Law, contracts and a budget can reduce some risks, but they cannot guarantee a medical result, performance by every counterparty or completion of a child's documents.
This article separates documented court or criminal cases supported by primary sources from risk scenarios summarized from public reporting. A scenario identifies a due-diligence issue; it is not presented as a fact established by a court in a specific case.
Eleven questions cover contracting, payments, care and birth documents. Record written replies, evidence dates, the responsible reviewer and open issues together to compare providers' arrangements.
Download the English worksheet (CSV for Excel)
| id | stage | question | evidence_to_request |
|---|---|---|---|
| R01 | Contract | Who are the contracting party, service providers and payee? | Entity registration, service contracts and bank account name |
| R02 | Contract | Does the family's nationality, marital status and residence meet local eligibility rules? | Independent legal opinion with applicable sources and dates |
| R03 | Contract | How do suspension, termination, refunds and dispute resolution work? | Full agreement and relevant clause numbers |
Use a status such as not obtained, awaiting review, reviewed or not applicable; explain exceptions. Record document references and review notes. Other people's complete medical records belong with authorized professionals under the relevant confidentiality arrangements.
Sources checked 8 October 2026. The judicial announcement updates the existing case; ASRM describes US professional screening and counseling. Frankstudio designed the worksheet. Download source record (JSON)
On January 23, 2025, the former owner of three San Diego surrogacy consulting businesses pleaded guilty to fraud in federal court. The U.S. Department of Justice said she stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from accounts intended to pay surrogacy-program expenses.
The case shows that an escrow label is not enough. Intended parents should verify the independence of the fund holder, payment approvals and access to account records.
California Family Code § 7961 requires a non-attorney facilitator to direct client funds to an independent licensed escrow depository or an attorney trust account and bars the facilitator from holding a financial interest in the fund holder.
Case source: U.S. Department of Justice guilty-plea announcement, January 23, 2025. Statutory source: California Family Code § 7961.
Case update: on 16 May 2025, the US Department of Justice announced a 24-month prison sentence. Its account describes a forged client signature on an escrow disbursement request and the deposit of some clients' funds into a business operating account. Read the sentencing announcement.
Baby M involved traditional surrogacy: Mary Beth Whitehead was both the genetic and gestational mother. The court held that the agreement conflicted with law and public policy, set aside the termination of maternal rights and adoption, but left primary custody with the biological father under the child's best-interests standard and remanded visitation.
Full decision: In re Baby M, 109 N.J. 396 (1988).
A change in state law or medical location may affect contract terms, pregnancy-complication decisions and parentage procedure. Review current law where the gestational carrier lives, treatment occurs and delivery is expected. This is a risk category, not one adjudicated case.
In 2014, media widely reported on twins born to a Thai gestational carrier for Australian intended parents; the boy known as Baby Gammy had Down syndrome and a congenital heart condition. Public accounts differed on why he remained in Thailand, and the intended parents disputed deliberate abandonment. This article therefore does not present disputed details as court-established facts.
Authoritative context and qualifications: Australian House of Representatives, Inquiry into Surrogacy.
Public reports linked one foreign intended parent to multiple programmes and children. This is used only as a screening-risk scenario; precise counts, motives and legal conclusions are not asserted without a primary source.
Public reports described investigations involving intermediaries and pregnant women after authorities tightened policy. The scenario illustrates continuity-of-care, contract and child-document risks, but does not establish identical criminal liability for every intended parent.
Public reports described families separately coordinating continued care, birth and exit documents after rules changed. Outcomes depended on nationality, programme stage and authority decisions; the scenario does not imply one result for every family.
Official source: Article 3 of the Measures for the Administration of Assisted Reproductive Technology. The next three items are risk scenarios summarized from public reporting, not three court-established cases.
A scenario is a demand for new payments after a programme begins, when contract enforceability, access to medical information and dispute resolution have not been reliably established. Whether payment can be refused, the arrangement terminated or money recovered depends on the agreement, evidence and applicable law.
A scenario is an advance payment to an intermediary whose legal entity, independent account and partner clinic cannot be verified. Recovery after contact stops depends on the evidence and facts, not an advertising promise or an “internal channel.”
Even where a genetic relationship exists, parental entries, birth records, household registration and other documents may require separate evidence and procedures. Outcomes depend on facts, evidence and the authority's process and cannot be guaranteed in advance.
Back to the original question: As long as I spend money, choose a legal country, and sign a formal contract, will I be able to have a baby?
The short answer is: no outcome can be guaranteed.
The United States still presents financial, medical and state-law risks. Public-report scenarios from South and Southeast Asia show that policy changes can reduce predictability for care, contracts and documents. Underground channels in China also reduce predictability and available remedies and may involve civil, administrative, criminal and document risks, but the result depends on conduct, evidence and procedure.
What can really reduce risk is not "choose the cheapest" or "choose the most expensive", but:
Risks cannot be eliminated, they can only be understood, managed, and fully informed. A good surrogacy agency will not tell you "guaranteed success", but will tell you "what will we do if it fails".
An editorial preparation template by Frankstudio. The receiving clinicians evaluate care, relevant lawyers review eligibility and parentage, and competent authorities decide documents.
Discuss your documents and questions →