Court grapples with fertilization

Manitoba will review the impact of a Supreme Court ruling that upholds the right of provinces to regulate in vitro fertilization.
The Supreme Court of Canada issued a divided advisory opinion on Wednesday that grappled with the "weighty moral concerns" of assisted human reproduction. It declared Ottawa overstepped itself in asserting its right to regulate the use of human sperm, eggs and embryos, but said the federal government is within its rights in banning cloning and human hybrids.
Karen Busby, a University of Manitoba law professor, said the ruling paves the way for the provinces to examine how they will regulate clinics and how information about donors is collected, stored and disclosed. She said it could mean Manitoba and other provinces regulate how many embryos are implanted for in vitro fertilization or introduce screening mechanisms to ensure surrogate mothers meet certain criteria.
A government spokesman said it will take a bit of time to assess how the ruling may affect Manitoba regulations, and the assessment should be complete early in the new year.
"Nothing's been happening for six years in Canada, so thank goodness the decision is finally out," Busby said. "The next step is for provinces to determine what extent they need to regulate practices in clinics."
Quebec filed a constitutional challenge to the 2004 federal Assisted Human Reproduction Act and was supported by three other provinces. The province argued that Ottawa was treading on provincial jurisdiction over health care.
The act regulated the use of sperm, eggs and embryos, while banning clones and hybrids. Ottawa maintained it had the right to make criminal laws and that the purpose of the act was to protect the "health, safety and public morals" of Canadians.
The court split, with Justice Thomas Cromwell offering the determining view in what amounted to a complex analysis of the time-honoured constitutional rights of provinces to control health care.
Busby said the ruling upheld the right of the federal government to prohibit negative practices associated with assisted human reproduction, including who has the right to use donated sperm. For example, she said, if a man battling cancer chose to freeze his sperm but later died, the law prohibits anyone from using the sperm without his clear consent.
The court challenge left many regulations in limbo and Busby expects provinces will move fairly quickly to fill the void. Currently, Busby said, there are no clear guidelines on how information about sperm and egg donors is collected, so children born from donors don't have a way to access biological information.
"The real problem is a lot of that information has never been properly collected or stored," she said. "Unlike adoption where you know a record exists somewhere, here you simply might not ever have the information that Joe Blow was a sperm donor."
Busby said Manitoba could also introduce screening tools for surrogate mothers to ensure that anyone who offers to bear someone's child is doing it for the right reasons, and not because she has been illegally paid. Busby said the best surrogates are women who have already had children, enjoyed being pregnant, and had easy pregnancies.
Busby said some fertility clinics in other parts of Canada have implanted embryos in commercial surrogates, which is illegal. She said the court ruling should pave the way for provinces to put a stop to "shady" practices.

For more info follow this link:

5 myths surrounding egg donation

The steady increase in recession-spurred egg donor prospects has not resulted in a larger pool of qualified candidates, a leading agency that matches egg donors and gestational surrogates with intended parents said today.

"While media coverage, and especially about the compensation (averaging US $5,000 to $7,000) has created awareness and a flood of prospects, the vast majority have not qualified as donors for various reasons," said Mary Ellen McLaughlin, a partner at Chicago-based Alternative Reproductive Resources (www.arr1.com).

She added: "It speaks to the misconceptions the media perpetuates, often inadvertently, like that most donors are poor, young and uneducated, and just want to make a quick buck," she said. "It's among the many myths surrounding the fertility industry."

Among the myths ARR makes a point to dispel:

Myth No. 1: Anyone can do it.

Many women can physically donate their eggs. Not everyone qualifies, however. ARR utilizes a 27-page pre-screening questionnaire with prospective donors. If they qualify, they must also pass physical and psychological tests. ARR receives up to 50 applications monthly; less than 5 percent actually become donors.

Myth No. 2: It's all about the money.

ARR's donor surveys show that over 70 percent donate for altruistic reasons. "Most know someone with infertility issues, or were inspired by a story," McLaughlin says. "Compensation is secondary."

Myth No. 3: Egg donation causes medical problems.

There's no biological basis for these claims, doctors say, but they don't know for sure either way. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM – www.asrm.com) says the long-term health effects have never been studied. Egg donors undergo the same drug treatment as IVF patients, and studies of that population show this is safe.

Myth No. 4: A donor can donate as many times as she likes.

