搜索结果

如果您正在考虑代孕，加利福尼亚州是美国最友好的州之一，也是第一个认可通过妊娠代孕获得亲子关系的州。但是，在与代母进行实际胚胎移植之前，代孕合同必须满足一些法律要求。加州法律要求如下：  • 双方需要有自己的独立律师。  • 必须确定准父母的身份；不得匿名。  • 准父母必须说明配子（卵子/精子/胚胎）的来源（自己的或捐赠者的）。无需列出捐献者的姓名。  • 在开始注射药物或胚胎移植程序之前，所有各方必须在公证人或国际同等机构面前签署协议。(注意，请咨询您的律师是否可以使用网络公证，某些法院会有特殊规定）。  • 必须说明由谁支付怀孕和孩子的医疗费用，并审查代母的保险单（如有）。  • 如果有第三方协助者（即代孕机构），那么资金必须存放在独立的托管账户或律师信托账户中。    满足所有要求后，律师就可以申请 "产前令"（又称 PBO）或亲子关系判决书。亲子关系判决书的认证副本将被加州的医院和加州出生记录机构认可。  如果代母居住在其他州，判决书也可能在其他州得到承认，但并非每个州都是如此。在加利福尼亚州，原始出生证明会将准父母列为父母，而不会在出生证明上列出代母的姓名。    请咨询在代孕方面有专门经验的律师，以确保代孕过程顺利进行。Tsong Law Group的律师在代孕法这一细分领域拥有丰富的经验。   别忘了每周四关注我们的博客，了解纽约州、伊利诺伊州、华盛顿州、亚利桑那州、纽约州和俄克拉荷马州的代孕协议要求。如果您在代孕协议方面需要帮助，请立即联系我们。    本文仅供参考，在未进行更多研究或咨询律师的情况下，请勿依赖本文。本文并非法律建议，也不会与读者建立律师-客户关系。

如果您是希望通过代孕建立家庭的准父母，或者是希望成为代母的女性，您可以在华盛顿州实现这些梦想。2019年，华盛顿州颁布了全国最好的代孕法律之一，使其成为代孕的热门州。与加利福尼亚州一样，华盛顿州拥有简化的法庭程序，在孩子出生前承认准父母为孩子的父母。华盛顿州还承认基因代孕（也称为传统代孕）。在本文中，我们将讨论华盛顿州法律对妊娠或基因代孕协议的要求。    妊娠或基因代孕协议的要求  华盛顿州法律要求代孕协议中必须包含以下内容：   • 双方（准父母、代孕人及配偶（如有））必须年满 21 周岁。  • 代母必须至少生育过一个孩子，且未签订过两份以上的代孕协议。  • 双方必须完成医疗评估和心理健康咨询。  • 双方必须有自己选择的独立律师，准父母必须为代母的律师付费。  • 代母的配偶必须是当事人之一。  • 双方必须在公证人或见证人面前签字，并收到一份副本。  • 协议必须在根据协议进行任何医疗程序（评估除外）之前签署和执行。  • 协议必须披露准父母如何支付代母和孩子的医疗费用，并包括保险（如有）的审查。  • 代母必须能够做出医疗决定。  • 代孕协议的内容必须符合 RCW 26.26A.715 的规定。  如果符合所有要求，华盛顿州法院可以做出产前判决，确认准父母是代孕子女的合法父母，以此他们将被列入即将颁发的出生证明中。    您可以在代孕律师的帮助下安全地完成一次成功的代孕。Tsong Law Group 律师事务所的律师在代孕法这一细分领域拥有丰富的经验。Tsong Law Group 的律师总部设在加利福尼亚州，在华盛顿州、纽约州、伊利诺伊州、亚利桑那州和俄克拉荷马州均持有执照。他们还是美国收养与辅助生殖律师学会（AAAA）和加州收养与辅助生殖律师学会（ACAL）的会员。   如果您在代孕协议方面需要帮助，请立即联系我们。  本文仅供参考，在未进行额外研究或咨询律师的情况下，请勿依赖本文。本文并非法律建议，也不会与读者建立律师-客户关系

自 2005 年起，伊利诺伊州就颁布了代孕法。与其他州不同的是，伊利诺伊州妊娠代孕法有一些独特的要求，是其他州（如加利福尼亚州和华盛顿州）所没有的。在本文中，我们将讨论法律对代母和准父母的要求，以及对代孕协议的法律要求。  根据伊利诺伊州法律，代母必须满足以下要求：   • 她必须年满 21 岁；   • 至少生育过一个孩子；   • 已完成医疗和心理健康评估；  • 与独立律师就妊娠代孕协议进行过法律咨询；     • 拥有涵盖主要医疗和住院治疗的医疗保险，保险期限为整个预产期和婴儿出生后八周。(注：该保险可由准父母支付）。  同时，准父母有以下要求：    • 他们必须至少提供一个配子（形成受精卵的精子或卵子）；   • 至少一名准父母必须有代孕的医疗需求，并有医生的宣誓书为证；   • 他们还必须完成医疗和心理健康评估；以及   • 他们已与自己的独立律师进行了法律咨询。  代孕协议以及双方之间的医疗宣誓书必须由两名证人见证。一旦代母怀孕，伊利诺伊州《亲子关系法》要求：   • 代母及其配偶证明代母是为准父母怀上孩子，而并未为孩子提供配子；   • 准父母证明孩子是使用准父母之一的配子受孕的，而不是代母或配偶的配子；   • 伊利诺伊州执业医师证明与（2）相同；以及   • 准父母和代母的律师证明符合《妊娠代孕法》。  医院收到这些证明后，伊利诺伊州公共卫生局将签发写明准父母的姓名的出生证明。该程序不涉及法院判决，这意味着一些国际或同性准父母可能需寻求亲子关系判决以保护自己的权利。  为了使整个过程顺利进行，请务必咨询代孕法方面的专业律师。TSL的律师在配子捐赠、代孕、家庭法等领域拥有丰富的经验。我们的律师还拥有伊利诺伊州、加利福尼亚州、纽约州、华盛顿州、亚利桑那州和俄克拉荷马州的执照。

Adopting a child can be a long journey with financial implications. This year, the U.S. government offers an adoption tax credit of up to $15,950 in 2023 increasing to $16,810 in 2024 to assist adoptive parents with the costs associated with the adoption process.   How does the tax credit work? A credit is better than a deduction, it is a straight refund of qualified adoption expenses up to the annual tax credit in expenses. So, if you have $3000 in taxes for a year, and had over $3000 in adoption expenses, you will get a $3000 refund and the balance as a credit carrying over for a subsequent year.  Qualified adoption expenses  The first thing to do is determine your qualified adoption expenses, as defined in Section 23(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code , which consist of costs you have paid that are directly associated with the adoption process . Here's a breakdown of what qualifies:  ● Reasonable and necessary adoption fees:  This includes fees paid to adoption agencies or professionals facilitating the adoption.  ● Court costs and attorney fees:  Legal expenses incurred during the adoption proceedings are considered qualified adoption expenses.  ● Travel expenses:  This covers the costs of travel, including meals and lodging, while away from home for adoption-related purposes.  ● Other directly related expenses:  Any additional costs essential for the adoption process fall into this category, such as reasonable birth mother expenses, medical care for the child, etc.  In domestic adoptions, these expenses are considered qualified even if paid before identifying an eligible child. Eligible children are those under 18 years old or incapable of self-care. However, expenses related to adopting a spouse's child are not considered qualified adoption expenses, therefore all stepparent and adoptions are not eligible for any adoption credit. In a special case, if registered domestic partners reside in a state allowing second-parent adoptions, expenses incurred by one partner for adopting the other's child may qualify.  