In Finland, commercial surrogacy is criminalised. The law says: you cannot pay a woman to carry your child. But the same legal system does something remarkable. It holds a man who fathers a child through a one‑night stand – even if he never wanted the child, even if he was not in a relationship, even if he was a stranger – financially responsible for that child‘s entire upbringing. The “player” who exploits women for sex faces 18 years of child support. The prospective parent who pays $150,000 for a surrogacy arrangement can walk away if the child is born with a disability, leaving the surrogate to raise the child alone or place them in an orphanage. The comparison is not flattering. And it reveals a deep, uncomfortable truth about how the law values genetic parenthood over contractual parenthood.
Part I – The Player‘s Nightmare: Unplanned Parenthood Comes with Full Legal Teeth
Finland’s child support system is unambiguous. A biological father is legally required to contribute to the costs of raising a child, regardless of the circumstances of conception. The Child Maintenance Act (Elatuslaki) establishes that both parents are obligated to support their child according to their ability. The amount is calculated based on the father’s income, the mother’s income, and the child’s needs. If the father refuses to pay, the state can collect through wage garnishment, tax refund seizure, and even criminal penalties. There is no “I didn’t want the child” defence.
Sources for this paragraph:
- Child Maintenance Act (Elatuslaki), Finland.
- Kela child support enforcement guidelines.
The mother’s rights are fully respected. She can choose to have the child, keep the child, or place the child for adoption. She has access to maternity leave, child benefits, and – if necessary – social assistance. She can pursue the father for support regardless of whether they were married, co‑habiting, or merely had a brief sexual encounter. Finnish law does not distinguish between a committed relationship and a casual hookup when it comes to parental responsibility.
Sources for this paragraph:
- Finnish social welfare legislation.
- Child Maintenance Act.
No Consent, No Waiver
The father cannot waive his responsibility. Even if the mother says she does not want his money, the state can step in to ensure that the child is not deprived of support. The child’s right to financial provision from both parents is considered paramount. A “player” who fathers a child through casual sex cannot sign away his obligations. He cannot pay a lump sum and walk away. He is tied to the child – and to the mother’s legal claims – for 18 years.
This is not a Finnish peculiarity. Across Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia, child support laws operate on the same principle: biological parenthood triggers financial responsibility, regardless of intent.
Part II – The Client‘s Loophole: Surrogacy Contracts Can Unravel
Now consider the surrogacy client. A woman who pays $150,000 for a commercial surrogacy arrangement in Ukraine, the United States, or a developing country.
She signs a contract. The surrogate undergoes IVF. The pregnancy is confirmed. The intended parents wait. Then the child is born with a disability – Down syndrome, a heart defect, a cleft palate.
What happens next depends on the jurisdiction. In some countries, the intended parents are legally bound to take the child. In many, they are not.
The Baby Gammy Case
The most infamous example is Baby Gammy, born in Thailand in 2013 to a surrogate mother. The intended parents, an Australian couple, took the child’s healthy twin sister home. They left Baby Gammy behind with the surrogate – because he had Down syndrome. The surrogate mother, who had been paid approximately $15,000, raised the child herself. The intended parents reportedly asked for their money back.
Sources for this paragraph:
- Submission to NSW Parliament by Professor Sonia Allan OAM.
- International surrogacy case law.
The case sparked international outrage. But it was not an anomaly. Children born with disabilities through surrogacy arrangements are sometimes abandoned, left in orphanages, or handed over to the surrogate mother who may not have the resources or desire to raise them. The intended parents, who signed a contract and paid a fee, can simply walk away. The surrogate is left holding the child – or the child is left without any parent at all.
The Statelessness Crisis
In Re Z, a British same‑sex couple in their 60s commissioned a surrogacy arrangement in Northern Cyprus, where surrogacy was illegal and placement of children with same‑sex couples prohibited. They paid £120,000. The children were born to two different surrogates of Ukrainian nationality. The children were de facto stateless – not granted Northern Cypriot citizenship, unable to avail themselves of Ukrainian nationality, and with no genetic link to the British applicants. The family fought a four‑year legal battle to bring the children to the UK.