Guidelines restrict women to six donations in their lifetimes, depending upon the approval of a treating physician.

Myth No. 5: Intended parents only want Ivy League donors.

Every intended parent has different criteria. ARR says most search for an egg donor with similar traits, like ethnicity, hair color, height, etc. They also look for similar interests, such as cooking or sports.

For more on this story follow the link: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/busting-five-myths-about-egg-donation-111075529.html

Kylie Minogue may have egg donor baby

Pop Princess Kylie Minogue, who wants to start a family, has revealed that she has 'thought about' egg donation as a way to do so.

The 42-year-old singer, who was diagnosed with breast cancer five years ago, told how she looks "wistfully" at her baby nephew Ethan, the son of younger sister Dannii.

And talking about her own attempt to have a child, the singer reveals: "I've looked into various options.

"I don't know if I'm going to go down any of those roads yet, but I do need to look at what might be potential paths that lead to a family. They can do incredible things now, especially in America," the Daily Mail quoted her as telling Glamour magazine .

Despite this, Minogue said that if motherhood does not happen, she is 'content' with her life and finally feels that she is getting back to her pre-cancer best.

For more on this story follow the link: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-interviews/Kylie-Minogue-may-have-egg-donor-baby/articleshow/7064454.cms#ixzz17aIKvSFl

Couple have baby boy after being first to conceive using 'fertility sat nav'

A delighted couple revealed today they were the first to conceive with an IVF alternative dubbed the 'fertility sat nav'.

Marie and Mirco Martinelli believed they would never be able to have children after suffering three miscarriages in just two years.

They signed up for IVF but were told there was a two-year waiting list for treatment.
So they took part in a trial for DuoFertility, a ground-breaking temperature measuring device that promised pregnancy within 12 months.

They began using the £495 device in January 2009 and were delighted when Marie became pregnant after just seven months.

Baby Alec was born on March 20 this year and is the first baby to be born through the device - which claims to be statistically as good as IVF.

Secretary Marie, 29, who lives in Italy with Mirco, 37, and little Alec, now seven months, said she was "so happy" they had used the device.

She said: 'I was very worried and sad when I kept having miscarriages. The whole world was pregnant and had babies and I struggled to get pregnant and couldn't stay pregnant.

'DuoFertility stopped me thinking of myself as having a problem, and suddenly I was able to sleep more normally and feel a great deal calmer.

'Where the product calculates your fertile days after a few months, it was impossible for me to have been able to do that properly without proper scientific approaches, because my cycle was different all the time.

'In the past I had tried ovulation tests, but if you have to use them for a long time it becomes very expensive.'
Dutch Marie - who met Italian Mirco in Italy in Summer 2002 - suffered her first miscarriage after six weeks of pregnancy in March 2005.

In May 2005, the couple visited a fertility clinic, which broke the news that Marie had abnormal hormone levels.

They lost another baby at 13 weeks in February 2006 and another at 11 weeks in September the same year, before deciding to take a break from trying.

In May 2008 Marie and Mirco married in Italy and decided their only option was to use fertility treatment - but lost hope when they were told of the lengthy waiting list for IVF.

Shortly after, Marie noticed an advert for DuoFertility - a small patch the size of a coin which takes 20,000 temperature readings every night to pinpoint the exact moment of ovulation.

She began using the product in January 2009 and was delighted when she fell pregnant just months later.

Alec was born in Italy at 1.54am on March 20 after a gruelling 19 hour labour.

Marie added: 'When they showed me Alec I couldn't believe he was my son. I remember he was so warm and soft.

'Micro was full of joy and happiness and also could not believe that this was his son. Still now we can't believe that this little person is our baby.

'When they brought me back to my room and laid Alec at my breast I was so proud. Finally, my little boy.'
DuoFerility was developed by scientists and fertility experts at Cambridge Temperature Concepts in 2008.

The non-invasive device comprises of a tiny patch thermometer - the size of a £1 coin - that is worn under the arm.

It promises to alert a woman to the moment her temperature rises half a degree as a result of ovulation.

A small wireless hand-held reader processes data from the patch to tell the wearer whether she has ovulated in the last two days and whether she is likely to in the next six.

Women are most fertile on the day of the temperature spike and on the few days before - meaning chances of conception are massively increased by trying on those days.