Income and dollar limitations  The tax credit for adoption does have some limitations, including income-based criteria and dollar thresholds. For the tax year 2023, the phaseout range for Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) is between $239,230 and $279,230, which means if you make between this amount, you will not be able to claim the full adoption tax credit, and at or above $279,230, there is no adoption credit. This applies to those whose status is single, head of household, qualifying surviving spouse, or married filing jointly. Generally, if you are married, you must file a joint return to take the credit or exclusion. However, if you are married and aren't filing jointly because you are separated from your spouse, you may be able to take the credit or exclusion on your own return, but you must meet certain requirements set by the IRS .   Additionally, the maximum allowable adoption expenses each year are influenced by previous claims made for the same adoption effort and expenses incurred during unsuccessful adoption attempts.   In which tax year can you claim the credit?  The timing for claiming the adoption credit depends on when expenses were paid, the type of adoption (domestic or foreign), and when the adoption was finalized. Expenses paid before the adoption is finalized can be claimed on the tax return for the following year for domestic adoptions, while for foreign adoptions, expenses paid before and during the year of finalization can be claimed on the tax return for that year. Once the adoption is finalized, expenses paid during or after that year can be claimed on the tax return for the year they were paid, regardless of whether it's a domestic or foreign adoption.  This means that expenses paid in previous years may be eligible for the current year's tax return. For example, if an adoption became final in 2023, expenses from previous years leading up to the finalization can be claimed on the 2023 tax return.  Special Needs Adoptions  Adopting a U.S. child identified as having special needs may qualify you for the maximum adoption credit. However, this maximum amount may be reduced if you've claimed adoption expenses for the same child in previous years, and income limits may apply. Additionally, even if you or your employer didn't pay any adoption expenses, you may still qualify for an exclusion if your employer has a written qualified adoption assistance program. A child is considered to have special needs if they are a U.S. citizen or resident when the adoption process begins, the state determines they can't or shouldn't return to their parents' home, and the state believes they likely won't be adopted without assistance.  Filing Considerations  Your filing status affects your eligibility for claiming the adoption credit or exclusion. If you filed your taxes as "married filing separately" in the year you first qualify for adoption expenses, you generally can't claim the credit or exclusion for those expenses. You may need to amend your return to change your filing status if you meet certain requirements. To claim the adoption credit or exclusion, complete Form 8839 and attach it to your tax return. You no longer need to include adoption documentation with your return, but you must keep it for your records. The IRS encourages e-filing, and Form 8839 can be e-filed with your tax return, eliminating the need to mail completed forms.    This article is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal or tax advice. Talk with your tax professional if you need help with seeking an adoption tax credit. If you have an adoption in California, our legal team is ready to help you. We even offer the benefit of Your Adoption Finance Coach  to those pursuing an independent adoption and need help with fundraising, grants, or budgeting for their adoption. Reach out to us now .

