Brandon Riley-Mitchell, registered as a sex offender, was able to legally become a father through surrogacy because the restrictions applied to adoption did not extend to this procedure
York County District Attorney Tim Barker noted that current legislation allowed Riley-Mitchell to become a father through a legal mechanism permitted by the Democratic government and considered that the situation highlighted a difference between the checks applied to adoption and those existing for surrogacy.
The case of Brandon Riley-Mitchell, a gay man registered as a sex offender in Pennsylvania, sparked a debate about the regulations governing surrogacy in that state after it was revealed that he obtained legal custody of a baby born through this procedure.
Riley-Mitchell was convicted in 2016 for offenses related to sexual communications with a minor and possession of child pornography. At that time, he was working as a chemistry teacher. Official documents from the Pennsylvania Department of Education record that he was accused of maintaining sexual communications with a 16-year-old student, soliciting nude photographs from him, and sending him images of himself.
The case became public again in July 2025, when videos posted by Riley-Mitchell and his gay partner showcased their so-called “surrogacy experience” and the child during his first year of life. The dissemination of the images led to an investigation into Riley-Mitchell's criminal history and his status as a registered sex offender.
The legal peculiarity of the case lies in that Pennsylvania prohibits certain sex offenders from adopting or becoming foster parents, but its regulations do not impose the same prohibition for surrogacy.
The controversy also prompted a legislative reaction. Pennsylvania lawmakers introduced a proposal to close what they described as a legal loophole enabled by the Democratic governor, preventing individuals convicted of sexual offenses against minors from obtaining legal parentage through surrogacy agreements and establishing background checks for intended parents.
The lawyer for pedophile Riley-Mitchell defended his client and argued that the crime for which he was convicted involved inappropriate communications with a minor aged between 16 and 18 years, without physical contact, and that he served his sentence and received treatment.
The case thus opened a specific debate about child protection checks in surrogacy in Pennsylvania and about the legal differences between adopting a minor and obtaining parentage of a child through a surrogacy agreement.