Sources for this paragraph:
- Rayden Solicitors, “Re Zs – A cautionary tale of two surrogacy cases” (2025).
Statelessness is not an edge case. It is a recurring feature of cross‑border surrogacy. The child’s right to a name and a nationality – enshrined in Article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child – is systematically violated when surrogacy contracts cross jurisdictions.
Part III – The Surrogate’s Vulnerability: Limited Rights, Limited Redress
The player’s one‑night stand has full legal recourse. She can claim child support, custody, and benefits. The surrogate’s rights are far more constrained.
Physical and Mental Health Risks
A 2025 study in JAMA Network Open tracked more than 767,000 births in Ontario, Canada. Surrogate mothers were 43% more likely to develop a new mental illness compared to mothers who conceived and carried their own baby, and 29% more likely than women who used IVF. Risk factors included “the emotional effect of separation from the newborn, maintaining relationships with the intended parents and child, and societal scrutiny about their decision to pursue gestational carriage”.
Sources for this paragraph:
- HealthDay, “Surrogate Moms More Apt To Suffer Mental Illness” (July 2025).
Coerced Medical Interventions
Surrogacy contracts often require the surrogate to submit to invasive medical procedures – multiple IVF cycles, embryo transfers, caesarean sections if the intended parents demand it. The surrogate may have little say in the timing or method of delivery. In some jurisdictions, she can be sued for breach of contract if she refuses a medical procedure that the intended parents believe is necessary for the child’s health.
No Right to Keep the Child
If the surrogate changes her mind – if she bonds with the child during pregnancy, if she decides she wants to keep the baby – she is often legally powerless. The surrogacy contract is enforced against her. The child is taken. Her feelings, her attachment, her maternal bond are irrelevant. The intended parents’ contractual rights prevail.
No Recourse If Parents Walk Away
If the intended parents walk away – because the child has a disability, because they changed their mind, because their relationship ended – the surrogate may be left with no compensation, no support, and a child she did not plan to raise. She may be unable to pursue the intended parents across borders. She may be left with nothing but a broken contract and a child she cannot afford.
Sources for this paragraph:
- Submission to NSW Parliament by Professor Sonia Allan OAM.
- UN Special Rapporteur report on surrogacy (2025).
Part IV – The Mother’s Rights Are Strengthening Globally
While surrogacy faces increasing restrictions, the rights of mothers in unplanned pregnancies are being strengthened internationally. The trend is clear: the rights of biological mothers are expanding. The rights of surrogates are contracting.
Finland
The Act on Induced Sterility (Laki hedelmöityshoidoista, 1237/2022) ensures that mothers who conceive through assisted reproduction have clear legal rights to custody and maintenance. The mother’s consent is required for every step of the process. She cannot be coerced.
Sources for this paragraph:
- Act on Induced Sterility (1237/2022), Finland.
The Istanbul Convention
The Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention) – ratified by Finland in 2015 – requires states to ensure that victims of sexual violence have access to legal remedies, including child support. A mother who conceives a child through rape is entitled to the same financial protections as any other mother.
Sources for this paragraph:
- Istanbul Convention (Council of Europe Treaty Series No. 210).
- Finnish ratification (2015).
The UN’s Position
The UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women has called for the eradication of commercial surrogacy, describing it as “characterised by exploitation and violence against women and children”. At the same time, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child mandates that states ensure the child’s right to support from both parents.
Sources for this paragraph:
- OHCHR, “UN expert calls for recognition of surrogacy as system of violence, exploitation and abuse” (Oct 2025).
Kenya: A Global Enforcer with Teeth
Kenya is not a passive observer in the global child support system. It is an enforcer. The country has built a legal architecture that allows a mother in Nairobi to pursue a father living in London, New York, or Helsinki – and win.