'Baby God,’ directed by Hannah Olson, explores into the deceptive acts of Dr. Quincy Fortier, a fertility doctor whose actions profoundly affected many lives. Like our previous review of ‘Our Father,’  in which Dr. Donald Cline deceptively used of his own sperm, 'Baby God' explores Dr. Fortier’s deceptive acts over the course of decades.  Dr. Fortier was highly regarded in the medical community for his expertise in assisting couples struggling with fertility issues; he even established Las Vegas's first women's hospital. His career began in the early 1960s, a time when infertility was a taboo subject, and viable options were scarce. Additionally, the absence of frozen sperm technology, which only became common in the 1980s, further limited available solutions.  However, beneath his professional façade lay a troubling truth: Dr. Fortier used his own sperm to impregnate numerous of his female patients without their knowledge or consent.  The documentary presents firsthand testimonies from individuals, often referred to as ‘Fortier's children,’ who discovered their genetic connection to Dr. Fortier through DNA testing. These personal stories shed light on the profound impact of the shocking discovery on their sense of identity and family dynamics.  ‘Baby God’ also features accounts from patients who sought Dr. Fortier's assistance with fertility issues, only to later uncover his deception. Wendi Babst, whose experience is highlighted in the documentary and is among the first interviewed, learned of her numerous genetic matches through DNA testing. Many families similar to Wendi’s share a deep sense of betrayal as they placed their trust in Dr. Fortier's expertise and integrity.    What are the legal aspects of the movie?  While there is discussion in ‘Baby God,’ of potential legal action or considerations of accountability, the documentary film does not include scenes of individuals consulting lawyers or engaging in legal proceedings. As Dr. Fortier is deceased, it appears his victims have no recourse.     Contrasts in Legal Standards: From Dr. Fortier's Time to Today  The legal standards regarding assisted reproduction and donor conception portrayed from the mid-to-late 20th century differ significantly from today's standards. During Dr. Fortier's time, donor anonymity was common, and regulations surrounding assisted reproductive technologies were less comprehensive. At the time, no law prohibited the sort of act Dr. Fortier engaged in and donor-conceived individuals faced barriers to accessing information about their genetic origin.  Today, legal standards emphasize transparency, accountability, and increasing the rights of donor-conceived individuals. Laws in Washington  and  California  among other states grant donor-conceived individuals the right to access medical information about their donors and a potential right to contact them, and ASRM guidelines  ensure safety, ethical practice, and the protection of all parties involved in assisted reproduction. Some states have enacted laws that criminalize donor deception.   Where Is Dr. Fortier Now?  Dr. Quincy Fortier passed away in 2006, leaving behind a legacy tainted by controversy and ethical scrutiny. He is no longer alive to be held accountable for his actions. However, the questions raised by his unethical behavior continue to resonate within the medical community and society at large, serving as a stark reminder of the importance of ethical standards and accountability in healthcare.   As viewers reflect on the revelations brought to light in ‘Baby God,’ they are left to contemplate the lasting consequences of Dr. Fortier's actions and the ongoing efforts to ensure transparency and integrity within the field of reproductive medicine.    Should You Watch It?  While “Baby God” offers a chilling story, the documentary is unfortunately very slow paced. With many transitions and without a set timeline, the exposition jumps from victim to victim and the pacing leaves a lot to be desired. All the content could probably have fit in a half hour show. However, if enjoyed “Our Father” or enjoy learning more about the wild west days of fertility, then “Baby God” is worth a view.   In the pursuit of parenthood, it's essential to consider all aspects, including legal matters. If you or someone you know is navigating fertility treatments and requires legal guidance, don't hesitate to contact us now.