Information from the reader can be loaded onto a computer, which allows couples - and experts in Cambridge - to analyse the monthly fertility cycle.

Dr Shamus Husheer, who invented the device said the company was "delighted" with their success and the birth of baby Alec.

He said: 'What we now know as a result of our work, is that for certain causes of infertility, DuoFertility is as effective as IVF.

'Clearly there are some infertility issues where the use of the device is unable to aid pregnancy such as a complete lack of sperm, however for a range of common causes such as moderate male factors, cycle irregularity, secondary or unexplained infertility, our monitoring device is achieving great results.'

For more on this story follow the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1334466/Marie-Mirco-Martinelli-conceive-using-fertility-sat-nav.html#ixzz17aH1WGTi

IVF treatment is delayed by NHS trusts as they try to cut costs

Couples are being told their IVF treatment is being suspended or axed completely as NHS trusts battle to cut costs, it emerged today.
Primary care trusts are also making patients wait months longer for common operations in an attempt to slash their budgets.

A shortage of funding has hit thousands of patients waiting for operations such as hip and knee operations.
NHS trusts are planing to save £20billion by 2014 to cope with an aging population, and overall health funding is receiving limited increases.

Groups have attacked the plans, calling the cuts 'desperate' and 'appalling' but figures show that many PCTs are facing a cash crisis.

At least nine PCTs have culled IVF treatment, despite guidance that infertile women should be given three cycles of treatment.

Susan Seenan of the Infertility Network said she was angry about the cutting of IVF treatment.

'Infertility is an illness, people who cannot have children have no cloice over the matter...They deserve medical treatment the same way anyone suffering from any other illness does,' she says.
Katherine Murphy, head of the Patient's Association told the Sunday Telegraph: 'These decisions will absolutely ruin the quality of life for people.

'For years the NHS has wasted money paying managers over-inflated salaries. Now times are getting tight, and it's not the bureaucrats who suffer, but the most vulnerable groups of patients.'

She says the Patient's Association has been contacted by several elderly people worried about the cancellation of their operations, with many reporting long delays in seeing specialists at pain management clinics.
Other areas which could be affected include non-urgent diabetes, rheumatology and oral treatment. Reviews of other non-urgent specialist procedures are also taking place.

The Health Service Journal reports that many trusts have changed the rules to reduce the number of patients who are allowed surgery.

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: 'We have been very clear that NHS organisations should not interpret efficiency savings as budget and service cuts.

'We would expect the NHS to make decisions locally, based on the clinical needs of their patients and with regard to the need to make the most efficient use of funding.'

For more on the story follow the link:: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1335833/Common-operations-IVF-treatment-axed-NHS-attempts-cut-costs.html#ixzz17aGQjj55

Putting to rest fears that IVF may be linked to cancer

In the wake of Elizabeth Edwards' death, many women are wondering whether the fertility treatments the former Senator's wife underwent to bear children late in life — she leaves behind two young children, ages 10 and 12 — could have contributed to the breast cancer that killed her.

It's a plausible concern, given that fertility treatment exposes women to unnaturally high levels of hormones, including estrogen and progesterone — often repeatedly, and sometimes at an age when those hormones would normally be declining. Previous data have suggested that these fertility drugs may be associated with increased risk for breast, uterine and ovarian cancers.

But a large new study published this month in Human Reproduction suggests that women who undergo in-vitro fertilization (IVF) — the procedure Edwards used to conceive her youngest children — do not put themselves at a higher-than-usual risk of cancer. The study examined data on all IVF births in Sweden between 1982 and 2006, comparing the rate of cancer in 24,058 women who conceived via IVF with that of nearly 1.4 million Swedish mothers who did not require fertility treatment.

The study found that the risk for any cancer was actually 26% lower in women after they had children through IVF, compared with those who had conceived the old-fashioned way. Breast cancer risk was reduced 24% and cervical cancer risk 39%, over the eight-year follow-up period.

"The ultimate message is that there is no increase in cancer risk associated with IVF," says Dr. Don Dizon, associate professor of obstetrics-gynecology at the Alpert Medical School of Brown University, who was not associated with the research.

