the cornerstone of family law in the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the well-being of the child takes priority over the legal rights and wishes of the parents. However, the concept is completely disregarded in commercial surrogacy, where a woman is compensated to bear a child for another party.

The dangers of commercial surrogacy are evident in the case of a Los Angeles-area couple, Silvia Zhang, 38, and Guojun Xuan, 65, who were recently discovered to have 21 children, all but one or two purchased through commercial surrogacy.

Zhang and Xuan were arrested in May on suspicion of felony child endangerment or neglect after a hospital reported that a 2-month-old infant suffered a traumatic head injury when a nanny violently shook the baby. The Associated Press reported that the couple did not take the baby to the hospital until two days after the incident.

It is obvious that little thought was given to the best interests of the 19 or 20 children purchased by the couple - most of whom are between the ages of one and three.

There is no federal law on commercial surrogacy in the U.S., but several states, including California, have surrogacy-friendly laws.

There are two types of surrogacy. In the traditional form, the biological mother uses her egg and is impregnated with donor sperm. The second form of surrogacy, which is most common, involves the transfer of an embryo that uses the egg of another woman into the surrogate’s uterus via in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Mom Has No Parental Rights in CA

In California, the rights of the so-called commissioning parents are clearly elevated over the rights of both the mother and the baby.

California’s Family Code Division 12, Part 7, allows intended parents to pay a “gestational carrier” (a woman) to create a baby where “the woman is the gamete donor and the embryo was created using the sperm of the intended father or donor.”

Once the baby is born, the law states that the court “shall” issue an order establishing that the surrogate “is not a parent of, and has no parental rights or duties with respect to, the child or children.”

So, even if the baby is genetically related to her, the mother has no parental rights. Conversely, and perhaps more concerning, babies have no right to their genetic mother and all that flows from the lineage on their mother’s side (e.g., siblings, grandparents, aunts, cousins etc.). Unlike in adoption, babies of surrogates may never be able to locate their genetic mother.

It is still not clear exactly what was going on at the Zhang and Xuan’s home.

The couple told potential donors that they “wanted a large family.” However, state business records show that a company called Mark Surrogacy Investment, L.L.C., was registered at the couple’s address until June, when its business license was terminated.

The children were removed from their home by child-welfare authorities, while police investigate whether the couple misled surrogate mothers around the country.

Meanwhile, a potential surrogate told the Associated Press that she decided not to sign a surrogacy contract with Zhang, who offered her $60,000, after Zhang asked her if she had any friends who also wanted to be surrogates.

Business Is Booming

No one knows how many babies are bought and sold through commercial surrogacy in the U.S. because the process is unregulated. However, a commercial juggernaut has arisen in recent years to support what appears to be a burgeoning industry involving women, law firms, medical groups, and go-between / support organizations. It is thought that at least thousands of babies are now bought and sold per year, with fees ranging from $10,000 paid to poor women in Mexico to in excess of $60,000 paid to young women in California.

Groups like Men Having Babies (MBH), a “nonprofit community organization… to support current and future gay parents,” regularly hold seminars, webinars, and workshops to people interested in commercial surrogacy.

MHB, which caters to gay men, says on its website that “members” receive “discounts” from more than 180 surrogacy agencies, IVF clinics, and law firms. It also offers financial assistance to low income couples.

Gay couples and single men are thought to constitute at least half of the clientele for commercial surrogacy services.

Moreover, several states have lifted bans against commercial surrogacy in recent years. In 2021, New York passed a law allowing surrogacy where the woman has no genetic relation to the child.

California has become a mecca for commercial surrogacy, due to its lack of legal protection for surrogates and babies.

A wealthy British couple, in their 70s, paid about $200,000 to a California surrogate mother and agency.

A few months ago, a wealthy British couple in their 70s was granted a court order in England to become the legal parents of a 14-month-old surrogate baby boy who was born in California using the husband’s sperm and a donor egg. The judge voiced concerns that the parents could die before the child reaches 18. However, she said she granted the order to give permanence and security to the child’s arrangements.

No Background Check

In adoption, prospective parents undergo exhaustive background checks to ensure the safety and future well-being of the child. Even with these checks, mistakes occur.

In December, two Georgia men, William and Zachary Zulock, were sentenced to 100 years in prison each without the chance of parole after they had regular sex with the two boys they adopted from a Christian special-needs agency. They filmed their abuse of the boys, aged 10 and 12, to make pedophilic pornography.

The complete absence of background checks with respect to commercial surrogacy should be of concern.

Additionally, surrogacy doesn’t always go as planned, and is inherently risky for the surrogate.

In a notorious case in 2014, an Australian couple who entered a surrogacy arrangement in Thailand refused to accept one of their two twin children. They accepted their healthy twin daughter but rejected their son, “Baby Gammy,” who was born with Down Syndrome, a congenital heart condition, and a lung infection. The couple had asked the 21-year-old surrogate mother, Pattaramon Janbua, to have an abortion four months into the pregnancy. Janbua chose to care for Gammy.

Many women fail to realize that surrogacy can be riskier than a natural birth.

A Canadian study in 2024 found that that surrogates face increased risks of pregnancy complications. These women had two to three times the risk of premature birth, severe preeclampsia, and postpartum hemorrhage, compared to women who conceive naturally. The risks can be higher even when compared to women undergoing in vitro fertilization or IVF.

Ultimately, authorities may not be able to prosecute Zhang and Xuan for the harm inflicted on their 2-month-old infant by a nanny.

It’s not against the law for rich people to commission 19 or 20 babies via commercial surrogacy, even if they can’t possibly take care of all those babies, and it is obviously contrary to the best interests of the child.

That’s the problem.