Previously in our blog, we have discussed whether egg donor compensation is taxable  and whether surrogacy expenses are deductible . In this blog, we will cover if intended parents may deduct expenses for an egg donor as deductible medical care expenses under the 26 U.S. Code Section 213(a). The answer is maybe, and surprisingly, more expenses than those that directly relate to medical expenses.  Under Section 213(a), taxpayers may deduct expenses for medical care that exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income. Medical care can be defined as amounts paid for diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, 26 U.S. Code Section 213(d)(1)(a). This code also aims at issues affecting bodily functions or structures. The IRS states that preparatory expenses directly related to a medical procedure may also be deductible.   In the private ruling letter released on May 5, 2003 , a taxpayer was seeking deductions for medical expenses when she attempted pregnancy using donated eggs. We can deduce the taxpayer is a woman, because she had previously been unable to become pregnant using her own eggs and sought to implant the fertilized egg into her own body. She requested deductions for (1) the donor’s compensation (described as a fee for her time and expenses), (2) the agency fee for obtaining the donor, (3) expenses for donor’s medical and psychological testing and insurance for post-procedure expenses, and (4) legal fees for preparing a contract with the egg donor. When applying the Tax Code to this taxpayer's situation and expenses incurred in obtaining an egg donor, the IRS concluded that these expenses were closely tied to the medical procedure of assisted reproduction and were fully deductible under Section 213. Even the compensation to the egg donor and the agency fee. The reasoning in the Letter was that these expenses are to facilitate the process of overcoming infertility and achieving pregnancy, directly impacting the taxpayer’s bodily functions and fulfilling the criteria in Section 213.  The ruling in this egg donation letter is a stark contrast to the  2021 Private Letter Ruling  on whether surrogacy expenses are deductible. Both rulings address the deductibility of medical expenses associated with assisted reproduction, specifically egg donation and IVF procedures. The 2021 ruling found that expenses incurred on behalf of a third party during gestational surrogacy were not considered deductible medical expenses. The taxpayers in the 2021 ruling were a gay male couple, and the IRS ruled none of their expenses for egg donation and gestational surrogacy could be considered incurred for treatment of a disease or for the purpose of affecting the function of the taxpayer’s body (outside what directly involved their bodies such as the sperm retrieval). In contrast, the 2003 ruling was for a woman, or perhaps a couple that included a woman with an infertility diagnosis. Because she had an infertility diagnosis and intended to implant the resulting embryo(s) into her own body, every expense she requested related to the egg donation was considered incurred for the treatment of a disease.   It might seem hard to reconcile the stark difference in outcome between these two rulings. In the 2003 egg donor ruling which allowed for the deduction of everything, there was a medical diagnosis of infertility. In the 2021 ruling which restricted deductible expenses to those directly affecting the taxpayer's body or the body of the taxpayer’s spouse, there was no medical diagnosis of infertility, but a gay male couple could not produce eggs or have a pregnancy on their own. Thus, the differences in the treatment of deductible expenses may lie in whether there is a medical finding of infertility or rather, a practical or social reason for infertility. If the facts were different and the 2003 taxpayer pursued surrogacy rather than implanting the fertilized egg into her own body, it is not clear whether the IRS would rule she could deduct surrogacy expenses. Another interesting scenario would be if the taxpayer were a gay couple or male with a medical diagnosis of infertility, whether the IRS would accept the same diagnosis to cover egg donor expenses.   It is worth noting that a Private Letter Ruling only applies to the taxpayer requesting it and does not bind the IRS to that reasoning or decision with any other taxpayer. Nonetheless, the broader ruling in 2003 may provide a legal and medical pathway to getting egg donation and possibly surrogacy expenses deducted from one’s taxes.   If you have questions about whether your third-party reproduction expenses are deductible, contact your tax advisor as we are not tax lawyers. When it comes to egg donation or surrogacy law, Tsong Law Group brings years of experience in this field. Message us  now to find out how we can assist you.  Read more about the deductibility of third party reproduction related expenses in our blog on egg donation expenses here. The difference in outcome may surprise you.

