Surrogate baby trapped in legal limbo
Categories: Newborns, Pregnancy & Birth, Adoption, In The News, Weird But True, Single Parenting
(Click the photo to see the 10 Dumbest Laws in America)
For one thirteen-day-old baby, life is turning out to be no cake walk. A newborn brought into the world nearly two weeks ago by native Indian Priti Patel, who served as a surrogate mother, is stuck in India. Her would-be parents, Ikufumi Yamada and Yuki Yamada, divorced right before she was born.
Yuki no longer wants to adopt the child, but Ikufumi does. According to Indian law, however, children may not be adopted by single men. As a result, the newborn is living in India with Ikufumi 's mother, who is staying on to care for the newborn. The baby has yet to be adopted. Since she has no adoption papers, she cannot be issued a passport. And, because she can't get a passport, she can't leave the country.
Patel has also left the scene after serving as the surrogate. She is part of a process known as commercial surrogacy wherein couples who cannot have a child on their own provide the sperm and eggs to a surrogate mother, who carries the child to term and then is paid a fee for her services. The couple then generally adopt their child and are on their merry way. Not so much for the twelve-day-old, who at this point I don't think even has a name! What a sad state things are in when a little technical legality keeps a man from legitimately adopting his own child!
Pic by ayahthetiger.
Recent Posts
- Carrie Underwood Worms Her Way Onto 'Sesame Street' (2/09/2010)
- Heart-Shaped Valentine's Day Crafts (2/09/2010)
- Study Suggests Link Between Autism and Parents' Ages (2/09/2010)
- Just Chute Me! (Or: Do We REALLY Have to Play with Our Kids?) (2/09/2010)
- Atlanta Billboards Proclaim 'Black Children Are An Endangered Species' (2/09/2010)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Mihir 8-07-2008 @ 11:55AM
what does the picture have to do with the article?
in response to the article, does Indian law allow for adoption by single women?
Reply
kathy 8-08-2008 @ 2:09PM
has brad pitt an angelina seen this article??????
Rose 8-08-2008 @ 2:22PM
The children suffer when people and doctor's play with mother nature and God's creation. Besides, isn't that baby related to the woman who carried the child, as well, since she is connected physically to that person and came from that woman's womb? What a mess for a child to grow up and not know who they really are because of people for hire to carry babies and give them away.
Reply
XSemperIdem5 8-08-2008 @ 2:46PM
It's sad that it takes something like this for lawmakers to realize mistakes. It's the man's child, just let him take the baby. How is this even an issue of adoption when it involves the man's DNA?
Reply
Kaylee 8-08-2008 @ 7:51PM
A mans AND WOMANS DNA, it takes 2
Ashley 8-13-2008 @ 11:01AM
Why should they even have to adopt their own child, it is their egg and sperm, once the child is born it should be considered theirs, and then the mother can just give up her rights as if she had had it herself. Its really sad that the mother just gave up on her child like that too.
Reply
Angiebaby 8-08-2008 @ 2:54PM
I am guessing Ikufumi is the male donor for the baby. If so, I'm not exactly clear why he would have to "adopt" his own child. But anyway, why doesn't Ikufumi Yamada's mother, or parents, adopt the baby and bring her to their home? Surrogacy could be a viable option for parents who cannot conceive or carry a child, but in the US, the "mother", even if she is merely the carrier of another couple's embryo, has too many rights, I'm not sure it would be worth the risk of losing "my" child to a surrogate. Although this is not an option at this phase of my, if the embryo was "conceived" with my eggs and my husbands sperm, I might have consider another woman carrying our baby to term. But honestly, I'm not open to my baby being conceived between my husband's sperm another woman's eggs while we are married. Naturally, this is not the same as step-children who are a part of my husband's life before me, and would be welcomed. And this is not meant to pass any judgement on any other woman's choice... simply what I would prefer.
Reply
TC 8-08-2008 @ 2:56PM
If the child was concieved with the father's sperm,then isn't it his child and if so, why would she need to be adopted by him? I would think it would be more of an issue with the mother, no longer married to the father. Couldn't the father go after the mother for support? All the had to do was stay together until the child was born then go their merry ways if thats what the wanted. Seems selfish & thoughtless, for the baby, to end things just before the birth.
