The Arcadia child abuse case—described by Los Angeles prosecutors as a “house of horrors”—has sparked public scrutiny regarding the U.S. surrogacy industry following the filing of criminal charges against the couple involved. Critics question whether legal oversight of surrogacy in California, and across the nation, is too lax. Experts have described California’s fertility industry as akin to the “Wild West.”
Stephanie Caballero, an Orange County attorney specializing in surrogacy law, noted that it is “completely legal” for independent surrogacy agencies in California to recruit surrogate mothers from across the country. This is because the industry is virtually unregulated; surrogacy companies require only a standard business license rather than a specialized industry license. She pointed out that while lawyers, doctors, and mental health professionals are all required to hold licenses, surrogacy agencies are not. This is the current status for the more than 500 surrogacy agencies operating nationwide.
Kallie Fell, head of the Center for Bioethics and Culture in Orange County, also described California’s fertility industry as a “Wild West” environment. She believes the Arcadia case highlights regulatory shortcomings in the surrogacy industry. While the legal process for establishing parental rights through surrogacy contracts is relatively clear, it does not necessarily fully address critical issues—such as whether intended parents possess adequate parenting capabilities or whether the child will receive proper care after birth.
In reality, California is not without laws governing surrogacy. The state’s family law includes regulations for gestational surrogacy contracts and related matters of parental rights. These regulations mandate that contracts specify the identities of the intended parents, the source of the gametes, and arrangements for covering medical expenses for both the surrogate mother and the newborn. Furthermore, before signing, both the surrogate mother and the intended parents must retain independent legal counsel; a single attorney cannot represent both parties. Contracts must also be executed and notarized—or undergo a corresponding confirmation process—in accordance with legal requirements.
California courts also have established procedures for determining parental rights, allowing parties to legally petition the court to confirm the child’s legal parentage. In other words, surrogacy is not merely a private agreement between intended parents and a surrogate mother; it involves complex issues such as contract enforceability, medical costs, the source of genetic material, and the child’s legal status. However, these legal requirements primarily address surrogacy arrangements and parental rights; they do not mandate that every surrogacy agency undergo a standardized professional qualification review, nor do they require all intended parents to pass a uniform assessment of parenting competence. Consequently, fertility agencies act as their own gatekeepers, leading to inconsistent practices across the industry.
Min-Yi Zhang, Director of the Ember Fertility Center in Laguna Hills, stated that the center conducts rigorous screening of intended parents to assess their suitability for surrogacy and helps facilitate a constructive working relationship between the surrogate mother and the intended parents.
She noted that having donors and surrogate mothers evaluated by mental health professionals is standard practice in the industry. These assessments may cover lifestyle habits, daily routines, mutual expectations, and other factors that could influence the partnership. She described the process not as a rigid, item-by-item interrogation, but rather as a way to understand the individuals’ circumstances through natural conversation. For instance, the center asks parties to clarify the source of the reproductive cells—such as whether the intended parents are using their own gametes or utilizing donor eggs, sperm, or embryos.