A/HRC/37/60 each”.74 The convicted attorney told the local media that, as to abusive practices, she was the “tip of the iceberg” of a “corrupt” “billion-dollar industry”.75 31. Another case from California, Cook v. Harding,76 reveals the intentional regulatory omissions in a regulated commercial surrogacy jurisdiction: “The statute places no conditions on who can serve as a surrogate (beyond requiring that she not be genetically related to the foetuses) or who may solicit the services of a gestational carrier … No minimum levels of income, intelligence, age or ability are required for either the surrogate or the intended parent(s).”77 32. In Cook, the surrogacy agency matched a 47-year-old surrogate mother with a 50year-old single intending father. Three embryos were transferred, leading to a triplet pregnancy. Conflicts arose when the intending father balked at paying the costs of the highrisk triplet pregnancy, and also demanded a reduction abortion. The surrogacy contract contained a common provision that reduction abortion decisions would be made by the intending parent. The surrogate mother refused the reduction abortion. 78 Hence, “C.M.’s attorney informed Cook in writing that, by refusing to reduce, she was in breach of the contract and liable for money damages thereunder”.79 It is also argued that surrogate mothers who refuse to submit to reduction abortions are liable for monetary damages, including “the cost of medical treatment (for) … a resulting child.”80 33. Hence, surrogacy regulations in some jurisdictions are designed to enforce contracts, obtain children for intending parents, maintain the industry’s profits, and intentionally reject most protections for children or surrogate mothers. These kinds of contract-based models lead to systemic abusive practices. Indeed, these contract-based legal regimes lead to the sale of children, as they include the kinds of pre-birth contractual determinations of parentage that the Committee on the Rights of the Child has warned can lead to the sale of children.81 D. International legal framework 34. It is stated in article 35 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child that: “States Parties shall take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent the abduction of, the sale of or traffic in children for any purpose or in any form.” The phrase “for any purpose or in any form” is significant, and surrogacy is no exception to the article’s prohibitions. Family formation should not be accomplished through “the abduction of, the sale of or traffic in children”. 35. The prohibition of sale of children is clearly stated in article 1 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. Article 2 (a) of that Optional Protocol defines sale of children as “any act or transaction whereby a child is transferred by any person or group of persons to another for remuneration or any other consideration”. The premise of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography is that the sale of children is a serious 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 10 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Baby-selling ring busted”. Available at https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/sandiego/press-releases/2011/baby-selling-ring-busted. Rory Devine and R. Stickney, “Convicted surrogacy attorney”. Available at www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Theresa-Erickson-Surrogacy-Abuse-Selling-Babies140942313.html. See https://www.scribd.com/document/315077548/Cook-v-Harding-Dismissal-Order. Ibid., p. 6. See https://www.scribd.com/document/315077548/Cook-v-Harding-Dismissal-Order; and Dov Fox, “Surrogacy contracts, abortion conditions, and parenting licenses”, available at http://blogs.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2016/06/07/surrogacy-contracts-abortion-conditions-andparenting-licenses-in-the-curious-case-of-cook-v-harding/. See https://www.scribd.com/document/315077548/Cook-v-Harding-Dismissal-Order, p. 8. Dov Fox, “Surrogacy contracts, abortion conditions, and parenting licenses”. See CRC/C/OPSC/USA/CO/2, para. 29; CRC/C/IND/CO/3-4, para. 57 (d); CRC/C/MEX/CO/4-5, para. 69 (b); CRC/C/OPSC/USA/CO/3-4, para. 24; and CRC/C/OPSC/ISR/CO/1, para. 28.