See: no to gestational mother in trial on baby case with two fathers

2020-12-03T17:41:14.676Z

The Constitutional Court, meeting today in council chamber, examined the request for intervention in court presented by the 'gestational mother' of a child, born in Canada using so-called surrogacy techniques and legally recognized by a judicial decision of that State as a child of a couple of Italian men civilly united. The woman, in whose uterus the oocyte of an anonymous donor had been implanted with the gametes of one of the two men, had carried on the pregnancy and delivered the baby on the basis of a surrogacy agreement. A Canadian court recognized the two men as parents, while ruling out the parenting of both the egg donor and the woman who gave birth to the baby. The Italian Court of Cassation is now invested with the appeal brought by the two men to obtain recognition of the Canadian provision which also designates the "intentional father" as the second parent of the minor. However, the Supreme Court has raised the question of the constitutional legitimacy of the Italian rules that prevent such recognition. Although not part of the judgment pending before the Supreme Court, the woman asked to intervene in the judgment before the Constitutional Court claiming to have a specific interest in having her absence of parental ties with the child recognized, even in our legal system, and consequently the non-existence of any obligation towards the same. Pending the filing of the order, the Press Office of the Constitutional Court makes it known that the request for intervention in the judgment of constitutional legitimacy has been declared inadmissible. In fact, in the constitutional judgment, in addition to those who are already part of the main proceedings and the president of the Council of Ministers, only those who are "holders of a qualified interest inherent directly and immediately to the relationship brought forward in the court" can intervene (article 4, paragraph 7, of the Supplementary Rules for judgments before the Constitutional Court). In the case in question, the Council held that the decision of the judgment pending before the Court of Cassation - which concerns only the legal position of the two men towards the child - cannot produce immediate legal effects towards the woman. The reasons for the order will be filed in the coming weeks.