Reply
joanne wine 8-08-2008 @ 2:59PM
While I may not understand why a person feels the need to have a child of their own genes as I have had five children, I just don't understand why adoption is not considered. There are so many children who need a good home...a child is a child is a child....regardless of who the sperm/egg donor is.
Reply
paula 8-10-2008 @ 6:03PM
If I am reading this article correctly, the sperm and egg belongged to the couple, therefore why does the child have to be adpoted by the father? She belongs to him, just as if his wife were carrying her. The article says that Patel was a surrogate
"Patel has also left the scene after serving as the surrogate. She is part of a process known as commercial surrogacy wherein couples who cannot have a child on their own provide the sperm and eggs to a surrogate mother, who carries the child to term and then is paid a fee for her services."
Patel did a wonderful thing for this couple, but the baby wasnt hers, she carried it (did her job) and left. The mother doesnt want the baby (she should be made to give up parental rights) but the father does. She already belongs to him. (its his sperm, he paid Patel for her use of her uterus) What is the problem?
Reply
tc 8-08-2008 @ 3:02PM
i agree that surrogates, who are only carry the baby and do not donate eggs for the porceedure, can really stick it to someone. Wasn't that the issue with MaryBth Whitehead? I may bewrong, but I thought she had carried the child to term that was concieved, not with MaryBeth's eggs or her husbands sperm, but solely from the married couple who she agreed and was paid by to have the child.Again, I want to stress I may be wrong that the baby was nto concieved with her eggs.
Reply
Tina 8-08-2008 @ 3:30PM
If it is the guy's child produced from HIS sperm--how is it being "adopted"? Let him take his kid home. The government of India needs to fix this mess...
Reply
Paul Harris 8-08-2008 @ 3:31PM
The real problem here is our utter lack of understanding or appreciation for different cultures! How conceited of us to believe that we, (Americans) are the only people who know how to conduct our society. Remember my friends, The United States of America is among the youngest of the worlds nations. How dare us to presume to know how the rest of the world should or shouldn't live! And, although I know he won't, perhaps someone needs to inform our president that he and his cronies were not "ANNOINTED" AS THE saviors of the known world!
Reply
Jill Nudo 8-08-2008 @ 5:39PM
Thank you, Paul. It is always a pleasure to read an intelligent post. Jill
ohduckydoodoo 8-08-2008 @ 3:48PM
Ok, so I look at this as the dumbest thing ever!!! Get a surrogate then divorce??? How friggin stupid are these people???? This doesn't even have anything to do with the laws!!!! This is pure stupidity!!!!!!!! Think before you act!!!!!
Reply
jazzyazaliah 8-08-2008 @ 4:01PM
I have a good knowledge of other cultures, and I've had quite a bit of experience with Indian culture inparticular. The issue here is definitely cultural. The Indian culture is one of caste and status. The surrogate mother probably had little choice in becoming a surrogate. It was likely her families decision, a decision based on the desire to improve their caste. She has likely moved on to surrogate another child for another couple, whether she wanted to or not. That's how it works. Women, and in many cases young men, do what is decided for them, not what they decide to do. That's one of the reasons the rich are rich and the rest are dirt poor in India. The divide there is not only enormous, but it is entrenched deeper than the ocean.
Reply
jazzyazaliah 8-08-2008 @ 4:01PM
As for the legality of the matter, even the people in India will tell you that the laws there are backward and archaic. Why? Because they are made by those protecting their caste and status. Graft, nepotism, and the all-important "keeping face" are integral parts of Indian politics. Everywhere in the world people care for themselves and their families (and many times just themselves) above everyone else, and nowhere is this more true than in India. Granted, I've met some wonderful Indian people, but I've met many, I mean MANY, who are absolutely self-absorbed verging on evil. People who would slit your throat to get what they want without thinking twice, as long as they could be sure they wouldn't suffer any consequences. Not to say that I haven't met those types in pretty much every race I've observed, but Indian people, men in particular, can be especially vicious, and frighteningly duplicitous. At least, that's been my experience with them.
Reply
Truthteller 8-08-2008 @ 4:04PM
There are good reasons why some people can't have babies.
Reply
Bill West 8-08-2008 @ 5:04PM
Surrogacy is not the kind of thing you can back out of once started. The legal problems alone can be overwhelming, no matter what country you are in. Adoption is a much better option, and there are unwanted babies born every day.
Reply
poopchutes 8-08-2008 @ 5:06PM
Why doesnt the grandmother just adopt her just so she can leave
Reply