However, women who underwent IVF started out with higher rates of cancer than those in the general population; the fact that these women were more likely to have been treated for cancer, which causes infertility, is probably why they sought IVF. This risk was especially elevated for ovarian cancer: in women seeking IVF the risk of ovarian cancer was nearly four times greater than in other mothers before conception. That is likely because the same problems that contribute to ovarian cancer may also produce infertility. "If you have an ovary that has a tendency to develop into cancer, it might also be poorly functioning reproductively," says Dr. Bengt Kallen, professor emeritus at the University of Lund and lead author of the study.

However, the study found that the risk of ovarian cancer in women who were able to conceive and give birth to a baby through IVF was only twice as high as in mothers who conceived naturally. The effect was not because IVF reduces the odds of developing ovarian cancer, the authors say; instead, it's more likely that women who are able to conceive and successfully carry a pregnancy by IVF are probably healthier than other women, and are more likely to undergo regular screening for cancer. The same phenomenon is likely to explain the lower risk of breast and cervical cancers in the same group.

The new study is consistent with most previous research, says Kallen.

For more on the study follow the link: http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/08/putting-to-rest-fears-that-ivf-may-be-linked-to-cancer/#ixzz17aFND9Gk

10 proven sperm killers...

When it comes to conceiving a child, there are lots of things that can go wrong—sperm allergies, poor egg quality, and ineffective sperm. Of the approximately 1 in 10 couples who are infertile, it has been estimated that male factors alone contribute to 30 percent of these cases.

Though men produce millions of sperm a day (compared to the 300–400 eggs that women release during their lifetime), external factors (like temperature) can affect the health of these little swimmers. And because sperm cells take about 75 days to grow to maturity, harming them can affect your fertility.

Follow the link below for 10 surprising factors that may affect a man’s sperm:

http://health.msn.com/health-topics/slideshow.aspx?cp-documentid=100256368

New mum astonished as her baby girl is born with TEETH

It is a milestone that many babies take a year to reach.

Yet when Faye Armstrong was born, to the astonishment of her parents and midwives, she already had her two front teeth.

Now, a fortnight on, two molars are beginning to appear. Yesterday her mother Patricia told of her amazement at her daughter’s dental development.

‘When she was born, I noticed two white slits on her bottom gum,’ said Miss Caulfield, 25. ‘The next morning, when I was feeding her, I felt a sharp pain and saw they had come through fully.

'My midwife told me this is really rare. Children are sometimes born with buds but hardly ever full teeth.’

Faye was born three weeks early at Ormskirk Hospital in Lancashire. Miss Caufield said: ‘I keep joking that if the pregnancy had gone full-term, she would have been born with a full set!’

For more on this story follow the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1336055/New-mother-astonished-baby-girl-Faye-Armstrong-born-TEETH.html#ixzz17aDeHzpV

Mother's blood test could be used to predict disorders in unborn baby

A blood test that could predict an unborn baby's risk of numerous disorders has been devised by scientists.

Using a tiny sample of the mother's blood, researchers can piece together the child's entire genetic code and search its DNA for the flaws behind conditions such as Down' s syndrome and autism.

The technique would remove the risk of miscarriage associated with current invasive tests, saving the lives of hundreds of unborn babies each year.

But there are fears that it could be exploited to predict an unborn child's risk of problems from Alzheimer's to cancer and heart attacks, creating worry for parents before their baby has even entered the world.

There are also concerns that parents could abuse the technology to select the 'perfect child', with those not fitting the bill in terms of looks, health or even personality being aborted.
Currently, pregnant women thought to be at high risk of having a baby with a condition such as Down's syndrome have the choice of two procedures, amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling.
Both involve putting a needle into the womb and raise the risk of miscarriage.

To remove the risk, research teams around the world are trying to find a way of gleaning genetic information from tiny pieces of foetal DNA that have worked their way into the mother's blood.

For instance, NHS-funded researchers at Great Ormond Street Hospital are developing a blood test for Down's syndrome.

But the new technique, reported in the journal Science Translational Medicine would allow multiple conditions to be picked up at once.

Using a sample of blood taken from a woman who was 12 weeks pregnant, researchers led by Dr Dennis Lo painstakingly pieced together the entire genetic code of her unborn child and then scanned it for key genetic flaws.

They already knew that the child's parents were both carriers of beta-thalassaemia, a life-threatening blood disorder, raising the possibility that the child would have it.

By studying the child's genome, or entire cache of DNA, the researchers were able to reassure the parents that their child would merely carry the illness, rather than suffer from it.

