American College of Assisted Reproduction & Adoption Lawyers (ACARAL)

Reaction to Russian Adoption Ban

Sanford Benardo — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 03:09:29 +0000

http://nyti.ms/VJ2rkH

For years, the international adoption program in Russia has offered thousands of children facing bleak futures the chance to thrive in the homes of loving US adoptive parents. To make a political statement [filled with collateral damage], Russia has now closed this avenue. Additionally, Russia’s throw-in comment that part of its reasoning for this decision is that children have been abused in significant numbers after arriving in the US is nothing more than a nonsensical attempt at justification.

But the Russia ban also raises other issues and exposes long-held myths regarding international vs. domestic adoption. Some adoptive parents are drawn to international adoption out of a fear that domestic adoption means a less secure adoption: one that involves the continued threat that biological parent(s) will “take the child away” after placement. The reality is that if properly handled – with separate lawyers for biological and adoptive parents – and complete documentation/court proceedings, this is beyond a remote possibility. Other times, adopters here in the US are under the false belief that it takes years to locate a suitable situation [birth mother] or that the costs of a domestic adoption far exceed the costs of an international adoption. With smart marketing, the time to placement can be months and not years [though it is hard to gauge with more specificity] and costs – on average – are on a par with most international adoptions.

Sanford Benardo on Huffington Post panel

Sanford Benardo — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 20:02:40 +0000

Sanford Benardo participated on a Huffington Post panel discussing the responsible use of online resources for locating children to adopt.

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/adopting-kids-online/50a5ef0e78c90a37b6000098

The “Lightly Regulated” US Fertility Industry: The Myth Continues

Sanford Benardo — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:22:55 +0000

Countries – indeed, whole regions of the world – which disallow or severely curtail IVF and/or gamete donation are often mistakenly called “highly regulated” environments. Heavy restrictions, usually with religious underpinnings or simply borne out of a failure to think progressively, hardly constitute regulation. They are more accurately described as prohibitions.

Compared with places like Italy, the Middle East, England and Canada (specifically with regard to paid gamete donation in these last two countries), the fertility industry in the United States has been likened to the “Wild West” – a loosely regulated landscape where anything is possible. This is just not true. The FDA, the mandates of various states vis a vis gamete donation (New York is prominent here), the ASRM (even though it oversteps its bounds with attempts at economic regulation) and the internal administrative policies of many responsible IVF clinics prove that significant regulation exists to shape appropriate conduct and safeguard the health of all IVF patients and egg/sperm donors. I think that we need better and more refined regulation so that we cut the lag time between scientific advancement and policies designed to effectively govern practice. But little regulation in the US? Not the case.

Sanford Benardo to Guest on “The View”

ACARAL — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:53:11 +0000

Sanford M. Benardo, Esq, president of ACARAL and Northeast Assisted Fertility Group, will be a guest on ABC’s The View.

Airing Friday, June 24th at 11:00 AM the episode will focus on Surrogacy and will also be co-hosted by special guest Giuliana Rancic. The episode will also be available to watch on The View‘s website.

New Jersey – Woman Who Conceived Child With Donated Sperm and Turkey Baster Could Not Terminate Sperm Donor’s Parental Rights

Adam Sklar — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 02:41:23 +0000

A New Jersey Court refused to terminate the parental rights of a sperm donor at the request of the donor and the mother of the child who was conceived with the aid of a turkey baster.

Opinion available below:

#Opinion

New Jersey: Intended Mother Not Biologically Related to Child Must Adopt

Adam Sklar — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:11:33 +0000

The appellate division held that a married woman had to adopt her husband’s child.

The child was created with her husband’s sperm and a donor egg. The resultant embryo was then transferred into a gestational carrier who gave birth to the child. The married woman argued that if she was artificially inseminated with donor semen, her husband would be considered the legal father pursuant to New Jersey statute. While the statute does provide for legal recognition of the husband, the Court distinguished this case and required an adoption.

http://www.adoptionblogger.com/adoption_law_blog/2011/02/new-jersey-appellate-division-intended-non-biological-mother-must-adopt.html

Justification for the Surrogacy Exclusion

Sanford Benardo — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 20:27:37 +0000

Most people consider health insurance companies to be greedy and eager to look for ways to deny coverage to insureds. But there is one “refusal to pay” restriction in policies which is becoming far more widespread of late and for which – hard as it may seem for a surrogacy lawyer to write – I find significant justification: The surrogacy exclusion.

A surrogate (gestational carrier) is under contract to deliver a baby that is not genetically hers to someone else (intended parent(s)) and is paid for her time, effort and risk in being pregnant. She does not wish to take physical custody and raise the baby post-delivery and, indeed, is legally prohibited from doing so. Her insurance company is right not to underwrite her prenatal care and delivery expenses in such a situation, regardless of the fact that this trend towards virtually uniform exclusions in policies makes surrogacy even more of a financial burden for so many people.

Gay Adoption Case Originating in Louisiana Back Before Federal Appeals Court

Adam Sklar — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 16:10:38 +0000

Despite rulings from a Federal District Court and the Appellate Division of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Louisiana insists that the names of a child’s parents cannot be placed on their son’s birth certificiate because they are unmarried and Louisiana does not allow unmarried parents to adopt. The adoption was finalized in New York. A sixteen judge panel is scheduled to rehear the case today.

http://adoptionlawyer.typepad.com/adoption_law_blog/2011/01/louisiana-unanimous-three-judge-ruling-goes-before-16-federal-appeals-court-judges-today.html

Connecticut Supreme Court Honors Gestational Surrogacy Agreement Establishing Parentage

Adam Sklar — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:05:24 +0000

The Connecticut Supreme Court, on January 7, 2011, held that a gay man, not biologically related to his twins, could have his name placed on their birth certificates establishing legal parentage over them along with the twin’s biological father. This decision, if structured properly through an attorney, means that a gay family utilizing gestational surrogacy in Connecticut will no longer need to have the non-biological parent adopt the child in a second-parent adoption.

See http://adoptionlawyer.typepad.com/adoption_law_blog/2011/01/parentage-for-gay-men-granted-without-adoption-by-connecticut-supreme-court.html

ACARAL Members on Albany Law School Panel

Sanford Benardo — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 03:00:39 +0000

Theresa Erickson and Sanford Benardo will be speaking at the Albany Law School on October 28. The Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology has dedicated its 20^th anniversary symposium to assisted reproductive technology.

The topic of Theresa’s talk is: “The Practice of ART Law from a Practitioner’s Perspective – How Law and Science Interact in the Real World.” Sanford’s talk will be on the concerns of recipients and concerns of donors in egg donor contracts.

Click here for more info. (The symposium can always be viewed live via web.)