The Sinister Surrogate is a 2018 drama and thriller film that stars Brian Ames and Kelly Thiebaud. The movie features a perfect couple Danielle and Josh having everything in their lives: a beautiful house and successful lives. Despite this, there is one thing that the couple feels like missing: a child. They had multiple attempts to start a family, however, it all ended up in failure, giving them the chance to go for surrogacy route. While on their surrogacy journey, they meet Kailee, their perfect candidate as a surrogate. She is cheerful and lively and her pregnancy goes along smoothly. All is well, until after she gives birth. Kailee the surrogate kept on coming to Danielle and Josh’s family surprisingly offering them different gifts. Although this is supposed to be normal, Danielle can't help but feel there's something dark lurking behind Kailee the surrogate. This left the couple unsettled thinking that perhaps she felt attached to their daughter. As the story progress, it is revealed Kailee’s plan is to take Danielle and Josh’s daughter and claim her as her own. Real-World Accuracy In the first act, the movie examines how couples choose surrogacy as an option after unsuccessful fertility treatments. When Kailee was picked as the ideal surrogate candidate for the Danielle and Josh, the latter are very supportive and engaged throughout the pregnancy. In reality, intended parents are allowed to attend pregnancy appointments (though not birthing classes), and the delivery of their surrogate. One major issue portrayed in the movie is the contact by Kailee post-pregnancy. In reality, while many parties can continue to have contact after the delivery, others choose to have no contact with their surrogate post-pregnancy. There is no indication in this movie that the parties addressed contact after delivery in their gestational surrogacy contract. If Danielle and Josh were clients of Tsong Law Group, they would have had a section in the surrogacy contract on permissible contact. This section would allow either party to cease contact in writing, and hold the other in breach. It should also be noted that there is no legal uncertainty about who is the parent. Kailee should have signed paperwork that relinquishes and waives all her claims to claim parental rights and stipulated to a judgment that Danielle and Josh are the parents. One thing that is also disappointing in the movie was the ability of the agency to put a stop to Kailee’s plan but failed to do so. Kailee’s interference would have been prevented only if the agency had properly screened Kailee in the first instance. It is apparent that Kailee has never given birth before. Under ASRM guidelines, surrogates must have experience delivering babies so that the doctors know they are ideal candidates without complicated deliveries. I am unaware of any U.S. agencies that allow surrogates who have not given birth. Even had she were qualified, Kailee would have undergone a psychological screening to assess whether she had any mental illnesses or understood her role as a surrogate or would be attached to a child. Further, she should have had her own separate attorney to review the surrogacy contract, ensuring she understood her role as the surrogate, understood permissible contact, and understood she had a right to receive psychological support during the journey. Assistance from the agency during the journey would also be warranted. Agencies often provide support group meetings as well as psychological assistance. If Kailee was surrounded by surrogates who understood their role, and had to discuss how she felt, she might have appropriate feelings for the child she was carrying, or perhaps red flags would be raised to show she needed more psychological assistance. Conclusion: If you’re into thrillers or dramas, The Sinister Surrogacy is a movie still a miss. Perhaps not surprising, the movie is another by-the-numbers that calls on the trope of the obsessive surrogate who wants the baby, though the actors playing Danielle and Josh do a good job. Although the movie depicts a bit of what happens in reality in the first scenes of the movie, it veers into camp with the all-too familiar storyline of the obsessed surrogate. We don’t think that The Sinister Surrogacy is realistic and the concept of the surrogate wanting to claim the baby is extremely overblown in movies. However, whether you are an intended parent or a surrogate, you should always have competent, experienced counsel for your journey, who can answer all your questions. Contact us today.

