Instigated by former Justice Minister Andrew Little, the Commission is recommending a new pathway to parenthood that doesn't require adoption for parents of a surrogate-born child.

At last week's launch of Kopu Whangai: He Arotake - Review of Surrogacy, the Commission said it is seeking feedback on the review's recommendations. Those wanting to contribute feedback have until 23 September to do so.

In the review, the Commission says adoption is inappropriate for surrogacy agreements.

‘The law fails to promote the child's best interests… does not respect the intentions of the surrogate and intended parents," it says.

"Surrogacy arrangements affect the child as well as the parties involved and we want to make sure the law is right for everyone," Law Commission principal advisor Nichola Lambie says.

If the Commission's proposal goes ahead, parents would be recognised legally from the birth of their child. There are two provisos: the surrogate must consent; the arrangement must have been approved by the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology (ECART), a requirement in some scenarios.

Otherwise, a Family Court application for legal parenthood would be required, as is the case at present.

As written, the new recommendations would help people like a US-based couple who had to adopt their own children from themselves to get New Zealand passports for them. Their case exposes the discriminatory pitfalls around the country's surrogacy laws.

The couple had fathered twin boys born via a surrogate while living in the United States six years ago.

Following a US legal process, they were marked as parents on the boys' birth certificate from the moment they were born, costing them about $30,000 in legal fees.

One father is a New Zealand citizen, the other US. However, New Zealand did not recognise them as legal parents.

According to New Zealand rules, the legal parents were the surrogate and her partner.

To change this, the fathers needed to bring the children home on a temporary visa and go through the adoption process here, including proving they were fit parents.

The couple found this insulting, degrading and impractical. Eventually they had to adopt the children from themselves, since they were legally parents in the US. This would enable them to be recognised as parents in New Zealand. It worked, but cost them another $7000 in legal fees.

Another set of parents say the Commission's proposed new surrogacy laws don't go far enough.

"In our scenario ... we avoided the ECART ethics approval, therefore we would be in pathway number two... pathway number two still includes a social worker assessment, still includes Family Court involvement and even in the report that they've just released they acknowledge that it's not much different than what it currently is."

The Commission review also includes recommendations surrounding Maori tikanga, the child's right to information, international surrogacy, Government funding for related surrogacy agreement costs and compensation for surrogates.

Source

• Stuff
• RNZ
• Image: Stuff

Mount told the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions last week that change was needed.

The commission was in its second and final week of hearings into redress for people in state care between 1950 and 1999.

Its next public hearings start later this month when the focus will be on redress for faith-based abuse claimants.

A number of victims over the last year have told the Commission during private and at public hearings they are being re-traumatised when cases get to court.

They want a fairer and more just system.

Mount, who is the counsel assisting the commission asked Solicitor-General Una Jagose whether a different system could be modelled on Waitangi Tribunal. The Tribunal is an independent body, which focuses specifically on treaty claims.

Nothing like that exists for settling historical abuse claims.

A critical feature of the tribunal's success is its independence, Mount told Jagose.

While Jagose agreed independence is a feature, she said there were other aspects that also helped.

It has a different mode of operating, and among the many things that go into the mix of the tribunal's successes, is that it's
"much more inclined towards restoration of mana," she said.

The commission also heard about other successful ways to settle claims that do not involve going to court. Dispute resolution tribunals were offered a an example.

Jagose was asked why abuse claims procedures had not been changed to follow different models.

"There will be reasons to do with it not having priority in government that survivors would say it should have had. That those voices [were] not being heard sufficiently by those who get to make the choice to do something different," it was suggested.

Jagose said the Law Commission was probably best suited to investigate alternatives to court action to resolve abuse claims.

Source

• RNZ
• Image: New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse