Surrogate Claims Same-Sex Couple Is Suing Her for $600K Because They Didn't Get the 'Perfect Baby They Wanted'

A Canadian surrogate says she is facing a CAD$600,000 (£300,000) lawsuit after refusing to terminate a pregnancy when the intended parents allegedly requested an abortion following the discovery that the baby had a cleft lip. The surrogate claims the same-sex couple wanted the 'perfect baby', an allegation the parents deny.

Instead, the Ontario couple allege the surrogate breached their surrogacy agreement, failed to keep them informed about the pregnancy and made medical decisions that placed their son at risk. The surrogate denies those claims.

Why the Surrogate Says She's Being Sued

The dispute began after prenatal scans suggested the baby had a cleft lip, with doctors initially investigating whether there were additional abnormalities.

According to the surrogate, the intended parents asked her to terminate the pregnancy under a clause in their surrogacy agreement. She says she refused because further testing was needed and she was unwilling to end a 22-week pregnancy for what appeared to be a treatable condition.

After further assessments by specialists, the intended parents agreed to continue the pregnancy when they were told the baby was otherwise healthy and the cleft lip could be corrected after birth.

Relations later deteriorated over disagreements about the birth plan and reimbursement of pregnancy-related expenses.

The surrogate says she is now being sued for CAD$600,000 after first filing a separate small claims action seeking almost CAD$10,000 (£5,000) in reimbursable expenses, including lost income and travel costs. The expenses dispute is due to be resolved through arbitration.

What the Intended Parents Allege

The intended parents reject the surrogate's account and accuse her of breaching their agreement throughout the pregnancy.

According to the civil claim, they allege she failed to keep them informed about the baby's health, disregarded agreed medical decisions, caused them emotional distress and placed their son at risk.

The couple also objected to the surrogate's decision to have a planned home birth with midwives rather than delivering in hospital.

Following the birth, the baby experienced breathing difficulties and was given oxygen before being taken to hospital by ambulance. He later recovered and went home with the intended parents.

The surrogate believes the relationship broke down because the child did not meet the parents' expectations.

'I just feel used,' she said. 'They didn't get the perfect child they wanted, and they threw me away.'

Why She Refused to Terminate the Pregnancy

The surrogate says she would have considered an abortion if specialists had determined the baby could not survive after birth.

However, she says she could not agree to terminate a pregnancy because of what appeared to be a correctable birth defect.

Canadian law gives a pregnant woman the final authority over medical decisions during pregnancy, including whether to have an abortion, regardless of the wishes of the intended parents.

What Canadian Law Says

Canada permits only altruistic surrogacy arrangements, meaning surrogates can be reimbursed for eligible pregnancy-related expenses but cannot be paid to carry a child.

Legal experts say intended parents cannot compel a surrogate to undergo an abortion, even if a surrogacy agreement contains a clause allowing them to request one. Such provisions are generally considered unenforceable because medical decisions remain with the pregnant woman.

Why Experts Say the Case Matters

Juliet Guichon, a bioethics professor at the University of Calgary, said the dispute highlights the legal and ethical challenges that can arise in altruistic surrogacy arrangements.

She argued the case demonstrates that surrogates can remain vulnerable despite legal protections and questioned whether the lawsuit amounted to punishment for the surrogate refusing to follow the intended parents' wishes.

Sally Rhoads-Heinrich, owner of Surrogacy in Canada Online, also described the case as highly unusual.

'What I find most difficult in this is they are suing the woman who brought their son to them,' she said. 'How is their son going to feel someday if he learns that?'

The allegations made by both parties have not been proven in court, and the civil proceedings remain ongoing.