"Our Father” is a Netflix original documentary film directed by Lucie Jourdan. It follows the story of the former fertility specialist Dr. Donald Cline who deceptively inseminated dozens of patients with his own sperm between 1979 and 1986. This documentary film raises the question about how the legal system views those seeking control over their own reproductive choices and restitution when that autonomy is violated. Synopsis of the film Our Father intercuts interviews with the siblings and Dr. Cline’s victims with re-enacted footage of some of their experiences. Although Dr. Cline was never interviewed, his courtroom testimony is recreated (or is shown). Dr. Cline’s acts began being discovered when Jacoba Ballard, one of the victims of Dr. Cline’s deceptive sperm donations, recalled how at an early age she thought she was adopted, as she had her blonde hair and bright blue eyes compared to her family’s dark-hair and dark-features. She learned at an early age she was conceived via a sperm donor, who was supposedly a resident-in-training who had donated only a few times. Once at home DNA testing became available, she set out to find her half-siblings. From there, her life changed after she learned that she had seven half-siblings. Jacoba later on reached out to her newfound family members. Researching the mystery of their shared relation, Jacoba and her siblings soon discovered with horror what their parents’ trusted doctor had done. The number of their confirmed siblings continued to grow to at least 94 as more people added their DNA to the database. While Dr. Cline never reveals his motivations, the documentary film suggests Dr. Cline may have been motivated by his interest in an extreme Christian sect called “Quiverfull,” where it encourages followers to reproduce as prolifically as possible to meet God’s mandate to “be fruitful and multiply” and Dr. Cline, in addition to engaging with patients and staff in prayer before treatments, had an affinity for the verse Jeremiah 1:5 (“Before I formed you in your mother’s womb I knew you”). What happened to Dr. Cline In 2017, a criminal investigation was launched when four of the "children" filed a complaint against Dr. Cline to Indiana's Attorney General. However, during that time, there is no law or legal structure in place which criminalizes the act of a doctor inseminating a patient with his own sperm. Therefore, he could not be criminally charged for his deceptive insemination. Cline was instead brought to trial facing two counts of felony obstruction of justice, for lying during the investigation. Despite pleading guilty to two felony counts of obstruction of justice, he received no jail time and only a one-year suspended sentence and a $500 fine. He also lost his medical license, but he had retired nearly a decade. Little is known about his whereabouts now, but he remains a free man. Legal Fallout Following the case of Dr. Cline, in 2019, Indianapolis enacted Senate Enrolled Act 174 which protects individuals and couples against fertility fraud and deception. The law makes it a level 6 felony if someone makes a misrepresentation involving a medical procedure, medical device or drug and human reproductive material. The law also creates a civil cause of action for fertility fraud, making it possible for victims to get reimbursed for the costs of the fertility treatment plus up to $10,000 in damages. The law will also affect health care providers who use their reproductive material without the donor’s consent, or if the doctor uses the sperm or eggs in a manner the donor didn’t sign off on. Recently, some victims/children of fertility fraud also spoke to AAAA surrogacy attorneys at the AAAA conference in May 2023 including Jacoba Ballard who was featured in “Our Father. Dr. Cline’s case is not unique. In 2020, a Texas doctor was under investigation for allegedly impregnating multiple fertility clinic patients using his own sperm instead of the donor sperm they chose. Dr. Kim McMorries of Nacogdoches, Texas had fathered at least seven children of his clinic patients, with an eighth child from sperm he donated while he was medical student. In his defense, Dr. McMorries stated that when this occurred, it was not considered wrong. However, the medical board sought to impose remedies including revocation of his medical license. To prevent this, the doctor filed a suit enjoining the medical board, citing a seven-year statute of limitations while also claiming that the board was being pressured by news coverage. Today, he is still actively practicing medicine. This also prompted the state to pass a law criminalizing doctor using their own sperm to inseminate patients without their consent as sexual assault. Our Take/Conclusion “Our Father” is chilling, cautionary tale which highlights the lack of legal recourse afforded to the children and parents who were victims of fertility fraud. This sort of donor fraud shakes families at the core because it violates the trust patients have in their doctor and the identity of their children. If you are interested in a different kind of documentary, Our Father is worth a watch. The documentary film premiered on May 11, 2022, and has been watched for 42.6 million hours by viewers. “Our Father” also shows us that the rapid development and ubiquity of DNA testing is changing the future of anonymous gamete donations and reminds us the importance to have written contracts in place, and a lawyer experienced and knowledgeable in fertility law to review or draft your egg or sperm donation contracts. Please contact Tsong Law Group for more information.

