Ukraine clinic under investigation for using someone else’s DNA

Ukraine clinic under investigation for using someone else’s DNA

The Ukrainian Justice Minister announced two days ago that one of the largest IVF clinics, BiotexCom center for human reproduction, was being investigated following an Italian couple finding out that their child did not have any of their DNA.

Under Ukrainian law, couples undergoing surrogacy are required to have a genetic link with the child, so that at least one of them is the genetic parent. The announcement is that an Italian couple who underwent surrogacy through Biotex in 2011 have discovered  following a DNA test undertaken in Italy that there is no genetic link between them and their child.

The Minister of Justice announced that other cases were being investigated. He called upon surrogates to help provide information to the Ministry in its investigations.

The Minister said that the Ukraine considered that what had happened amounted to “child trafficking” and that the Ukrainian government would sue the relevant clinic. He also said that new laws would be enacted to crack down on practices to prevent any further recurrences.

If this has been occuring, whose eggs were used? Given eggs donors are anonymous in the Ukraine, if record keeping is lax, then it may have been another woman’s egg, even that of the surrogate.

Biotex has been a large and popular clinic for those seeking to undertake surrogacy in the Ukraine.

One might be forgiven for thinking that this is a long way from Australia, but the fact is that Australians have undertaken surrogacy in the Ukraine. According to Biotex’s map it has representative offices throughout Europe, Asia, North America- and in Sydney and Melbourne.

Those undertaking surrogacy in locations that are developing countries or post-Soviet countries must take extreme care. It should never be assumed that IVF clinics and agencies are backed by some government guarantee or rigid regulation. They might be rigidly regulated- but it is very much a case of buyer beware.

I remember all too well the gay couple who went to a Thai clinic for surrogacy- man A and man B. Sperm was provided by each of the men. Man A’s sperm was deemed better than Man’s B. The couple were told that Man A’s sperm was used to conceive the child. All went well. A child was born. Man A was named on the birth certificate as the father. A DNA test was undertaken. Man A was excluded as the father. It appears that Man B’s sperm was used. Luckily this did not prevent the child obtaining Australian citizenship.

Or the gay couple who went to India in its heyday. Sperm was only provided by one of the men for legal reasons. The child was conceived and born. A DNA test determined that the man’s sperm was not used. Who knows who the father was. Luckily, Australian authorities were sympathetic and allowed the child to obtain Australian citizenship.

Request an Appointment
Fill in the form below to find out if you have a claim.
Request an Appointment - Stephen Page
Things to Read, Watch & Listen

Egg Freezing in Prison: The High Court’s Decision in Smith

Does a prison sentence also mean losing the opportunity to become a parent after release? That question sits at the heart of Smith v Chief Executive, Queensland Corrective Services, a powerful High Court decision about egg freezing, fertility preservation and the limits of punishment. The High Court unanimously found that egg freezing did not fall… Read More »Egg Freezing in Prison: The High Court’s Decision in Smith

Donor limits Queensland: lesbian couples now one family

A lesbian couple using the same sperm donor should not become two families simply because both women want to carry a child. That is the straightforward principle behind Queensland Health’s reversal of its guidance on donor limits. The revised guidance recognises those women as one family for the purposes of Queensland’s donor limit. It removes… Read More »Donor limits Queensland: lesbian couples now one family

Page Provan Calls for Repeal of Surrogacy Parentage Regulation Changes

On 9 October 2026, our director Stephen Page wrote to the Attorney-General, the Hon Michelle Rowland MP, calling for the repeal of Part 3 of the Family Law Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2026. If left in place, these regulations will remove the statutory presumptions that currently help establish the legal parentage of children… Read More »Page Provan Calls for Repeal of Surrogacy Parentage Regulation Changes

Family Law Section Law Council of Australia Award
Member of Queensland law society
Family law Practitioners Association
International Academy of Family Lawyers - IAFL
Mediator Standards Board