📅 Published April 12, 2026 · Updated July 28, 2026 |
⏱ Reading time is about 14 minutes |
📁 Laws and regulations · Risk warning
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.
🇺🇸
United States · documented cases and state-law risk
Independent escrow, contracts and parentage procedures still require review Legal process does not guarantee a medical result
🌏
Southeast Asia · public-report scenarios
Policy, continuity of care and child documents Consequences depend on country and project stage
🇨🇳
China · underground-channel scenarios
The medical-provider rule, contracts, parentage and documents are separate issues Liability depends on conduct and applicable law
1. United States: documented cases and a state-law risk scenario
Rules differ by state. Some states have specific procedures for contracts, parentage and client funds, but procedural protections do not guarantee pregnancy, birth or an intermediary's financial stability.
Documented case 1: theft from surrogacy-program escrow accounts (San Diego federal case)
United States · federal criminal case · guilty plea
Client escrow funds were used for unauthorized purposes
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.
Risk:Review independent custody, payment authorization, account records and refund terms instead of relying on the words “escrow account.”
Documented case 2: Baby M—contract enforceability and the child's best interests (New Jersey, 1988)
United States · New Jersey Supreme Court decision
The court addressed contract enforceability separately from custody
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.
Risk:A contract, genetic relationship, gestational relationship and the child's best interests are separate legal questions.
Risk scenario 3: state-law changes affect contracts, medical decisions and parentage
United States · generalized legal scenario · current state law required
Rules and procedures can differ materially among states
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.
United States takeaway:More developed procedures reduce some legal and financial risk, but do not guarantee a medical result or full recovery. Review state law, contracts, independent escrow, insurance and contingency planning.
2. Southeast Asia: policy and document risk scenarios from public reporting
Public reports have described programmes disrupted by policy changes, investigations and document delays. Except for Baby Gammy, which has an authoritative report linked below, these are presented as public-report scenarios—not a complete judicial record or a finding of liability for every participant.
Thailand · widely reported · some details disputed
The event exposed screening and child-protection concerns
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.
Public-report scenario 2: multiple Thai programmes linked to one intended parent
Thailand · public-report summary · not an adjudicated account
Parallel programmes require stronger screening of purpose and child safeguards
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-report scenario 3: policy and enforcement changes in Cambodia
Policy changes can interrupt medical care and the document chain
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-report scenario 4: restrictions in India and Nepal and document delays
India/Nepal · generalized policy-change scenario · not one case
Transition measures may not automatically resolve documents for existing programmes
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.
Southeast Asia takeaway:Before paying, verify current law, foreign-client eligibility, medical licensing, contracts, parentage and exit documents. Consequences of policy change depend on country, timing, participant conduct and pregnancy stage; no single criminal or document outcome should be assumed.
3. China: the medical-provider rule and underground-channel risk scenarios
Ministry of Health Order No. 14 prohibits medical institutions and medical personnel from implementing any form of surrogacy technology. This is administrative regulation of medical activity; it does not automatically impose criminal liability on every intended parent. Civil, administrative or criminal consequences depend on the conduct, evidence and other applicable law.
Risk scenario 1: additional payment demands during pregnancy
China · public-report summary · not one adjudicated case
An informal arrangement may lack a predictable dispute mechanism
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.
Risk scenario 2: an intermediary stops responding after payment
China · generalized fraud risk · not one adjudicated case
The purpose and custody of payments may be impossible to verify
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.”
Risk scenario 3: birth registration, parentage and document gaps
China · document-risk scenario · outcome depends on facts
Genetics, parentage and registration are separate questions
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.
China takeaway:The rule clearly prohibits medical institutions and personnel from implementing surrogacy technology, but it does not automatically establish that every agreement is void, funds cannot be recovered or an intended parent must be penalized. Enforceability, recovery and liability depend on conduct, evidence, the agreement and other applicable law; child parentage and registration are separate issues.
Conclusion: contracts reduce some risks but cannot guarantee an outcome
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 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:
Verify applicable law and the family's eligibility, including parentage and contract-enforcement procedures
Use independent, auditable custody of funds that is not controlled by the payee
Accept medical uncertainty and document a budget for repeat treatment and complications
Agree a contingency plan reviewed by independent lawyers in both jurisdictions
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".
Want to know about the risk management mechanism of legal surrogacy in Kyrgyzstan?