Surrogate decides to keep baby, judge agrees

How can the father be seen as a sperm donor? he didn't give his sperm anonymously, he gave it purposefully. How was the child conceived? Most likely through IVF and who do you suppose paid for that? Surely not the surrogate. I hate to break this whole thing down into monetary terms, but if these people paid the surrogate for a service then the surrogate should be held liable to deliver the "goods" or refund all expenses incurred in this agreed-upon venture. Why do people even bother signing contracts anymore?
I feel horrible for these people. Especially the child, having to grow up with such a morally deficient mother.

Reply

Well, I am glad that biological father is lawfully only considered a sperm donor. I see that ruling as a step to preserving the right to choose and blocking the constant chipping away of that right by pro-lifers using paternal "rights" to thwart women's rights. I know its not a happy situation for the would be parents, but its kind of the same thing as when a mom is considering adopting out her baby - she has a right to change her mind. Until men start having their own babies, they should not have the rights moms do unless they have been practicing parents with the baby/child after its birth, which is a whole 'nother bucket....

Reply

Ethel,

This man gave his sperm with the intention of having a baby. He wasn't trying to collect $25 bucks for beer money and then decided, "Oh hey, being a dad could be narley, man". This surroget was impregnated with this man's sperm willingly and knew that she would not be raising this baby. For her to "change her mind" is unfair to say the least. Andf why should the father be stripped of his rights just because the woman is the one to carry and deliver. She wouldn't even have a baby if it was not for this man's sperm! To consider this man merely a "sperm donor" is ridiculous. He wanted this baby.

Reply

That woman has no legal right to that baby. She's just ticked off about their concern of her smoking and they have every right to be. I get upset with people smoking in the same area as my daughter. The father is NOT just a sperm donor! If this was just IVF than he would not be considered a sperm donor. This is ridiculous. I hope at some point the child gets to be with his rightful parents.

Reply

Amen Babylove, and Ethel to say when men start having their own babies is so stupid, we all know that won't happen. It's not there choice like a vasectomy so come on. He wanted this baby! And maybe he tried to see his child and she wouldn't let him! There is not much he can do then because "He's only the dad." It's wrong!

Reply

To start with, the couple was wrong in not hiring a lawyer. It's sad that a person's word is no longer their bond, but it's part of modern life.

That said, to consider the father a sperm donor is ridiculous. He gave the sperm purposefully. The woman accepted the sperm purposefully. To say this erodes her right to choose makes no sense. She already made the choice to get pregnant and have the baby.

Now, she did use her own egg. I think she is wrong to now decide to keep this baby and go back on her word, but, legally, she does have the right to it. Do I agree with her decision? No. Do I think she has legality behind her? Yes.

I think this case boils down to one thing: Does the father of a living baby have rights to his child if the mother chooses to give birth to it? If we say no to that, then every woman in this country essentially "owns" custody of all her natural-born children, and their fathers have no rights at all. I think THAT is a dangerous road to go down.

This is a sad situation. I think surrogacy can be a wonderful thing for some people. I'm sorry that the people involved in this case can't come to a conclusion without involving the courts.

Reply

It baffles me that these people are gullible enough to try to complete this transaction without a lawyer. I am sorry that this happened to them but they made really poor decisions.

Reply

I think people need to understand that surrogacy is a risky endeavor.

I agree that the bio mom was wrong to go back on her word, and should certainly pay damages. However, I do understand the logic behind letting her keep the child. It was her egg AND she carried the child for nine months. A significant bond was formed during that time. This is true even if she knew from day one that she was supposed to give up the child.

There may have been ignorance here on the part of both the bio parents. On one hand, the father needed to know the state law and get an attorney to help him understand and manage his risks. On the other hand, the bio mom needed to understand what pregnancy would do as far as creating an very strong attachment that would not be easy to break. Perhaps a certain amount of counseling should be required on both sides to make a surrogacy contract legal. This would not completely prevent these problems, but might reduce the risk.

My kids (whom I adopted) were in foster care for a long time and I can tell you, it was very hard for their foster moms to give them up, even though there was no biological link and they knew from day one that their relationship was temporary. It is an awful lot to ask a woman to part with her biological child. It is wonderful that some women can do it, but it is also understandable when some can't. Like other ways of building families, surrogacy cannot be expected to be risk free. During my baby shower, when I mentioned it was hard to really celebrate since there was still a risk that the adoptions would not go through, my mom pointed out that even a pregnant woman always faces a risk that she could miscarry or that her baby could be stillborn. It's never a sure thing until the baby is placed in the parents' arms forever.

Reply

I can't believe these people didn't do this legally. They have no legal protection and thus no recourse. Gestational surrogacy is a little different than what happened in this case. The issues are different when surrogacy and "egg donation" are put together. I think the judge made the right call legally although the term "sperm donor" is a little strong.

Reply

I can't believe these people didn't do this legally. They have no legal protection and thus no recourse. Gestational surrogacy is a little different than what happened in this case. The issues are different when surrogacy and "egg donation" are put together. I think the judge made the right call legally although the term "sperm donor" is a little strong. If they had used a real agency and done this the right way, too, they would have had a better-screened surrogate who would not be a smoker.

Reply

This is why people are going to India for surrogacy.
We have to remember other cases gone wrong with surrogacy, to know you have to have a lawyer and one that understands the laws around surrogacy.

Reply

well, i totally agree that what the surrogate did is wrong. they should have never had the egg donor and the surrogate be the same person. since the judge is allowing this child to remain with the surrogate/birth mom, if the father had not been named a sperm donor with no parental rights, he could have been sued for child support, and wouldn't that just have been a slap in the face!

Reply

Warning, hijack thread...

SKL,
Do you or your kids keep in contact with their foster parents? Is that something that's recommended or forbidden or just discouraged? It'd be a tricky relationship if all parties weren't exactly stable, but if all are fine, I would think it would be a most wonderful thing for the children.

Thanks.

Reply

If the egg was the surrogate's, it's her baby, end of story. The father should be allowed visitation but nothing more.

If the egg was the potential mother's, then the surrogate was only babysitting the foetus until it was old enough to live outside the womb, and the baby should therefore go to the couple.

Reply

Sandyone,

I'll contine contact with the foster families and send them updates on the children. I am not sure how much they can reciprocate, but they have my phone numbers. We do not speak the same language or live in the same country, so it is complicated.

Reply

Thanks, SKL.

Reply

People who do this without rock-solid legal counsel and signed contracts before going forward are idiots and asking for trouble.

Reply

I've looked deeply into becoming a surrogate. I first matched with a couple who wanted to do this without an agency but WITH legal counsel. Do you know it costs well over $100,000 to use a surrogate to have a baby? So, are the people who dont have that kind of money suppose to just go without?? Adoptions arent cheap, either.
These intended parents probably did the best they could afford and trusted this woman to carry a child for them...Using the intended father's sperm and the surrogates egg. I feel for the intended mother, not having eggs to have a baby of her own.
That baby was conceived out of love between two people. And those people, who wanted that child in the first place, should get full custody.
If the surrogate wants a baby, she should conceive one on her own.

AND ETHEL...
I'm sorry us pro-lifers are ruining your day. IN MY OPINION, A father has every right to have say into whether or not his child should be born or killed in utero. After all, the baby is 1/2 his. In case you didnt know, it does take two pieces to conceive a baby. Why is it just up to the mother to decide the fate of the child??

Reply