Get Premium
Dark mode theme is available exclusively for premium users. Learn more about the benefits of subscribing.
No fees, cancel anytime.
Dark Mode 
No fees, cancel anytime 
Gay Couple’s Surrogacy Journey Turns Into Ugly Feud After They Sue Woman Who Carried Their Son
A legal battle between a gay couple and the surrogate who carried their son has ignited debate over the limits of parental rights and bodily autonomy in Canada.
The Ontario couple is seeking roughly $600,000 in damages after their relationship with the surrogate completely collapsed during the pregnancy.
The dispute began after the intended parents asked the surrogate to terminate the pregnancy at 22 weeks in June 2024.
Highlights
- A surrogacy dispute between a gay couple and the woman who carried their son has sparked a heated legal battle in Canada.
- The lawsuit reignited debate over bodily autonomy, parental rights, and the complex ethics surrounding surrogacy agreements.
- The surrogate claims she felt “used” after refusing the couple’s request to terminate the pregnancy due to medical concerns.
“What I find most difficult in this is they are suing the woman who brought their son to them,” said Sally Rhoads-Heinrich, owner of Surrogacy in Canada Online.
RELATED:
A Canadian gay couple recently sued their surrogate after she refused to terminate the pregnancy at 22 weeks
Image credits: Nikita Korchagin/Pexels (not an actual photo)
According to the National Post, the intended parents were concerned the unborn child could have a severe genetic or chromosomal condition and formally requested that the pregnancy be terminated.
“That’s when everything changed… they wanted a termination,” Sally Rhoads-Heinrich, owner of the surrogacy agency that connected the intended parents with the surrogate, told the outlet.
The surrogate, however, refused to proceed with an abortion before more comprehensive testing was completed.
Image credits: Ketut Subiyanto/Pexels (not an actual photo)
Image credits: 5337h3
The woman said she would have agreed to terminate the pregnancy if doctors concluded the baby had no realistic chance of surviving after birth.
However, she was uncomfortable ending the pregnancy over what she believed could ultimately prove to be a correctable condition.
Specialists at Toronto’s Mount Sinai Hospital later determined that the fetus was otherwise healthy and that the cleft lip was a relatively minor birth defect that could be corrected with surgery.
Image credits: ChildrensHospPhila (not an actual photo)
Following the updated diagnosis, the pregnancy continued to term, and the intended parents took custody of their son after his birth.
Although the dispute began after disagreements during the pregnancy, the couple’s lawsuit, filed in May this year, reportedly does not explicitly cite the surrogate’s refusal to undergo an abortion as one of its legal claims.
Instead, according to court documents, the parents allege that she failed to properly communicate medical information, endangered the unborn child’s health through negligent behavior, breached confidentiality agreements, and caused severe emotional distress.
The unborn child was diagnosed with a cleft lip, a relatively minor birth defect that could be corrected with surgery
Image credits: Pavel Danilyuk/Pexels (not an actual photo)
The lawsuit further claims that the emotional impact left one of the parents unable to work for more than a year.
The surrogate has denied each allegation, saying she regularly updated the intended parents throughout the pregnancy, never placed the baby at risk, and respected the confidentiality provisions.
The relationship between both parties reportedly deteriorated after the abortion disagreement, with the surrogate alleging that the couple stopped communicating with her and ceased reimbursing pregnancy-related expenses.
Image credits: Kaboompics/Pexels (not an actual photo)
Reportedly, she was left covering roughly $10,000 in outstanding costs, including lost wages and travel expenses, before attempting to recover the money through small-claims court.
Because their surrogacy agreement required disputes over expenses to be handled through private arbitration, that claim stalled.
Shortly afterward, the intended parents filed their lawsuit in the Superior Court, seeking approximately $600,000 in damages.
Surrogacy expert Sally Rhoads-Heinrich said, “What I find most difficult in this is they are suing the woman who brought their son to them”
Image credits: Andressa Chagas/Pexels (not an actual photo)
Image credits: ChickpeaDelite
The lawsuit has drawn attention because experts believe it raises legal questions that Canadian courts have rarely been asked to consider.
