‘Rainbow Statelessness’ statelessness. The story has been taken up by the Irish media, 91 and as the mothers continue to campaign for Sofia to return to Ireland, it has become a key case within wider advocacy for citizenship rights for children of rainbow families. 92 It highlights how the disparity in recognition of legal family ties can result in complications preventing access to citizenship as the authorities of one state may refuse to recognise the legal connection of non-biological LGBTIQ+ parents, even if their names are recorded clearly in the birth certificate issued in another state. In 2018, NELFA began to collect and document cases where laws and regulations within the EU prevent the free movement of LGBTIQ+ people and their children. In compiling information about the profiles of parents (ie nationality, sex/gender and [marital] status) and the constellations of circumstances (ie place of marriage/civil ceremony/residency, mode and place of conception and birth), they have concluded that ‘many rainbow families lose fundamental rights when crossing borders and remain in legal limbo situations’. 93 Further they demonstrate cases where particular constellations of factors can lead ‘children [to] become half-orphans on paper or remain stateless, at least for a certain time’. 94 NELFA’s work in this area highlights the risk of statelessness for children of LGBTIQ+ parents in certain circumstances, particularly when born through ART with an international dimension. The fact that such cases are being documented within constellations that implicate only states belonging to the European Union — a super-state structure with joint legislative institutions and standards, as well as relatively harmonised governance processes — underlines the truly universal nature of the SOGIESC–statelessness nexus. Additionally, in the context of international surrogacy arrangements, issues around harmonisation in laws — that is ‘differing principles of nationality, coupled with a lack of consensus on the legality of surrogacy’ — can also produce complications leading to statelessness in a number of circumstances. 95 Here, it is useful to consider the case of India as a key destination for international commercial surrogacy. India’s relatively accommodating surrogacy infrastructure had been attractive for many hopeful parents, but changes in the national regulations in 2013 suddenly limited applications to heterosexual couples who had been married for at least two years. 96 Those excluded, with same-sex couples significantly affected, were left in limbo by this policy, as the children born through the arrangements they had commissioned risked becoming stateless. Such was the case for Paul Taylor-Burn and his partner Josh from Australia, who signed 91 92 93 94 95 96 See, eg, Sorcha Pollak, ‘Getting IVF Abroad: “Our Daughter is Stateless, She Doesn’t Exist”’, The Irish Times (online, 14 October 2019) <https://www.irishtimes.com/news/socialaffairs/getting-ivf-abroad-our-daughter-is-stateless-she-doesn-t-exist-1.4049263>. For the family’s blog and petition, see Baby Sofia (Blog) <https://babysofia.info>; ‘Help Get Baby Sofia Home to Ireland’, All Out <https://action.allout.org/en/m/934ac23d>. Freedom of Movement in the European Union: Obstacles, Cases, Lawsuits … (Report, Network of European LGBTIQ* Families Associations 2020) <http://nelfa.org/inprogress/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/NELFA-fomcasesdoc-20201.pdf>. ibid. Lin (n 87) 549. Sandip Roy, ‘Surrogacy and Homophobia: India Bans Gay Parents’, First Post (online, 21 January 2013) <https://www.firstpost.com/living/surrogacy-and-homophobia-india-bansgay-parents-596203.html>. See also Unstarred Question No 3491 to Be Answered on the 19th of March 2013/Phalguna 28, 1934 (SAKA) (Letter, Ministry of Home Affairs, India, 2013). 82