Surrogate motherhood regulation in South Africa: Medical and ethico-legal issues in need of reform
Main Article Content
Abstract
Chapter 19 of the Children’s Act No. 32 of 2005 regulates the practice of surrogate motherhood in South Africa and provides legal certainty regarding the rights of the children born as a result of surrogacy, including the rights of the different parties involved. Despite the clarity regarding the legal consequences of human reproduction by artificial fertilisation of women acting as surrogate mothers, some legal gaps and inconsistencies regarding certain medical and ethico-legal issues remain. The purpose of this article is to critically examine selected provisions whose implementation is hampered by a lack of detail or clarity, compromising compliance by the different parties to the surrogate motherhood agreement. The article concludes with recommendations on how some of these issues may be addressed to provide for legal certainty and transparency.
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The SAJBL is published under an Attribution-Non Commercial International Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC 4.0) License. Under this license, authors agree to make articles available to users, without permission or fees, for any lawful, non-commercial purpose. Users may read, copy, or re-use published content as long as the author and original place of publication are properly cited.
Exceptions to this license model is allowed for UKRI and research funded by organisations requiring that research be published open-access without embargo, under a CC-BY licence. As per the journals archiving policy, authors are permitted to self-archive the author-accepted manuscript (AAM) in a repository.
How to Cite
References
1. E Auret, titled, Surrogate motherhood and assisted reproduction in South Africa: an analysis of selected constitutional and medico-legal issues (2023; University of South Africa).
2. Nicholson S, Nicholson C. I used to have two parents and now I have three? When science (fiction) and the law meet: Unexpected complications. Med Law 2016;35(3):423-440.
3. Skosana T. A donor-conceived child’s right to know its genetic origin: A South African perspective. OBITER 2017;38(2):261-274. https://doi.org/10.17159/obiter. v38i2.11439
4. Canner S. Navigating surrogacy law in the non-united states: Why all states should adopt a uniform surrogacy statute. J Civil Rights Economic Dev 2019;33(2):113-140. 5. Nöthling-Slabbert M. Legal issues relating to the use of surrogate mothers in the
practice of assisted conception S Afr J Bioeth Law 2012;5(1):27-32.
6. In re confirmation of three surrogate agreements 2011 (6) SA 22 (GSJ) par 15. Ex
parte WH and others 2011 (11) 6 SA 514 (GNP) par 38.
7. Baase M. The ratification of inadequate surrogate motherhood agreements and
the best interest of the child. Potchefstroom Electronic Law J 2019;22(1);2-26.
https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2019/v22i0a6083
8. Children’s Act No. 38 of 2005, section 292. Nicholson C, Bauling A. Surrogate motherhood agreements and their confirmation: A new challenge for practitioners? De Jure Law J 2013;46(2):510-538.
9. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, section 28. Ex parte CJD and others. 2018 (3) SA 197 (GP), par 10. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989, Article 3(1). African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, July 1990, Article 4.
10. Children’s Act, section 292(1)(c)—292(1)(d). Heaton J. The pitfalls of international surrogacy: A South African family law perspective. Tydskrif vir Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg 2015;78:24-46.11. Domicile Act No. 3 of 1992, section 1(2).
12. Davel CJ, Skelton AM (eds). Commentary on the Children’s Act (loose-leaf). 2007,
Juta, revision service 9: 2018.
13. Ex parte CJD and others 2018 (3) SA 197 (GP).
14. Ex parte CJD and others 2018 (3) SA 197 (GP), par 13.
15. In re confirmation of three surrogate agreements 2011 (6) SA 22 (GSJ), par 17.
16. Ex parte WH and others 2011 (4) All SA 630 (GNP).
17. Ex parte WH and others 2011 (4) All SA 630 (GNP) par 29.
18. Ex parte WH and others 2011 (4) All SA 630 (GNP) par 69.
19. In re confirmation of three surrogate agreements 2011 (6) SA 22 (GSJ) par 15. AB
and Another v Minister of Social Development 2017 (3) SA 570 (CC) par 45.
20. AB and Another v Minister of Social Development 2017 (3) SA 570 (CC) para 45-46.
21. Thaldar D. Surrogate motherhood and scaremongering: Is South Africa entering
an age of post-truth jurisprudence? De Rebus 2018; 28.
22. AB and Another v Minister of Social Development 2017 (3) SA 570 (CC).
23. AB and another v Minister of Social Development 2017 (3) SA 570 (CC) par 12.
24. AB and another v Minister of Social Development 2017 (3) SA 570 (CC) par 73.
25. AB and another v Minister of Social Development 2017 (3) SA 570 (CC) par 302.
26. KB and Another v Minister of Social Development (966/2022) [2023] ZAMPMBHC
12 (20 February 2023).
27. KB and another v Minister of Social Development (966/2022) [2023] ZAMPMBHC
12 (20 February 2023) par 40.
28. KB and another v Minister of Social Development (966/2022) [2023] ZAMPMBHC
12 (20 February 2023) par 20.
29. Children’s Act, section 295(a). Louw A. Ex Parte MS 2014 JDR 1012: Surrogate
motherhood agreements, condonation of non-compliance with confirmation requirements and the best interests of the child. De Jure 2014; 47(1) 110—118, 111.
30. Nicholson C. When moral outrage determines a legal response: Surrogacy as labour. SAJHR 2013; 29(3), 496–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/19962126.2013.11 865087501
31. APP and Another v NKP 2021 JDR 1650 (WCC)/ (17962/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 69 (11 March 2021) par 24.
32. APP and Another v NKP 2021 JDR 1650 (WCC)/ (17962/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 69 (11 March 2021).
33. APP and Another v NKP 2021 JDR 1650 (WCC)/ (17962/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 69 (11 March 2021) par 21.
34. APP and Another v NKP 2021 JDR 1650 (WCC)/ (17962/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 69 (11 March 2021) par 25.
35. Jordaan DW. Surrogate Motherhood in illness that does not cause infertility. S Afr Med J 2016;106(7):684-685. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2016.v106i7.10668685
36. Children’s Act, section 296(1)(a). Louw A. Ex Parte MS 2014 JDR 1012: Surrogate motherhood agreements, condonation of non-compliance with confirmation requirements and the best interests of the child. De Jure Law J 2014;47(1):110-118.
37. Children’s Act, section 296(1)(b).
38. Nicholson C, Bauling A. Surrogate motherhood agreements and their confirmation:
A new challenge for practitioners? De Jure Law J 2013;46(2):510-538.
39. Christiansen K. Who is the mother? Negotiating identity in an Irish surrogacy case. Med Health Care Philosophy 2015;18(3):317-327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-
014-9605-6
40. Nicholson S, Nicholson C. I used to have two parents and now I have three? When science (fiction) and the law meet: Unexpected complications. Med Law 2016;35(3):426.
41. Nicholson S, Nicholson C. I used to have two parents and now I have three? When science (fiction) and the law meet: Unexpected complications. Med Law 2016;35(3):425.
42. Rasheed A. Confronting problematic legal fictions in gestational surrogacy. J Health Care Law Policy 2021;24(2):195.
43. Rasheed A. Confronting problematic legal fictions in gestational surrogacy. J Health Care Law Policy 2021;24(2):198.
44. Fischbach RL, Loike JD. Maternal-fetal cell transfer in surrogacy: Ties that bind. Am J Bioeth 2014;14(5):35-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2014.892179
45. Nicholson S, Nicholson C. I used to have two parents and now I have three? When science (fiction) and the law meet: Unexpected complications. Med Law 2016;35(3):434.