Kim Cotton was just an ordinary mum-of-two when an extraordinary decision made her one of the most controversial women in Britain in the 80s.
Her name was printed everywhere, reporters camped outside and her actions were discussed in parliament. Kim, then just 28, had become Britain’s first “commercial surrogate,” agreeing to carry a baby for an unknown couple in return for £6,500.
“I had no idea I’d be the first, or what the reaction would be,” recalls Kim, now 68. “I was doing what I wanted to do in my heart, to give this incredible gift to a couple who couldn’t have a child of their own. But I’ve always said that yes, I also did it for the money – something I was absolutely vilified for.
“At the time, I wanted to help my little family. We’d moved into a wreck of a house, and I thought maybe this could help me fix it, but in the end, when I got the money, it faded into insignificance after everything.”
Kim gave birth to ‘Baby Cotton’ on January 4, 1985, at London’s Victoria Maternity Hospital. Even as she was giving birth, journalists arrived outside to report on the historic moment.
“By the time I went into labour, everyone knew who I was,” she recalls. “Social services stepped in on the day, interrogating me while I was in labour. I had to lock myself in the toilet to calm down.”
On the day of Baby Cotton’s birth, she was made a ward of court, meaning her intended parents had to go to court for permission to take her home to their country.
Kim, who lives outside Royston, Cambridgeshire, recalls: “I did get the chance to have a little cuddle, but not for long in case I bonded with her. She looked like one of mine.
“To have to abandon her in hospital for the seven days it took for the court process to to be resolved, was dreadful. The parents couldn’t take her home, and neither could I so she was left there being looked after by hospital staff. It was the worst week of my life, a shocking ending to what should have been such a lovely thing.”
Two years earlier, Kim first heard of surrogacy on a TV programme and wrote to an agency in America to offer her services, with the support of her husband Geoffrey, thinking it wouldn’t lead to anything.
“Like me, he thought we had a complete family by then, with a little boy, Jamie, and girl Anouska, of our own. We were certain we didn’t want any more children. When I sent the letter off, we both thought it was probably pie in the sky as it was so unreal, but it worked out that it wasn’t.”
It was around a year after sending off her letter that Kim was contacted by an agency co-ordinator in the UK and sent for a medical check-up. She was soon inseminated with the sperm of an anonymous man, one half of a Scandinavian couple.
She has never met them – and hasn’t seen the baby at the heart of the storm since the day she left her at the hospital.
“That’s how the arrangement worked,” she recalls. “And over the years, I’ve never actively sought her out. Because of how it all happened, I’m not sure what she knows.
“She turns 40 in January so she could be a young mum herself, and I’d never want to upset her by pursuing a relationship with her. But I’m absolutely open to meeting her if she wanted to find me. I’m certainly out there publicly, and I’ve put my DNA on an ancestry website.”
For weeks after giving birth, Kim was inundated with requests for interviews, as reporters and photographers camped outside her house. Kim, with the support of Geoffrey and her mum, were able to protect their children from the ensuing media frenzy.
“In the early days, it was all surreal, like I was in a dream world,” she adds. “I was very caught up in interviews for magazines and TV. News at 10 came round, Anne Diamond came round.
“I felt very empty at the time. It wasn’t until about five years later when I did a counselling course that the cost of what happened felt real, when all the old wounds were opened. I didn’t really have time to grieve for it all until then.”
In July 1985, a matter of months after Baby Cotton was born, the Surrogacy Agreements Act had been pushed through Parliament. The Act banned both commercial surrogacy and any advertising for the practice. Later, provisions introduced through the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 meant surrogacy agreements were “unenforceable”, and payments to surrogates would be limited to “reasonable expenses”.
Kim says she agrees with the commercial surrogacy ban as her experience with this approach was “not good”. She adds: “The £6,500 I’d thought was a reasonable payment when the agency offered it to me at the start of the process, felt irrelevant after everything that happened.”
When she’d signed on, Kim hadn’t expected the attention she received, though she says many of the interactions were positive.
“I received letters by the hundred, and I never had a rotten one,” she says. “When the kids were going back to school, I was frightened to go out because I’d had reporters outside the house – although we did become friends in the end.
“I thought, I’m going to really get it when I go out the door, but people were lovely. It was strange to be so recognised. I felt very vulnerable at that stage, but I never had anything negative said to my face.
“The letters meant a lot, people saying they’d love to be a surrogate, or couples wishing they could find someone to do this wonderful thing for them.
“To hear about all these people struggling was heartbreaking. I wanted to do something to help them. I had no one to talk to when I was going through it who properly understood, because it just hadn’t happened before. I didn’t want other people having that same feeling of loneliness.”
