FL Surrogate Wants To Keep Baby AND Get Child Support

[MosMom]

I think she may have planned it. I think it is a distinct possibility. People are nuts. I don't put anything past anybody.

 

[kdibattista]

That's got to be the best reason I've ever seen to make open adoptions and this type of surrogacy illegal. It's so one-sided that I can't imagine any couple ever going that route.

Anne

I would not say make them illegal, but I just wish people would be better informed and really do their research. Anyone who questions us as to why we are not adopting domestically doesn't realize the ins and outs of the process. I know there are plenty of well intentioned birthmoms out there and plenty of open adoptions that do work out beautifully. I don't want to give the impression that they never work out... most do. But we just couldn't take that chance... financially or emotionally.

My heart breaks for the couple and for the baby.

 

[chobie]

Why thankfully? Do you think it's ok for birth moms to defraud possible adoptive couples?

I don't think its fraud. $1500 is nothing, Maybe a month's living expenses and she was pregnant for 9. There have been cases where women took thousands of dollars from couples and were not even pregnant. Now that is fraud. But when it comes to changing your mind about giving a baby up that would be extremely hard to show that it was planned.

 

[chobie]

I think she may have planned it. I think it is a distinct possibility. People are nuts. I don't put anything past anybody.

Right she could have concocted this diabolical plan to bilk a man out of 1500 and few hundred a month in child support.

Or she could be a poor woman who thought she was doing a good thing and would get a few thousand in compensation, but after 9 months of pregnancy and giving birth realized she could not give the baby up.

 

[Beth76]

I don't think its fraud. $1500 is nothing, Maybe a month's living expenses and she was pregnant for 9. There have been cases where women took thousands of dollars from couples and were not even pregnant. Now that is fraud. But when it comes to changing your mind about giving a baby up that would be extremely hard to show that it was planned.

She took the money (what's the difference what the amount is) and DID NOT SIGN the contract and pretended that she did. How is that not fraud and how is that "not planned"?

 

[MELSMICE]

Stranger things have happened. The fact that she never signed the paperwork makes me at least wonder.

Anne

Yes, this makes me wonder also.

 

[va32h]

She took the money (what's the difference what the amount is) and DID NOT SIGN the contract and pretended that she did. How is that not fraud and how is that "not planned"?

Where did it say that she pretended to sign the contract?

 

[mickeyfan2]

If the birth mother does keep the little girl and the birth father pays child support, I would hope he would get credit for the $1500 he already paid. This situation is no different than if they had made her the old fashioned way. In that case she would not be paid to carry the baby to term.

 

[DisneyMommyMichelle]

I can understand that she changed her mind, I truly can. But I can't understand that she hasn't returned the $1500 and is looking for child support. That's where I lost respect for her and her cause.

Anne

yup, same here!

 

[KariC]

You know, I am most interested in the fertility clinic aspect of this....Having used a highly reputable one for all of our needs (many many years), and investigating surrogacy for our final two frozen embryos (my body and pregnancy don't seem to do well--on bedrest now).....I can't imagine that they would not be a part of all of this. We had to go thru psych evals, sign legal documents before we ever did an egg retrieval (my eggs, DH's sperms) that would even indicate what would happen in the event of either of our deaths, and on and on. I was just checking their website for the surrogacy issues last night....and it sounds like they make sure i's are dotted, t's are crossed to prevent this type of thing and all parties have lawyers involved up front.

So, I wonder, what is their responsibility? Why would they do the IVF transfer or the IntraUterine Insemination without all of the paperwork signed in advance?

What a sticky mess.

 

[Beth76]

Where did it say that she pretended to sign the contract?

Well there was a contract that she didn't sign yet went on with the agreement. Granted the couple was completely stupid for not checking said signature. But she accepted money, became pregnant all under the guise of this contract that she didn't sign. If she didn't pretend to sign the contract wouldn't she have said to the couple, "oh by the way I'm not signing the contract."

 

[pixiemomma]

Very good points, KariC. A friend of mine was a surrogate (her eggs were not used) and it was not a fly-by-night process. From the beginning to end, psych evalution-birth of the babies, the process was nearly two years. She gave birth in PA and the parent's names went on the birth certificate.

 

[va32h]

Well there was a contract that she didn't sign yet went on with the agreement. Granted the couple was completely stupid for not checking said signature. But she accepted money, became pregnant all under the guise of this contract that she didn't sign. If she didn't pretend to sign the contract wouldn't she have said to the couple, "oh by the way I'm not signing the contract."

