When Surrogacy Goes Wrong: What This Case Reveals About the Importance of Ethical Agency Practices

The recent New York Magazine/The Cut article, “Whose Babies Are These?”, is difficult reading for anyone who works in ethical surrogacy. It tells the story of a surrogacy journey that spiraled into delayed parentage, immigration problems, financial distress, a custody battle, allegations of trafficking, and, most tragically, the death of one of three children.

It would be easy to read this story and conclude that surrogacy itself is the problem.

That would be the wrong conclusion.

What this case demonstrates is what can happen when the safeguards that are supposed to surround a surrogacy journey fail—one after another.

Ethical surrogacy is not simply about matching an intended parent with a gestational carrier and arranging an embryo transfer. A responsible journey requires financial qualification, medical and psychological screening, background checks, independent legal representation, properly funded escrow, parentage planning, international immigration coordination when necessary, and a clear plan for who will assume custody of the child after delivery.

According to the article, many of those safeguards either failed or were not adequately addressed in this journey. Let’s walk through the most apparent issues.

Parentage Should Have Been Addressed Long Before Delivery

One of the most significant failures described in the article was the absence of a completed parentage order when the triplets were born.

The article reports that the intended parent needed a court order establishing him as the legal parent. His attorney chose to seek that order in California but filed too late, and the babies were born before the order was entered.

That should never have been allowed to become a last-minute issue.

In our program, parentage proceedings are generally initiated around 20 weeks of pregnancy so that the attorneys, intended parents, surrogate, agency, hospital, and other professionals have adequate time to prepare for the birth, especially in cases of multiples where an early delivery is likely. This case should have been better managed by the Agency to ensure this was in place. Both the Ips attorney and his Agency failed him in this process.

With an international intended parent, that preparation is even more important.

Parentage is not paperwork to figure out after delivery. It affects birth certificates, hospital decision-making, passports, travel documents, custody, and the intended parent’s ability to take responsibility for his or her children.

Here, the delayed order contributed to a cascade of problems that became increasingly difficult to unwind.

International Intended Parents Need International Legal Planning

The article also describes an intended parent who apparently did not understand how long the U.S. visa and documentation process could take.

He reportedly believed he could deal with the visa closer to delivery. By the time the children arrived prematurely, he was still in China and unable to travel to the United States.

The agency reportedly told him to apply using a parentage order that had not yet been obtained, and later claimed they do not give immigration advice.

For an international intended parent, simply referring someone to a reproductive-law attorney is not enough. When immigration, citizenship, passports, consular documentation, or international travel issues are involved, the intended parent should also receive advice from attorneys with specific expertise in those areas.

Our practice is to refer intended parents to qualified international and immigration attorneys whenever those issues arise, and we require Intended Parents consult an attorney in their home jurisdiction BEFORE they are matched, to be sure the laws of both their country and the United States are known, and adhered to for immigration and delivery.

An agency should not try to give immigration advice outside its expertise—but it absolutely should recognize when specialized advice is needed and require the intended parent obtains it early enough for that advice to matter.

Financial Qualification Should Occur Before a Journey Begins

Perhaps one of the most concerning facts in the article is the enormous disconnect between the intended parent’s apparent financial resources and the journey he undertook.

The article reports that he earned approximately $22,000 per year and believed the surrogacy would cost approximately $180,000. Eventually, he said he had spent more than $400,000.

Triplet pregnancies are extraordinarily expensive and medically high-risk. Even a twin surrogacy journey in the United States can commonly reach approximately $220,000 to $260,000 depending on insurance, medical circumstances, surrogate compensation, legal expenses, travel, and other variables. A triplet pregnancy, particularly one resulting in premature delivery and extended NICU stays, can cost significantly more.

No ethical agency should take substantial agency fees from an intended parent without making a reasonable effort to determine whether that person has the financial resources necessary to complete the journey.

Financial qualification protects everyone.

It protects the intended parent from beginning a journey he or she cannot realistically finish.

It protects the surrogate from missed compensation and reimbursements.

And most importantly, it protects the children from being born into a situation in which there is no financially viable plan for their care.

The goal should never be simply to get a client pregnant.

The goal should be to get everyone safely through the entire journey.

Escrow Is Supposed to Protect the Surrogate

The article reports repeated problems with the escrow account becoming depleted and states that the surrogate’s final $15,000 payment was late.

That is another major warning sign.

A professionally managed surrogacy journey should include clearly defined escrow requirements, appropriate reserves, and continuous oversight to ensure that compensation, reimbursements, lost wages, medical expenses, and other contractual obligations can be paid when due.

An agency may not itself hold the escrow funds, depending on the structure of the journey and applicable law, but it should be paying attention and requiring the Intended Parents deposit adequate funding well in advance of delivery.

When funds are repeatedly running out, that is not merely a billing issue. It is evidence that the financial structure supporting the journey is failing.

A surrogate should never have to wonder whether she will receive compensation that is contractually owed to her.

The Surrogate Should Never Have Become the Default Childcare Plan

One of the most consequential decisions in this entire story occurred after the intended parent could not enter the United States.

The surrogate took the babies home.

That should never have become the solution.

A gestational carrier is selected and screened to carry a pregnancy. She is not automatically a qualified newborn-care provider, foster parent, nanny, or guardian.

Those are entirely different responsibilities.

If an international intended parent cannot be present after delivery, there should already be a professionally arranged contingency plan involving appropriately vetted caregivers, clear legal authority, suitable housing, insurance, medical coordination, and defined responsibility for expenses.

Allowing a surrogate to take three medically fragile premature babies home created an enormous blurring of roles.

She had carried them.

She was lactating, and directly breastfed them.

She was caring for them around the clock.

The intended parent was thousands of miles away.

Then months passed.