Commercial surrogacy is prohibited under Canada’s Assisted Human Reproduction Act, meaning surrogates cannot be paid beyond reimbursement for legitimate pregnancy-related expenses.
More importantly, Canadian law also gives pregnant women complete control over their own medical decisions.
Image credits: Pavel Danilyuk/Pexels (not an actual photo)
While intended parents can express their wishes or include medical preferences in a surrogacy agreement, they cannot legally compel a surrogate to undergo an abortion or any other medical procedure.
Canada has become one of the world’s most sought-after destinations for altruistic surrogacy because of its legal protections, inclusive eligibility rules, and established fertility programs.
However, experts note that disputes involving medical decision-making during pregnancy remain exceptionally rare.
The unnamed surrogate said she felt “used” after her relationship with the couple completely broke down
Image credits: Pavel Danilyuk/Pexels (not an actual photo)
The Ontario-based surrogate described the hefty lawsuit as devastating, saying in an interview, “You know I’m a single mom, you know I have a daughter, and you’re basically suing me for my house.”
“It seems very shi**ty, it’s just awful. I just feel used… They didn’t get the perfect child they wanted, and they threw me away.”
Surrogacy expert Sally echoed those concerns while discussing the impact the dispute could eventually have on the child at the center of the case.
“What I find most difficult in this is they are suing the woman who brought their son to them,” she told the National Post.
Sally continued, “How is their son going to feel someday if he learns that?”
As the case remains ongoing, the identities of the intended parents, the surrogate, and the child have not been publicly disclosed to protect their privacy.
The case is still in its early procedural stages, and no court hearing has been publicly scheduled yet.
Social media users were left divided over the couple’s lawsuit against their son’s surrogate mother
Poll Question
Total votes ·
Thanks! Check out the results:
Total votes ·
Newsletter
Subscribe to Access
Exclusive Polls
By entering your email and clicking Subscribe, you're agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Privacy Policy.
Thank you! You've successfully subscribed to newsletters!
Explore more of these tags
What do you think ?
ॐBoyGanesh 19 hours ago (edited)
WOW!!!! This whole article leaves out the heart defect and other genetic anomalies the fetus was assumed to have and which the child has. This is the epitome of slanted “journalism” as even many echo articles fail to mention or highlight that it was a combination of concerns for which the couple asked the surrogate to abôrt. Had it just been the cleft palate as this story suggests, the couple is in the wrong. If this article pointed out the medical advice given to others with fetuses having same diagnosis, we’d all be agreeing with the medical advice and shaming the surrogate. A big indicator she’s clueless: she had a contract explicitly require a certain arena for arbitration, yet opted to file a small claims. Did she not understand her legally binding contract or did she just not care to follow it?
JB 16 hours ago (edited)
No idea what your source is but based on my research here in Canada: The combination of concerns you refer to were a cleft lip, with possibly a cleft palate and MINOR heart defect - none of which are serious concerns with modern surgery. The parents wanted to abort against these concerns, at 22 weeks. Surrogate insisted on further testing. Specialists at Mount Sinai determined that the infant DID NOT and DOES NOT have either the heart defect nor cleft palate. You’re wildly mistaken if you think the medical advice for fetuses with the “same diagnosis” would be termination. So, since the only issue is, in fact, a cleft lip maybe you should wind back your swiping at the surrogate because if she hadn’t stood her ground, this child would have been abòrted for nothing more than a cleft lip. My source: National Post, which is the original article essentially all the other articles referenced.
Load More Replies...
mp7dvnrw85 17 hours ago
This is what happens when you treat people as things. A baby isn’t a commodity to be purchased and a women isn’t an incubator.
B Parke 19 hours ago
This is kind of an interesting scenario. Situations like this show the need to definitely have all of this in writing. I feel like the intended parents should have the final say since it'll ultimately be on them once they have their child. But again this is all the more reason to have everything in the surrogacy contract. I'm sure I'll be downvoted by anti-abortionists.