The technique currently costs £125,000 per baby but the price is expected to drop dramatically over time.

Dr Lo, of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said: 'The power of this technology is that by using one test you can see the entire foetal genome.'

But he cautioned that parents might not want to know all the information available and said the test should only be given in conjunction with professional counselling.

He said: 'I think the eventual utility of this technique will be to target a number of common genetic disorders that are prevalent in a particular population.'

However Dr Helen Wallace of GeneWatch UK said: 'Clearly there are benefits in terms of specific tests that can be done in a safer way.

'But the danger is that the test will be used to predict the risk of a range of diseases and even personality and many of these predictions will be misleading.'

Dr Christine Patch, chairman of the British Society for Human Genetics, said: 'While this is a potentially interesting approach that may have benefit for some families with serious genetic disorders, there are many concerns.

'It is too early to apply the technology widely as we are not yet able to interpret many of the results accurately.'

Dr David King, of Human Genetics Alert, said: 'The danger of this new method is that it will encourage parental choosiness about minor imperfections, or even cosmetic features.'

For more on this story follow the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1337025/Mothers-blood-test-used-predict-disorders-unborn-baby.html#ixzz17aCgTVwV

Childless couples win right to pay a surrogate mother to bear their child

A couple who illegally paid a surrogate to have their baby will keep the child after a landmark court ruling.

In a case which may open the floodgates to foreign surrogacies, the Britons paid an American an unspecified sum to carry their child.

It is forbidden in England and Wales to pay more than 'reasonable expenses' to a surrogate mother – even if she is abroad – because it would encourage a profit motive.

But a High Court family judge yesterday backed the couple, while making clear that the sum they paid was far in excess of what is allowed.

Their surrogate lives in the state of Illinois where no restrictions on payments apply and British authorities allowed the baby toenter the UK temporarily on an American passport pending court proceedings.

Mr Justice Hedley saved the youngster from limbo when he 'retrospectively authorised' the payments made to the surrogate mother and recognised the couple as the lawful parents.

In making the decision, the judge said the child's welfare was of paramount concern.

Issuing a parental order, he described the couple as 'most careful and conscientious' and said they had fully met all the other criteria for surrogacy.
'It is clear to me that payments in excess of reasonable expenses were made in this case,' he added.
'Welfare is not merely the court's first consideration, but becomes its paramount consideration.

The effect of that must be to weight the balance between public policy considerations and welfare decisively in favour of welfare.'

He added that the court would rule against surrogate parents only in the clearest case of the abuse of public policy.

He described the concept of reasonable expenses as 'somewhat opaque' but said the surrogacy process must continue to be policed by the courts.

The first case of surrogacy in the UK was in 1985 and while there have been more than 700 cases since, the practice is still controversial.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act states that parents must be over 18, and either married, civil partners or living together in an enduring family relationship.

At least one must be a biological parent of the child and at least one must have permanent roots in the UK.

They must offer the child a home and the court must be convinced the surrogate mother acted of her own free will, fully understanding what was involved.

It is the second time Mr Justice Hedley has allowed parents to flout the law on surrogacy payments.

In 2008, a couple using eggs from an anonymous donor were allowed to keep their twins, borne by a Ukrainian surrogate they had paid £23,000.

At the time, the judge expressed deep sympathy for the couple's anxiety and said: 'The court shares their hope that their experiences may alert others to the difficulties inherent in this journey.'
UK law recognises the surrogate mother as the legal parent of a baby unless a parental order is made, although she has no genetic link to the children.

Gamble and Ghevaert LLP, a law firm based in Poole, Dorset, which specialises in surrogacy law, warns: 'While foreign surrogacy arrangements can seem attractive, great care needs to be taken over the legal issues.

'English law will not automatically recognise your status as the parents even if you are named on a foreign birth certificate and this can lead to difficulties over immigration and citizenship.'

For more on this story follow the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337005/Childless-couples-win-right-pay-surrogate-mother.html#ixzz17aBuPLUf

'We've lost our children': Lesbian couple at centre of controversial court case describe their devastation at facing Christmas alone

As the judge began to make his ruling, two women clutched each other’s hands tightly.