Anyone familiar with the psychological dynamics of surrogacy should understand how dangerous that situation can become for everyone involved.

The intended parent should not have agreed to that arrangement, but an experienced agency should also have been working aggressively to prevent the situation from arising in the first place.

Screening Is Not a Box-Checking Exercise

The article raises equally troubling questions about the surrogate-selection process.

It reports that the surrogate had twice previously been arrested and charged with felonies involving alleged cutting incidents, although both charges were ultimately dropped. It also reports two domestic-violence police calls at her apartment during the first trimester of the pregnancy.

Those facts should prompt serious questions about the screening process.

Was a comprehensive criminal background check performed?

Was her partner properly screened?

Was the stability and safety of the household evaluated?

Were prior incidents reviewed by the psychological professional evaluating her?

Did the agency have a complete picture of her personal circumstances before approving her?

The article also notes that her agency profile listed her as single even though a partner was later involved in the household. That raises still more questions about whether everyone living in the home had been properly identified and screened.

At Simple Surrogacy, circumstances involving serious criminal allegations, domestic instability, unresolved safety concerns, or other significant psychosocial risks would require careful investigation and could make a candidate unacceptable for our program.

A surrogate should not be approved simply because she can become pregnant.

The purpose of screening is to determine whether she is emotionally, psychologically, medically, socially, and practically prepared for the demands of surrogacy.

That protects her just as much as it protects the intended parents and the child.

Multiple Embryo Transfer Created Additional Risk

The article also describes another practice that deserves scrutiny: transferring two embryos.

Two embryos implanted, and one split, producing triplets.

The article itself notes that medical societies strongly discourage routine double-embryo transfers and that triplet pregnancies carry substantially greater risks.

A multiple pregnancy is not a bargain version of surrogacy. There is no buy one, get one free.

Twins can dramatically increase the risks of premature birth, extended NICU care, pregnancy complications, medical expenses, lost wages, bed rest, and long-term health consequences. Triplets only exacerbate the situation.

When intended parents view twins as a financial “two-for-one,” everyone involved should be concerned.

The medical objective should be a healthy pregnancy and a healthy child—not maximizing the number of babies produced by a single journey.

A Birth Plan Is Not Enough—There Must Be a Post-Birth Plan

International surrogacy requires contingency planning.

What happens if the baby arrives at 31 weeks instead of 40?

What happens if the intended parent’s visa is denied?

Who has legal authority to make medical decisions?

Who leaves the hospital with the baby?

Where will the child live?

Who is authorized and qualified to provide care?

How will passports and travel documents be obtained?

These questions should be answered before the delivery.

In this case, they appear to have been answered reactively, one crisis at a time.

That is not how professional surrogacy should operate.

The Intended Parent Also Had Responsibilities

Agency and professional failures do not eliminate the responsibilities of the intended parent.

An intended parent is becoming a parent—not purchasing a service that ends at delivery.

He should have made certain that he understood his immigration requirements.

He should have ensured adequate financial resources were available.

He should have confirmed that his legal parentage would be established.

And once it became clear that he could not personally take custody of his children, he should have insisted upon a qualified, vetted childcare arrangement rather than allowing the surrogate to become their long-term caregiver.

Agencies exist to guide intended parents through these responsibilities, but intended parents must remain engaged and accountable throughout the process.

The Surrogate’s Concerns Did Not Give Her the Right to Redefine the Arrangement

The article also illustrates why clearly defined boundaries are so important.

The surrogate eventually became convinced that the intended parent might be involved in trafficking. Whatever her fears may have been, a gestational carrier cannot simply decide after delivery that she should become the children’s parent because she has developed concerns about the intended parent.

There are appropriate mechanisms for raising genuine child-safety concerns: attorneys, law enforcement, child-protection agencies, courts, guardians ad litem, and other authorities.

Surrogacy cannot function if either party can unilaterally disregard the legal arrangement whenever trust deteriorates.

The same is true in the other direction: an intended parent cannot simply send unknown individuals to retrieve babies without appropriate communication, documentation, and professional coordination and expect a frightened caregiver to hand over three infants at the door.

By that stage, nearly every professional safeguard that should have prevented such a confrontation had already broken down.

This Is Not What Ethical Surrogacy Looks Like

Cases like this damage public confidence in surrogacy because they create the impression that the entire industry operates without safeguards.

It does not have to.

Responsible agencies like Simple Surrogacy perform extensive screening.

They verify financial readiness.

They require independent attorneys.

They use qualified escrow providers, and ensure escrow funding.

They coordinate parentage well before delivery.

They work with experienced reproductive attorneys and refer international clients to immigration specialists when necessary.

They create hospital and post-birth plans.

They background-check relevant adults.

They require psychological evaluations.

They monitor journeys throughout the pregnancy instead of disappearing once an embryo transfer succeeds.

And when something unexpected happens, they coordinate the professionals around the intended parents and surrogate instead of leaving those parties to solve extraordinarily complicated problems alone.

Surrogacy can be practiced fairly, safely, and ethically.

But ethical surrogacy requires more than good intentions.

It requires standards. It requires screening. It requires qualified professionals. It requires financial transparency. It requires oversight like surrogacy licensing.

And it requires everyone involved to remember that the purpose of those safeguards is not bureaucracy for bureaucracy’s sake. They exist to protect intended parents, gestational carriers, and, above everyone else, the children being born.

The tragedy described in this article should not be used as proof that surrogacy cannot work.

It should be used as a warning about what can happen when people cut corners, fail to vet participants, underestimate costs, use inexperienced or inappropriate service providers, neglect legal and immigration planning, and allow professional boundaries to collapse.

The answer is not less responsible surrogacy.

It is higher standards, greater accountability, and a commitment to doing these journeys the right way from the beginning.