Tabitha 18 hours ago (edited)
In writing and handled by thorough professionals. Yes, the woman who is the surrogate must be cared for and not feel like nothing more than an incubator. She isn’t, but she and the parents need to make all intentions clear as a bell, and account for numerous potential issues. While the surrogate has physical issues to attend to surrounding the pregnancy and birth, in the end it’s the parents who bear the brunt of not just paying and supporting her, they also are responsible for attending to and paying for any and all medical, costs for the child once they’re born. Any woman who contracts to be a surrogate must understand that it’s not her baby. It’s not her egg and not her partner’s s***m. Of she’s unable to grasp that, she in not a good candidate for surrogacy. On the other side, the parents need to understand that the surrogate is not a machine, she’s human, and their baby is with her 24/7 until birth. Her feelings, opinions, and comfort are part of the whole agreement. Both sides must be psychologically prepared for the entire process—-hell, anyone having a baby (not just the woman, but their partner as well), whether it’s a surrogacy, an adoption (on both sides), in vitro pregnancy, or an otherwise normal birth, should have to have counseling to ensure they’re ready for the baby, whether they’re keeping them or giving them to others to raise.
Load More Replies... ॐBoyGanesh 19 hours ago (edited)
WOW!!!! This whole article leaves out the heart defect and other genetic anomalies the fetus was assumed to have and which the child has. This is the epitome of slanted “journalism” as even many echo articles fail to mention or highlight that it was a combination of concerns for which the couple asked the surrogate to abôrt. Had it just been the cleft palate as this story suggests, the couple is in the wrong. If this article pointed out the medical advice given to others with fetuses having same diagnosis, we’d all be agreeing with the medical advice and shaming the surrogate. A big indicator she’s clueless: she had a contract explicitly require a certain arena for arbitration, yet opted to file a small claims. Did she not understand her legally binding contract or did she just not care to follow it?
JB 16 hours ago (edited)
No idea what your source is but based on my research here in Canada: The combination of concerns you refer to were a cleft lip, with possibly a cleft palate and MINOR heart defect - none of which are serious concerns with modern surgery. The parents wanted to abort against these concerns, at 22 weeks. Surrogate insisted on further testing. Specialists at Mount Sinai determined that the infant DID NOT and DOES NOT have either the heart defect nor cleft palate. You’re wildly mistaken if you think the medical advice for fetuses with the “same diagnosis” would be termination. So, since the only issue is, in fact, a cleft lip maybe you should wind back your swiping at the surrogate because if she hadn’t stood her ground, this child would have been abòrted for nothing more than a cleft lip. My source: National Post, which is the original article essentially all the other articles referenced.
Load More Replies... mp7dvnrw85 17 hours ago
This is what happens when you treat people as things. A baby isn’t a commodity to be purchased and a women isn’t an incubator.
B Parke 19 hours ago
This is kind of an interesting scenario. Situations like this show the need to definitely have all of this in writing. I feel like the intended parents should have the final say since it'll ultimately be on them once they have their child. But again this is all the more reason to have everything in the surrogacy contract. I'm sure I'll be downvoted by anti-abortionists.
Tabitha 18 hours ago (edited)
In writing and handled by thorough professionals. Yes, the woman who is the surrogate must be cared for and not feel like nothing more than an incubator. She isn’t, but she and the parents need to make all intentions clear as a bell, and account for numerous potential issues. While the surrogate has physical issues to attend to surrounding the pregnancy and birth, in the end it’s the parents who bear the brunt of not just paying and supporting her, they also are responsible for attending to and paying for any and all medical, costs for the child once they’re born. Any woman who contracts to be a surrogate must understand that it’s not her baby. It’s not her egg and not her partner’s s***m. Of she’s unable to grasp that, she in not a good candidate for surrogacy. On the other side, the parents need to understand that the surrogate is not a machine, she’s human, and their baby is with her 24/7 until birth. Her feelings, opinions, and comfort are part of the whole agreement. Both sides must be psychologically prepared for the entire process—-hell, anyone having a baby (not just the woman, but their partner as well), whether it’s a surrogacy, an adoption (on both sides), in vitro pregnancy, or an otherwise normal birth, should have to have counseling to ensure they’re ready for the baby, whether they’re keeping them or giving them to others to raise.
Load More Replies...
Related on Bored Panda
21
19