3 Countries You Should Never Use for Surrogacy

When intended parents consider international surrogacy, the legal and ethical landscape can be treacherous. One government has taken a blunt but pragmatic approach: rather than issuing a blanket prohibition on overseas commercial surrogacy, it has published a short list of specific countries where surrogacy arrangements will almost certainly jeopardise a child’s legal status. That list contains three jurisdictions for which prospective parents should exercise extreme caution: Albania, North Cyprus and Kenya. These are among the countries to avoid for surrogacy.

The reasoning behind singling out particular countries is straightforward. Targeted lists make it clearer to parents and practitioners which places carry a high risk of surrogate exploitation, trafficking, inadequate legal protection and, critically, the risk that a child will not be recognised as a citizen by the parents’ home country. Understanding why these jurisdictions are problematic helps explain why specificity is often preferable to vague warnings.

Why single out countries rather than issue blanket bans?

Broad statements that “commercial surrogacy overseas is risky” are true but unhelpful. They leave grey areas and can encourage desperate parents to seek cheaper, riskier alternatives. A short, explicit list accomplishes three things:

• Clarity: Intended parents immediately know which places to avoid.
• Protection: Governments can justify refusing documentation, citizenship or recognition when there is a demonstrated risk to children and surrogates.
• Deterrence: Blacklisting discourages fertility intermediaries from operating in jurisdictions where oversight is weak.

These lists are not punitive for their own sake. They are a child protection measure, informed by concerns about exploitation, lack of legal safeguards, and the potential for human trafficking.

Countries to Avoid for Surrogacy: Understanding the Risks

Albania

Albania currently lacks a comprehensive regulatory framework around surrogacy. On the surface it may state opposition to commercial surrogacy, but without clear definitions and enforceable standards the environment can become a legal vacuum. That vacuum creates opportunities for intermediaries to operate with little accountability and for surrogate contracts to contain oppressive terms that undermine bodily autonomy and informed consent.

North Cyprus

North Cyprus presents several distinct hazards. The region is not internationally recognised as a sovereign state except by one country, which creates complications for birth registrations, travel documents and the recognition of parentage orders overseas. Reports suggest a concentration of surrogate arrangements facilitated by agencies that recruit women from other countries, rather than local surrogates, creating additional layers of vulnerability.

The Australian family law decision in Lloyd v Compton highlighted these concerns. The court expressed understandable caution because the legal status of births and surrogacy agreements in North Cyprus is uncertain. Where a territory is unrecognised and lacks transparent regulation, the risk that a child will be left stateless or without clear legal parentage increases significantly.

Kenya

Kenya’s surrogacy landscape has been fraught with controversy. There have been reports of foreign surrogacy promoters targeting Kenyan women, raising concerns about exploitation and inadequate protections. At time of writing a parliamentary bill seeking to prohibit commercial surrogacy is under consideration, signalling the possibility of stricter controls or an outright ban. Until there is clear, enforceable law and strong safeguarding mechanisms, surrogacy in Kenya remains a high-risk option.

Core concerns that inform the blacklist

Across these jurisdictions, several recurring issues justify strong warnings:

• Exploitation and trafficking risk: Weak regulation makes it easier for unscrupulous intermediaries to coerce or mislead vulnerable women into surrogate arrangements.
• Inadequate informed consent: Contracts may be drafted in ways that limit a woman’s control over her body or parental decisions.
• Lack of legal recognition: Births and parentage orders issued in unrecognised or poorly regulated jurisdictions may not be accepted abroad, leaving children without clear citizenship.
• Oppressive contractual terms: Commercial arrangements can include unfair conditions that prioritise intended parents’ interests over health, decision-making and exit rights for surrogates.

Practical implications for intended parents

Choosing where to undertake a surrogacy process is not only a medical or financial decision. It is a legal and ethical one with lifelong consequences for the child and the surrogate. Intended parents should adopt a rigorous checklist before making any overseas arrangements:

1. Confirm legal recognition: Ensure the destination country has clear statutes recognising surrogacy and practical processes for establishing parentage.
2. Investigate surrogate protections: Look for laws that guarantee informed consent, independent legal advice, health care access and the right to withdraw consent in defined circumstances.
3. Verify birth documentation pathways: Confirm how birth certificates and travel documents are issued and whether those documents will be accepted by the parents’ home country.
4. Seek specialist legal advice: Engage a lawyer who specialises in fertility law and international surrogacy to advise on parental orders, citizenship steps and immigration pathways.
5. Avoid jurisdictions flagged as high risk: If a country has been publicly identified by a government as unsafe for surrogacy, treat that as a strong red flag.

How does this compare with Australia’s approach

Australia’s stance tends to be broader: many jurisdictions and professional bodies treat commercial surrogacy overseas as problematic and discourage it generally. A blanket discouragement communicates the risk but lacks the immediacy and clarity of a named-country list.

A targeted list can be more effective in protecting children and surrogates because it removes ambiguity. It is easier to advise intended parents and enforce protections when risks are mapped to specific jurisdictions rather than left as a vague general principle.

Final thoughts

International surrogacy can bring profound joy, but it carries serious ethical and legal responsibilities. Countries with limited regulation, unrecognised governance, or known exploitation networks present unacceptable risks to both surrogates and children. The decision to avoid specific jurisdictions is grounded in the duty to protect vulnerable people and prevent potential statelessness or denial of parental rights.

When considering surrogacy overseas, prioritise jurisdictions with strong legal frameworks, transparent processes for parentage recognition, and robust protections for surrogates. Engage specialist legal advice early, insist on independent legal representation for the surrogate, and be prepared to rule out options that expose a child or a surrogate to harm.

About Stephen Page

Stephen Page is recognised as one of Australia’s leading surrogacy and fertility lawyers. He leads Page Provan Family and Fertility Lawyers and advises intended parents, surrogates and fertility clinics across complex domestic and international matters. Stephen specialises in navigating the intersection between family law, immigration and reproductive medicine, and is widely consulted for his expertise in protecting the legal rights of children and surrogates in cross-border arrangements.