The constitutional foundation. Article 2 of Kenya’s Constitution incorporates international law into domestic law, making all ratified treaties directly applicable. Article 53 establishes equal parental responsibility for both parents, regardless of marital status. These are not aspirational clauses. They are enforceable rights.
Sources for this paragraph:
- Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Articles 2 and 53.
- Mwakilishi, “Living Abroad? What Kenyan Law Says About Your Child Support Duties” (2026).
The Children Act, 2022. Section 32 of the Children Act establishes equal parental responsibility for both parents. Section 33 explicitly states that parental responsibility cannot be relinquished or transferred to another individual. A father who moves abroad to avoid child support has not escaped. He has merely made enforcement more expensive.
Sources for this paragraph:
- Children Act, 2022, Sections 32 and 33.
- Anyanzwa & Company Advocates, “Child Support in Kenya: What Happens When One Parent Moves Abroad?” (2025).
The Hague Child Support Convention (2007). Kenya has ratified the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance. The Convention establishes a comprehensive system of cooperation between Central Authorities in Contracting States. It requires standardised applications, expedited recognition of foreign maintenance decisions, and prompt enforcement. Importantly, it also applies to spousal support when claimed together with child support.
Sources for this paragraph:
- Hague Convention of 23 November 2007, Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50.
- Hague Conference on Private International Law, Outline of the 2007 Child Support Convention.
- Kenya Parliamentary Report on Ratification of Three Hague Conventions (2023).
Why it has teeth. The Convention requires each Contracting State to designate a Central Authority to discharge its duties. Kenya’s Central Authority operates through the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, working alongside the National Council for Children’s Services and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Convention mandates cooperation between Central Authorities – transmitting applications, locating debtors, obtaining financial information, and encouraging amicable solutions. A Kenyan court order can be transmitted to a Central Authority in any other signatory country and enforced locally, without the mother having to travel or hire multiple lawyers.
Sources for this paragraph:
- Hague Convention 2007, Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50.
- Kenya Parliamentary Report, Sections 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65.
Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders (REMO). For countries without treaty arrangements, Kenya operates REMO – a bilateral framework that allows a Kenyan maintenance order to be enforced in a foreign jurisdiction if reciprocal agreements exist. Kenyan courts maintain jurisdiction over child support matters involving Kenyan citizens or residents, even when one parent relocates abroad. If a father in default resides in a country with a reciprocal agreement, the Kenyan court can transfer the maintenance order for enforcement overseas.
Sources for this paragraph:
- Anyanzwa & Company Advocates (2025).
- MMS Advocates, “Child Support in Kenya” (2024).
- Mwakilishi (2026).
The enforcement arsenal. Kenyan courts have both domestic and international enforcement tools. Domestically, they can issue warrants of arrest, attach property, and initiate contempt proceedings against a parent who fails to comply. Internationally, they can coordinate with foreign authorities through REMO or the Hague Convention’s Central Authority system. The National Council for Children’s Services provides direct support to parents seeking cross-border enforcement. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs can use diplomatic channels to assist in cases involving Kenyan citizens living abroad.
Sources for this paragraph:
- Anyanzwa & Company Advocates (2025).
- Children Act, 2022, Section 121.
The empirical teeth. Kenya is not merely signing treaties. It is using them. A parliamentary debate on the ratification of the three Hague Conventions cited a case in Malindi where a Dutch citizen impregnated a young woman, frustrated her, and drove her to depression and eventually cancer. She died before she could secure support for her child. The case became a driving force for ratification – a visceral reminder of why international enforcement mechanisms matter.
Sources for this paragraph:
- Kenya National Assembly Hansard, 26 April 2023.
For a Finnish woman whose child’s father has moved to Kenya, the situation is not hopeless. Finnish authorities can coordinate with Kenya’s Central Authority under the Hague Convention. Kenya’s courts can recognise and enforce a Finnish child support order. The father cannot hide behind borders. The system is not perfect, but it is functional. And it is growing stronger.
