Ms Natalie Gamble:

This would be carrying over what already exists in adoption law as Dr. Horsey has mentioned. They are not saying that consent no longer matters and people do not have to get it. What they are saying is that consent is required unless it is withheld and the court determines that it should be dispensed with because it is in the best interests of the child. I trust our family court judges. I work with them all the time. They take an incredibly sensitive approach and an incredibly child-focused approach. They will do the right thing in the circumstances. This is not a question of the surrogate's voice being extinguished or not being heard. It is about having somebody who will be the voice of the child and look at all the issues to determine in what circumstances it is appropriate to dispense with consent. It will happen rarely if never. It will be a very rarely used power but it is very important that the court's hands are not tired. In the case that has been mentioned, the child was living with the parents and the surrogate had agreed to that. It was just about transferring formal parenthood. There is no logical reason it should not happen but the courts did not have the power to do it. These are the sorts of situations where the court will dispense with consent. It is not where there is a more substantive dispute that needs to be looked at differently.