In 1988, Kim, along with a colleague, set up Childlessness Overcome Through Surrogacy (COTS), a not-for-profit organisation to support childless couples and surrogates. Since then, the team has supported 1,136 births.
It was through her work with COTS Kim embarked on a second personal journey with surrogacy, giving birth to twins in 1991 for a friend and her husband.
“This experience couldn’t have been more different,” says Kim. “It felt much more official, with psychological screening and procedures through an IVF hospital. I wasn’t genetically related to the babies as the embryos were implanted. I knew the couple, they were with me every step of the way during the pregnancy, and when I watched them take a baby each in their arms after they were born, it was the best experience of my life. It was magical.
“And this time, even though it was just six years after Baby Cotton was born, the response was worlds apart. The parents didn’t pay, and crucially, I knew them. Now I was a saint, whereas before, I was a sinner. Yet both times, I’d done the same thing.”
This time, Kim, now a grandmother of seven, kept in touch with the family.
“The twins have always known who I am,” she says. “They’d joke that I was their ‘tummy mummy’. They’re in their 30s now, and live abroad with their parents, but we’re still in touch.”
While Kim has taken a back seat with COTS, she continued being involved as a patron, attending regular meetings. She returned to the helm around five years ago as chairperson, and says she’s as passionate about surrogacy now as she was when she posted her letter to the US agency in 1983.
Over the years she has appeared on countless TV programmes from Wogan to Kilroy Silk discussing surrogacy and fertility issues. She got a standing ovation after a speech to the British Medical Association, and has met countless politicians and experts in the field, pushing for changes in the law.
“Progress has been made since Baby Cotton was born, particularly in people’s attitudes to surrogacy, but we’re not there yet and the law needs to catch up,” she says.
Now 40 since Kim’s landmark case shone a light on the surrogacy debate in Britain, many of the rules set out in law decades ago are still in place. Advertising around surrogacy remains prohibited. Surrogacy agreements continue to be legally unenforceable, while intended parents still need to endure an often-lengthy post-birth process to become the child’s legal parents.
It was only through the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 that COTS and similar not-for-profit surrogacy organisations were legally recognised.
Then in 2023, the Law Commission published a set of recommended reforms, including a new regulatory pathway under which intended parents would become parents of the child from birth, rather than having to wait months to obtain a parental order.
Other changes proposed included a new Surrogacy Register to give children born through surrogacy the opportunity to trace their origins when they’re older through a framework designed with surrogacy in mind, as well as new rules on payments, providing clarity on which payments intended parents can make to surrogates.
The proposals, which have not yet been brought forward by government, also said the ban on commercial surrogacy should continue.
“I’m absolutely on board with that,” says Kim. “I also completely agree with the change to intended parents being parents from birth. My husband and I were on the birth certificates for the twins, even though neither of us were genetically related to them.
“I’d still like there to be further clarification on precisely what expenses are allowable, and would not like to think surrogates and intended parents could be penalised for a payment made in good faith that exceeds the guidelines, which remain unclear.
“I absolutely agree we don’t want to attract the wrong people, women who are vulnerable or financially strapped and doing it for the wrong reasons. But from what
“I’ve seen over 40 years, that’s not why women do it. At COTS, we’ve had nurses and midwives, legal secretaries, ward sisters. People with an income, many of whom come from a caring background.
“From my experience, the vast majority do it because they are kind, giving people.
“Most women we deal with get paid around £15,000 to cover expenses, and that’s not unreasonable as far as I can see when you consider loss of earnings and a range of other factors. Making surrogacy easier and a more secure process in the UK would mean fewer would-be parents would need to look overseas.”
In September 2025, COTS will wrap up its work. Kim plans to launch as an independent surrogacy consultant, offering advice and support to people looking into the process.
And despite the huge fallout from Baby Cotton’s birth, Kim says she doesn’t regret her decision.
“No,” she says. “At the end of the day, I brought joy to that couple. You have to get rid of all the negative stuff and think I gave them the gift of life. It was very traumatic, and not what I envisaged, but I set out to do it, and I did it.
“I do think of her on her birthday every year I always remember the date, it’s imprinted in my mind. But I’ll remember it quietly this time, like I do every other time.”
What is the current UK law for surrogacy?
If you use a surrogate, they will be the child’s legal parent at birth. If the surrogate is married or in a civil partnership, their spouse or civil partner will be the child’s second parent at birth, unless they did not give their permission.Legal parenthood can be transferred by parental order or adoption after the child is born.
If there is disagreement about who the child’s legal parents should be, the courts will make a decision based on the best interests of the child. The intended parents and surrogate can record how they want the arrangement to work in a surrogacy agreement.
Surrogacy agreements are not enforceable by UK law, even if you have a signed document with your surrogate and have paid their expenses. You cannot pay a surrogate in the UK, except for their reasonable expenses.