In the 2023 movie "Good Egg," directed by Nicole Gomez Fisher, viewers are drawn into the world of Jessica Nieves-Sanders, portrayed by Yara Martinez. Jessica, a beloved high school drama teacher in New York City. As Jessica approaches her fortieth birthday, she and her husband Gordon, played by Joel Johnstone, face financial and emotional strain due to their struggles with infertility.  After three failed rounds of IVF,  Jessica is presented with the option of egg donation  by her doctor, which she initially rejects. In her discussions with her husband, Jessica is opposed to having a donor as the genetic mother. She worries that she will not meet her donor due to anonymity requirements and that the donor is just a piece of paper to her.  Their journey takes an unexpected turn when Jessica intervenes two men harassing a young woman, Bridget Garcia, portrayed by Andrea Londo. Bridget, in need of quick money , overhears Jessica and her husband discussing a donor and tells Jessica that she can be her donor. She describes it as an opportunity to "pay it forward" and offers a lower cost than having an anonymous donor from a clinic.  Jessica agrees to meet Bridget to discuss it further but their meeting goes wrong as they both end up kidnapped by the two men who were harassing Bridget in the alleyway.  As Jessica tries to escape, her husband Gordon embarks on a mission to rescue her using his IT tracking skills and his fondness for magic tricks.  When they finally reunite, they face new challenges as both have to escape their captors with their lives.   ART Realism   The beginning of "Good Egg" is fairly realistic in depicting reproductive failure and loss, and how the grief can be experienced differently by a couple. The discussion between the doctor, Jessica, and Gordon about egg donation is exaggerated but has some realistic aspects. Jessica and Gordon, like many couples, disagree on how they view egg donation. Jessica’s concerns are reflective of women who worry about aspects of egg donation, including feeling like she is being replaced.     However, when Jessica stated to her husband Gordon that she does not want a “stranger” to be the genetic mother, she is making an inaccurate assumption. The decision-making process for egg donation varies between cases as some are anonymous while others are disclosed. Many egg donation agencies facilitate communication between donors and recipients during the match. Jessica feared that she would be deceived by the egg donor for “who they truly are,” but agencies thoroughly screen donors for psychological and physical health. Also, Jessica’s assumption that the genetic mother would be a stranger is false because there can be known donors like a family member.  Jessica and Bridget’s meeting to discuss egg donation was not an accurate depiction of the process. She requests for the money upfront after writing how much she wanted on the napkin. It would be foolish for Jessica to accept because donors are not fully compensated before any medical clearance or procedures take place. It is crucial to note that egg donation is not a quick process where the intended parents can hand over money at the first meeting. It involves several steps, including medical and psychological evaluations, legal representation for contracts, genetic screenings, and medication protocols, which typically span months before the retrieval procedure takes place. This comprehensive process ensures the safety and well-being of both the donor and the recipient, as well as compliance with legal and ethical standards regarding  compensation  and donation.  It would also be advisable for Jessica to consider all her options before meeting with Bridget, though she had no reason to expect a kidnapping to occur. If money and knowing the donor were the biggest issues to her, her younger sister would have been an obvious consideration as a donor. Jessica ended up meeting Bridget without exploring the egg donation process, where she would learn there are many agencies with donors that she could have contact with during and afterwards. Fertility clinics provide comprehensive support and guidance to assist patients in making well-informed decisions based on their unique circumstances and preferences. Is there any depiction of the legal process of egg donation?  There's none. After the meeting with Bridget, Jessica is kidnapped and the movie turns from a comedy-drama into an action-comedy. So no lawyers  are involved as the egg donation process does not get further than the match meeting.      Is it worth the watch?  In the first act, "Good Egg" skillfully addresses sensitive topics like fertility struggles and alternative methods of conception with both humor and sensitivity. The second act, the movie takes a broad turn and focuses on the efforts of Jessica to escape and Gordon to find her. The third act, when they are both trying to escape, gets a bit unrealistic and cheesy. If you were like me, you may find the conclusion puzzling because it never reveals how Gordon and Jessica completed their family building. This might disappoint some, but thanks to a good effort by the main characters, it is a watchable popcorn movie  In summary, "Good Egg" gets three-star rating for its frenetic storyline, impressive performances, and its alternate take on egg donation. It’s worth a stream and as of this writing it’s currently free on Amazon Prime Video.     If you or someone you know is considering egg donation as a way to start a family, our legal team is available to provide guidance and support. Reach out to us today for assistance.