Sources for this paragraph:
- Author’s synthesis.
Part V – The Comparison Table
| Aspect | Unplanned Pregnancy (“Player”) | Commercial Surrogacy (“Client”) |
|---|---|---|
| Father’s liability | Legally mandated child support for 18+ years, no waiver | Intended parents can walk away, especially if child has disabilities |
| Mother’s rights | Full redress: child support, custody, benefits, social assistance | Limited; surrogate may be forced to relinquish child even if she wants to keep it |
| Child’s status | Child has legal parents, can claim support, has nationality | Child may be stateless, abandoned, or left with surrogate |
| Legal enforcement | Strong; state can garnish wages, seize tax refunds | Weak across borders; contracts often unenforceable internationally |
| Global trend | Rights of biological mothers strengthening (Istanbul Convention, UNCRC) | Surrogacy facing increasing restrictions; UN calls for ban |
| Risk of exploitation | Low; mother is in control of her body and her legal claims | High; surrogate may be coerced, controlled, and left with nothing |
Sources for this paragraph:
- Author’s synthesis of all cited sources.
Part VI – Why the Comparison Matters
The comparison is not academic. It is a mirror.
A society that holds a casual sexual partner responsible for 18 years of child support – even when he never wanted the child, even when the conception was accidental, even when the mother explicitly says she does not want his money – is a society that takes the welfare of children seriously. The player cannot opt out. The law does not care about his feelings, his intentions, or his financial capacity. The child’s needs come first.
But that same society often allows a surrogacy client to walk away from a child born with a disability. The contract is voided. The child is abandoned. The surrogate is left holding the bag – or, more often, the child is placed in an orphanage. The client’s feelings, intentions, and financial capacity are prioritised over the child‘s needs.
This is not consistency. It is hypocrisy.
Part VII – Conclusion: The Child’s Needs Should Come First
The player’s nightmare – 18 years of child support for a child he never wanted – is, from the perspective of the child, a feature, not a bug. The law ensures that no child is left without financial support from both parents. The mother’s rights are fully respected. She has redress. She has recourse. She has the state behind her.
The surrogacy client’s loophole – the ability to walk away from a disabled child – is, from the child’s perspective, a bug, not a feature. It is a gap in the law that allows adults to treat children as commodities to be accepted or rejected based on their perceived quality.
Finland has criminalised commercial surrogacy. That is a good start. But the country could go further. It could align its surrogacy laws with its child support laws: once a surrogacy arrangement is entered into, the intended parents should be legally bound to the child, regardless of disability, regardless of changed circumstances, regardless of cost. The child’s needs should come first – just as they do when a player fathers a child through a one‑night stand.
The player is legally trapped. The surrogate is legally vulnerable. The child is caught in the middle. The law should protect the child. In unplanned pregnancy, it does. In surrogacy, too often, it does not.
Sources for this blog post (by section):
Part I: Child Maintenance Act (Elatuslaki), Finland; Kela enforcement guidelines.
Part II: Submission to NSW Parliament by Professor Sonia Allan OAM; Rayden Solicitors, “Re Zs – A cautionary tale of two surrogacy cases” (2025).
Part III: HealthDay, “Surrogate Moms More Apt To Suffer Mental Illness” (July 2025); UN Special Rapporteur report (2025); Submission to NSW Parliament.
Part IV: Act on Induced Sterility (1237/2022); Istanbul Convention; OHCHR surrogacy report (2025); Constitution of Kenya (2010); Children Act (2022); Hague Convention 2007; Kenya Parliamentary Report; Anyanzwa Advocates; Mwakilishi; Kenya National Assembly Hansard (2023).
Part V: Author’s synthesis.
Part VI: Author’s analysis.
Part VII: Author’s synthesis.
End of post.