Not signing it, and pretending to sign it are two different things. We don't know why she didn't sign it. We don't know why the adoptive parents assumed that she did or didn't verify that she did.

And we have no idea what this woman would have or should have said, since we really don't know anything about her.

If all we have to go on is this little scrap of an article, I don't have enough information to call the birth mother a gold digger, scam artist, or similar.

The woman's attorney did not say that she is asking for child support, yet that "fact" has been used to condemn this woman for several pages now. Oh sure, the attorney didn't deny it either, but until she does, I don't think it is accurate or fair to judge the birth mother based on one claim by the adoptive parents in one article.

I am reserving judgement on all parties until I know more facts. But my first thought was "this is why surrogacy is a bad idea." I don't think that using donor eggs would have made it any less of a problem either: I think it would have added one more "parent" into the mix who could assert parental rights.

 

[Beth76]

Not signing it, and pretending to sign it are two different things. We don't know why she didn't sign it.

True, we don't know why she didn't sign. But we know that she didn't sign, didn't tell the couple and continued with the contractual obligations. To me, that's pretending to sign a contract.

 

[kdibattista]

True, we don't know why she didn't sign. But we know that she didn't sign, didn't tell the couple and continued with the contractual obligations. To me, that's pretending to sign a contract.

Yes, but the couple was also aware that the surrogate had the right to terminate the contract even if she did sign it. So, I don't see her signing it/not signing it is a sign of intent. She had the means to get out of it anyway. I also found out that the traditional surrogacy laws in Florida (traditional meaning the surrogacy is using the surrogate's own eggs) follow the same laws as adoption, in which there is a 7 day relinquishment period.

Part of me wonders if this is all on the up and up on ALL sides. I wonder if because the couple had done this before, because they found her from an online advertisement and because they didn't use the previous surrogate even though it was a "wonderful" experience, if they were maybe trying to cut corners somehow. If the couple didn't realize that the contract was signed, surely their attorney (which they are required to have according to Florida law) would have known. The more I think about it, the more this doesn't make sense.

 

[mickeyfan2]

True, we don't know why she didn't sign. But we know that she didn't sign, didn't tell the couple and continued with the contractual obligations. To me, that's pretending to sign a contract.

I would not have given her any sperm until I had the signed contract in my lawyers hands and he gave me the .

 

[mickeyfan2]

Yes, but the couple was also aware that the surrogate had the right to terminate the contract even if she did sign it. So, I don't see her signing it/not signing it is a sign of intent. She had the means to get out of it anyway. I also found out that the traditional surrogacy laws in Florida (traditional meaning the surrogacy is using the surrogate's own eggs) follow the same laws as adoption, in which there is a 7 day relinquishment period.

Part of me wonders if this is all on the up and up on ALL sides. I wonder if because the couple had done this before, because they found her from an online advertisement and because they didn't use the previous surrogate even though it was a "wonderful" experience, if they were maybe trying to cut corners somehow. If the couple didn't realize that the contract was signed, surely their attorney (which they are required to have according to Florida law) would have known. The more I think about it, the more this doesn't make sense.

ITA

It sure seems like the couple was trying to do this on the cheap and it may now cost them more financially and especially emotionally.

I too wondered why they got a different women the second time. It would seem logical to use the wonderful women again and to make the two kids 100% blood siblings.

 

[declansdad]

In the US, is intent involved as an ingredient to a contract. Cashing the $1500 deposit and accepting the husband's sperm in order to fertilize her egg would constitute intent to me.

 

[ducklite]

ITA

It sure seems like the couple was trying to do this on the cheap and it may now cost them more financially and especially emotionally.

I too wondered why they got a different women the second time. It would seem logical to use the wonderful women again and to make the two kids 100% blood siblings.

It's also possible that the first surrogate wouldn't or couldn't provide this service again. I think this is going to be a na interesting case to watch, from both a legal and moral perspective. I think it will be precedent setting however it turns out.

Anne

 

[chobie]

It the US, is intent involved as an ingredient to a contract. By cashing the $1500 deposit and accepting the husband's sperm in order to fertilize her egg would constitute intent to me.

It doesn't matter, she could still back out even if her intent was to go through with it. Surrogacy is treated like adoption here -contract or no.