The Kardashians are more than just a family; they're a cultural phenomenon, loved by many and criticized by others. Led by Kris Jenner, the family includes her daughters: Kim, Kourtney, Khloe, Kendall, and Kylie. From their reality TV show "Keeping Up with the Kardashians" to their success in fashion and business ventures, they've captured the world's attention. Yet, what truly sets them apart is their willingness to share personal experiences, including their journey through surrogacy, which has resonated deeply with millions of fans worldwide.  Gestational surrogacy , a practice where a woman carries and gives birth to a child that is genetically unrelated to her for another individual or couple, is becoming more well-known, especially among high-profile figures like the Kardashians. For celebrities facing fertility challenges, surrogacy offers a viable solution for family planning. It also provides privacy and control over the pregnancy and birth process, shielding them from invasive media attention while allowing them to expand their families. While not the first celebrities to use surrogacy for family building, the Kardashians are some of the first major celebrities to talk about their surrogacy experiences without shame. Through their openness, the Kardashians have humanized the surrogacy experience and sparked important conversations about infertility, pregnancy complications, and alternative paths to parenthood.   Disclaimer: It's important to note that the information provided in this article is for informational purposes only. We do not claim any affiliation with the Kardashians or their surrogacy journeys. The details presented here are based on publicly available information and should not be construed as legal advice or endorsement. Kim Kardashian faced health complications including placenta accreta during her pregnancies with North and Saint. She bravely chose surrogacy as a safer alternative to expand her family. Openly sharing her journey on "Keeping Up with the Kardashians" and social media, she welcomed her children Chicago and Psalm via surrogacy in 2017 and 2019, respectively. By transparently discussing her experiences, Kim advocates for surrogacy through conversations about reproductive autonomy and exploring family building options.    Kourtney Kardashian, the eldest of the Kardashian siblings, has openly expressed her desire to expand her family and explore alternative paths to parenthood. While she has not yet pursued surrogacy, Kourtney has been vocal about considering it as a viable option for future pregnancies. Recently, reports  have emerged that Kourtney Kardashian and her husband, Travis Barker, are contemplating surrogacy for their second child together. The couple may welcome a newborn next year following the recent arrival of their son, Rocky Thirteen Barker. According to insiders, the reality stars are considering surrogacy after Kourtney's 'difficult' pregnancy, which resulted in a terrifying health scare.    Khloe Kardashian openly shared her fertility struggles with the world. Despite years of trying to conceive naturally and undergoing various treatments, Khloe and her then-partner, Tristan Thompson, faced heartbreaking setbacks due to issues like polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and endometriosis. These challenges led them to consider surrogacy. In 2018, Khloe welcomed her son, Tatum, through surrogacy, marking a new chapter in her life.   Kylie Jenner, the youngest member of the Kardashian-Jenner family, has two children, Stormi and Wolf. Both pregnancies were carried to term without using a surrogate.    Kendall Jenner has not yet started a family or pursued surrogacy.   The surrogacy journeys of the Kardashians reflect their resilience in the face of challenges. By being transparent about surrogacy, it has reshaped societal perceptions around alternative paths to parenthood.   As you embark on your journey, whether it involves surrogacy or another avenue to parenthood, remember that support is available. If you seek legal representation in your surrogacy journey, our team is here to assist you. Contact us now.