It was not a standard scene in the family court. The women, a lesbian couple who
have been together for 19 years, were there to hear whether the father of their two children, conceived by artificial insemination, would be awarded custody for the
first time after a bitter legal battle.

The couple claimed in court that the man, himself in a long-term gay relationship, reneged on a promise to have limited involvement in the upbringing of the children.

They say he became controlling and domineering and bribed the children to
visit him with the promise of expensive gifts and pets.

In contrast, the man wept in court as he told the judge that he simply wanted to see his children more often.

He claims that he made clear his intention to be part of their day-to-day care from the outset.

Ultimately, the judge found in his favour and ruled that he should have custody of the children for 152 days a year.

This week, the Appeal Court upheld that decision and urged both parties to put aside their differences for the sake of their young children.

None of those involved can be identified for legal reasons, to protect the children, now aged ten and seven.
It was a highly unusual case that began a decade earlier when Sarah and Jenny answered an advert in Gay Times in which the man, Robert, a wealthy businessman, explained that he wanted to be a father but required minimal involvement in the child’s upbringing.

Thus, the two parties came together in a thoroughly modern and controversial
way to do what neither could alone, outside the regulatory framework
of a fertility clinic.

Now, Sarah and Jenny have broken their public silence to tell The Mail on Sunday about their devastation at the court’s decision.

The couple claim Robert became increasingly demanding while Sarah was pregnant with their son, which raised alarm bells. What has happened since proves that they were right to be concerned.

However, what cannot be explained is that, despite their worries, they agreed to have a second child with Robert. Indeed, they accept they have been astonishingly naive.

Sarah said: ‘I was holding Jenny’s hand when the ruling was passed and whispered to her, “We’ve lost the children”.

'Listening to that ruling was the worst thing I’ve ever had to do. There are no words to
describe that, and that fear is something every parent must be able to
relate to, regardless of how your family is made up.

‘I understand some people will see us as weirdos because we’re a same-sex couple with children, but that’s so far from the people we are. We’re a quiet and loving couple.

‘We love our children and knew we could provide a solid, caring environment for them.

‘I don’t regret what we did. I have to say that because I don’t regret the children, although we do regret the way we went about having them.

‘We would certainly advise others not to go down the same route and I’m sure an anonymous sperm donor would have been more sensible. We were horribly naive and did so many things just to keep the peace.’

Sarah, who works for a property letting business, and Jenny, a former bank worker, live with their children in an immaculate three-bedroom home in a seaside town.

Every spare wall and surface in their living room is filled with photographs of their
smiling children, including one taken at the couple’s civil partnership ceremony in March this year.

Sarah is the children’s biological mother. Jenny has never wanted to give birth.

The couple met through a mutual friend in 1991 when they were in their early 20s and have been together ever since.

While Jenny had experienced relationships with women before, Sarah found it more difficult to accept her sexuality.

‘I had always assumed I would meet a bloke, get married and have children – always,’ she said.

‘I thought this might be a phase I was going through and that I’d end up back on what I saw as my natural path. Jenny had a few friends who were gay but I didn’t know anyone.

‘But there was something incredibly strong keeping us together.’

Both eventually told their families, who, despite their initial shock, were supportive. In time, their thoughts turned to children.

They accept that their decision to introduce children into a same-sex partnership is controversial.

Sarah said: ‘Society’s view of us as a lesbian couple wanting children did worry us, of course.

‘What helped us is we had two close gay friends who had children. That opened my eyes and made us realise it was possible.’

Jenny added: ‘We did think about and discuss the prejudices the children could face at school. But it’s becoming more rare. You do worry about it but we have a good network of friends and family. It’s no big deal.’

‘His exact words were that he wanted to be a “rich uncle-type figure” and have contact once a month for a couple of hours. He also said he would like photos and updates. We thought we could live with that.'They also agreed that the children should have access to a father, should they want him. Neither could imagine using an anonymous sperm donor.

Jenny said: ‘I’ve got friends who are adopted and we wanted our children to have the opportunity – if they wanted it – to meet their father. We didn’t feel it was our place to make that decision for our children because our families are so important to us.

‘We had male friends we could have gone to, and one did offer. But that would have meant a third person was part of the package.

‘This was about me and Sarah bringing up our children.’


Read more on this story, follow the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1335760/Lesbian-court-case-couple-face-Christmas-Weve-lost-children.html#ixzz17NYsYxGp