Category: In The News

A WOMAN born without a womb has become a mum thanks to her sister offering to be a surrogate and her parents paying for IVF treatment.

Faye Richards, 31, from Hereford, was born with a condition called Mayer Rokitansky Küster Hauser syndrome which meant she could never carry a child.

As her husband Tony, 41, a decorator, had three children from a previous relationship the couple knew they would have to pay thousands for private IVF and surrogacy expenses to become parents together.

Faye’s younger sister Kim Thomas, 28, stepped up as an IVF surrogate – and her parents Dave, 66, a plasterer, and June, 58, a nurse, offered to foot the £22,000 bill for private treatment.

Faye said: “Kim and I were always close, but when she offered to be my surrogate I was staggered.

“It was the most generous offer she could have made, when my parents gave us the funds to make it happen our dream of being parents was finally within reach.”

Kim, a health care assistant who is mum to six-year-old Harry, added: “Being a mum was so important to Faye I knew I’d do anything to make it happen. I know she would have done the same for me.”

After two unsuccessful rounds of IVF with Faye’s eggs and Tony’s sperm, Kim – who is engaged to partner Jason Baginski – fell pregnant on her third attempt. Baby Ralphie was born in May.

Faye, who works in mental health, added: “Every time I look at my son I feel so lucky my family helped me have him.

“When Ralphie’s older I’ll tell him that we wanted him so much his Auntie Kim and Grandma and Grandpa stepped in to make it happen.”

Faye was diagnosed with MRKH and polycystic ovaries at Hereford County Hospital aged 19 when her periods still hadn’t started.

She said: “Put simply, I was born without a womb. I have ovaries and produce eggs, but have no Fallopian tubes or uterus so will never carry a child.

“It was devastating. Even as a teenager I knew I wanted to be a mum someday.”

In January 2011, Faye started dating dad of three, Tony. They discussed having children together through an IVF surrogate – meaning Faye’s eggs would be fertilised by Tony’s sperm and implanted in a surrogate womb.

But in December 2012 they were refused IVF surrogacy on the NHS as Tony was already a dad.

Faye said: “We knew private surrogacy would cost thousands in expenses on top of the £6,000 quoted per round of IVF. There was no way we could afford it.”

That month the couple got engaged and Faye asked her sister to be her bridesmaid. Then in June 2013 Kim made the huge decision to offer her womb as a surrogate for her sister.

What’s more, June and Dave offered to lend Tony and Faye money to pay for IVF.

June said: “We used our savings but there was nothing more we wanted to spend that money on.

“Tony promised to pay back every penny, but we told him we’re in no rush to see that money.

“It was our first present to our grandchild.”

Now, Kim and Jason plan to get married next year, and Faye said she can’t wait to attend the ceremony with her husband and son.

Kim said: “Faye kept asking how I was feeling. I told her I felt like I’d just carried my nephew so my sister could be a mum.”

Read Original Article Here: https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/local/14760516.Baby_joy_for_mother_with_no_womb__thanks_to_loving_family/?commentSort=score

In a welcome move, Bombay High Court recently directed maternity leave to be granted to a woman who had attained motherhood through surrogacy.

The Bench, comprising Justice Anoop V. Mohta and Justice G.S. Kulkarni observed, “Having considered even Rule 551 (C) and (E) of Child Adoption Leave and Rules, we find that a case is made out for grant of interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) as there is nothing in rule 551 (C) and (E) as referred above, which would disentitle maternity leave to a women who has attained motherhood through surrogacy procedure.”

Accordingly, the Court directed the Central Railway to grant 180 days maternity leave to its woman employee.

The petitioner had given birth to twins through the procedure of surrogacy and thereafter applied for Maternity Leave relying on Rule 551(C) of the Indian Railway Establishment Board. The application was however rejected on the ground that the petitioner, before entering into an agreement of surrogacy, did not take permission of the Railway Board.

The Counsel for the petitioner, Sandeep Shinde and Tanya Goswami had brought to the notice of the Court a Division Bench judgment of Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Dr. Mrs. Hema Vijay Menon v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,Writ Petition No.3288 of 2015, where it was specifically observed, “A woman cannot be discriminated, as far as maternity benefits are concerned, only on the ground that she has obtained the baby through surrogacy. Though the petitioner did not give birth to the child, the child was placed in the secured hands of the petitioner as soon as it was born. A newly born child cannot be left at the mercy of others.

A maternity leave to the commissioning mother like the petitioner would be necessary. A newly born child needs rearing and that is the most crucial period during which the child requires the care and attention of his mother. There is a tremendous amount of learning that takes place in the first year of the baby’s life, the baby learns a lot too. Also, the bond of affection has to be developed. A mother, as already stated hereinabove, would include a commissioning mother or a mother securing a child through surrogacy. Any other interpretation would result in frustrating the object of providing maternity leave to a mother, who has begotten the child.”

Agreeing with the Petitioner, the Court granted the relief and posted the matter for disposal on March 11.

Last year, Kerala High Court had delivered a similar ruling, observing that women employees cannot be discriminated against for maternity benefits, solely on the ground that they obtained the baby through surrogacy. Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu had considered the dichotomy of maternity- pre and post natal. He had upheld the proposition, and observed, “From day one after the delivery, the petitioner is required to be treated as the mother with a newborn baby. Thus, without discriminating, it can be held that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits that accrue to an employee after the delivery, as have been provided under the Act or the Staff Rules. Nothing more; nothing less, for the petitioner cannot compel the employer to place her on a higher pedestal than a natural mother could have been placed, after undergoing the pregnancy.”
Read more at: https://www.livelaw.in/women-who-obtain-baby-through-surrogacy-entitled-to-maternity-leave-bombay-hc-read-order/