For much of the past two decades, Georgia (the country, not the US state) occupied a distinctive position in the global surrogacy landscape. It was one of a small number of jurisdictions that permitted commercial surrogacy, had a relatively clear legislative framework, and maintained a cost profile considerably below that of the United States. Clinics in Tbilisi and other cities developed significant experience in IVF and gestational surrogacy, and the country became a common destination for couples from across Europe and beyond.
That environment has changed materially. Foreign intended parents who researched Georgia even two or three years ago may find that their information is now out of date, and proceeding on the basis of older guidance carries meaningful legal and practical risk.
Under the framework that applied until relatively recently, Georgian law permitted gestational surrogacy for married heterosexual couples only. The surrogate was required to have no genetic connection to the child, and the intended parents were to be recorded on the birth certificate directly, without the need for a separate adoption or parental order. This made Georgia attractive in comparison with jurisdictions where a court process is required after birth to establish legal parenthood.
Foreign nationals who met the married-couple criterion were, as of writing until the changes described below, broadly able to participate in programmes. They were required to enter a written surrogacy agreement, and clinics generally coordinated this alongside the medical process. For a fuller picture of how surrogacy programmes are typically structured, see our how it works guide.
As of writing, Georgian authorities have moved to restrict or suspend access to surrogacy programmes for foreign intended parents. The precise scope and permanence of these restrictions have been subject to ongoing regulatory and political discussion, and the situation should be confirmed with qualified local legal counsel before any decisions are made.
The direction of travel, however, is clear. Georgia has signalled an intention to limit surrogacy to Georgian citizens or, in some formulations, to residents with a sufficiently established connection to the country. The motivations cited by officials have included concerns about child trafficking risk, the commercialisation of reproduction, and pressure from international bodies scrutinising cross-border surrogacy arrangements.
For foreign intended parents, this means that programmes that were in progress at the time of the changes faced uncertainty, and new programmes for foreign nationals became considerably harder to initiate through legitimate channels.
Intended parents who entered agreements and began medical procedures before the restrictions took effect are in a legally ambiguous position. In some cases, clinics and legal advisers have sought to honour existing arrangements. In others, intended parents have faced delays, requests for additional documentation, or uncertainty about whether the child born will be recorded on a birth certificate in the expected manner.
If you are in this position, the most important immediate step is to obtain updated advice from a Georgian lawyer with current knowledge of how the authorities are applying the rules in practice. General guidance from your home country, or information obtained before the restrictions, is unlikely to be sufficient.
You should also take advice in your country of residence or citizenship regarding how the child's birth and legal parenthood will be recognised when you return home. This is a separate question from the Georgian legal position and must be addressed independently. Our frequently asked questions section covers some of the common recognition issues intended parents encounter.
For intended parents who have not yet started a programme, the current position is that Georgia cannot be recommended as a straightforward destination for foreign nationals. This does not mean it is impossible to proceed, but it does mean that the risk profile has increased substantially and that the legal pathway is no longer as clear as it once was.
Anyone still considering Georgia should take the following steps before making any financial or medical commitments:
Historically, Georgia was considered a lower-cost destination. Typical all-inclusive programme fees were in a range that made it accessible to intended parents who found US or Canadian programmes financially out of reach. Those figures are not reproduced here, as they are likely to have shifted and quoting them without current verification would be misleading.
What can be said is that legal complexity increases costs. Where intended parents must now engage legal counsel in two jurisdictions, obtain additional documentation, or navigate a less predictable administrative process, the overall expenditure rises accordingly. There may also be costs associated with delays or with moving a programme to an alternative jurisdiction partway through. Our costs guide sets out a framework for thinking about surrogacy expenditure across different destinations.
Intended parents who had been planning a Georgian programme are now frequently asking about alternatives. The answer depends heavily on individual circumstances: nationality, marital status, whether one or both partners has a genetic connection to the embryo, and the legal position in the home country all affect which destinations are viable.
Jurisdictions that currently maintain established frameworks for foreign intended parents include, depending on eligibility, certain states in the United States, Canada (where only altruistic arrangements are permitted), and a small number of other countries. Each carries its own legal, medical, and financial profile. Our countries guide provides a comparative overview, though as with all legal matters, conditions change and local advice remains essential.
The Georgian situation is not necessarily permanent. Regulatory environments do change, sometimes in response to advocacy, diplomatic engagement, or shifts in government. It is possible that a clearer framework for some categories of foreign intended parent could be established in future. It is equally possible that restrictions could be tightened further.
For that reason, intended parents with a particular reason to prefer Georgia — perhaps an existing relationship with a clinic or a surrogate — should maintain regular contact with local legal counsel rather than waiting for a single definitive announcement. Changes in this area tend to occur incrementally and are not always accompanied by clear public communication.
The most prudent approach is to treat the current situation as one requiring active monitoring rather than a resolved question in either direction.
This article is provided for general information purposes only. It does not constitute legal or medical advice, and you should take independent professional advice before making any decisions about a surrogacy programme.