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

Why adoption has become “institutionally invisible” in Queensland

Queensland’s child protection system is facing an urgent and deeply troubling question: why are children who cannot safely return home being left in state care for years, often moving from placement to placement, without genuine consideration of adoption? The recent Child Safety Inquiry has put that question squarely on the table. Its findings are confronting.… Read More »Why adoption has become “institutionally invisible” in Queensland

Queensland sperm donor family limits explained

  Queensland’s new sperm donor family limits were meant to provide sensible safeguards for children conceived through donor treatment. Instead, Queensland Health has adopted an interpretation that appears to split a female same sex couple into two separate families. That position is difficult to reconcile with the law, common sense, and the lived reality of… Read More »Queensland sperm donor family limits explained

South Australia surrogacy agreements: are they unlawful?

South Australia takes a distinctly narrow approach to surrogacy agreements. The issue is not simply whether a proposed arrangement is altruistic, or whether everyone involved has acted with the best of intentions. Under the Surrogacy Act 2019 (SA), the first question is whether the arrangement falls into the category of a lawful surrogacy agreement. That… Read More »South Australia surrogacy agreements: are they unlawful?

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