The Sophia Case: When Parenthood Isn’t Just About Genetics

Imagine a situation where an embryo meant for one ocouple is accidentally implanted into another woman. That’s exactly what happened in the Sophia case—a dramatic legal battle in Israel that raised a profound question: Who is the real mother of a child when genetic and gestational parenthood don’t align?

The story began in 2022 at the Assuta Medical Center in Rishon Lezion, where an IVF mix-up led to a woman becoming pregnant with an embryo that wasn’t genetically hers. She carried the pregnancy to term, gave birth to a baby girl named Sophia, and formed a deep maternal bond with her. But when the mistake was discovered, the genetic parents—whose egg and sperm created the embryo—sought custody of Sophia, arguing that their genetic connection should make them her legal parents.

Initially, the Israeli Family Court sided with the genetic parents, recognizing their genetic link to Sophia and ordering her to be handed over. But this decision didn’t last. The Central District Court later reversed the ruling, deciding that Sophia should stay with the woman who gave birth to her. The judges emphasized the principle of “the best interest of the child” (tovat ha-yeled)” a guiding principle in family law that prioritizes the child’s welfare above all other considerations. The judges highlighted the powerful bond between the child and her gestational mother, stressing that removing Sophia from the only mother she had ever known could cause severe harm.

For a detailed account of the court’s decision, see, for example,  report  in the (Times of Israel).

So, who is the real mother in a case like this? Is it the woman who provided the genetic material—the egg and sperm—or the woman who carried the pregnancy and gave birth? The answer isn’t simple, but legal principles offer some guidance. One key principle is mater semper certa est—“the mother is always certain.” This concept, which originated in Roman law, means that the woman who gives birth is legally recognized as the mother. Jewish law, or Halacha, takes a similar view, seeing the gestational mother as the true mother, regardless of genetics.

But this isn’t just an Israeli issue. Around the world, countries have taken different approaches. In the United States, courts sometimes treat embryos as property, something you can own or control, as seen in the famous Davis v. Davis case. The United Kingdom’s law is clear: the woman who gives birth is the mother, no matter who the genetic parents are. Germany has a similar rule, legally recognizing the gestational mother as the child’s mother.

These different approaches show how complex the concept of parenthood can be. Is it about genetics, the act of giving birth, or something else entirely? In the Sophia case, the court recognized the importance of the relationship between the child and the woman who carried her. But what about the genetic parents? Don’t they also have a right to some form of recognition?

Jewish law offers a distinct perspective on this issue. Rabbi Dr. Mordechai Halperin, a leading authority on Jewish medical ethics, emphasizes that the woman who gives birth is the true mother according to Halacha, even if she is not genetically related to the child.This view is based on the concept that the gestational mother forms an intrinsic bond with the child through pregnancy. Rabbi Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, another prominent Jewish scholar, has similarly argued that maternal identity is determined by childbirth, not by genetics. These Halachic views align with the court’s decision to prioritize the woman who carried and gave birth to Sophia.

In my view, based on legal principles rather than emotion, it seems that the woman who carried and gave birth to Sophia should be recognized as her mother. This conclusion aligns with the principle of mater semper certa est, which provides legal certainty by making motherhood clear and predictable. However, it is equally fair that the genetic parents, who contributed the egg and sperm, should have a recognized social relationship with Sophia. This approach balances the rights of both the gestational and genetic parents while ensuring that the child’s best interests come first.

Ethically, this case is about more than just a legal battle—it’s about what it means to be a parent. Some argue that treating embryos as property is dangerous because it reduces human life to something that can be owned or controlled. Others, like Rabbi Mordechai Halperin, insist that embryos have moral value as potential human lives, deserving of respect but not treated as mere property. Rabbi Zalman Nechemia Goldberg has further highlighted that while genetic connection may influence religious identity (such as tribal affiliation in Jewish law), it does not determine maternal rights.

The Sophia case reveals the need for clearer laws that can balance the rights of genetic and gestational parents in Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Parenthood should not be reduced to a genetic formula. Instead, it should reflect a balance between the rights of those who give life and those who nurture it. In cases like Sophia’s, a legal framework that recognizes the woman who gave birth as the mother, while allowing the genetic parents to have a recognized social relationship with the child, seems most just.

The Sophia case isn’t just about one little girl—it’s about how we define family and parenthood in an age of rapidly advancing reproductive technology.

On May 11, 2025, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that Sophia, the child at the center of the embryo mix-up at Assuta, will remain with the parents who have raised her, rather than being transferred to her genetic parents. This decision upholds the ruling of the District Court, rejecting the appeal filed by the genetic parents. The appeal was heard by an expanded panel of five justices. Pursuant to my analysis, the court’s decision underscores the importance of the child’s best interests and the maternal bond formed through the gestational parent, aligning with my analysis relating to the principles of Roman law (mater semper certa est) and Hebrew law, which both recognize the woman who gives birth as the true mother.