Surrogacy gone wrong. Who do you side with?

[gopher101]

Read this article: Surrogacy gone wrong

Wow. The whole thing is just messy as it could be. That poor baby.

 

[happily single]

Wow.the poor child. so Many issues. 1. How could these people move forward without any type of contract or agreement in writing? 2. The bio parents demanded the newborn be removed from their health insurance. Who does that?

 

[LSUmiss]

So is it really surrogacy but more adoption? The bio parents & the ones who conceived & carried the child?

 

[neverlandsky]

Other: The Fiancée who got the heck out of dodge.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Neither of the couples were ever fit to do this arrangement.

I don't need any legal advice to know that complications can and often do arise in cases where there is a biological parent around. Even in same-sex couples there is a complication if they use one of the couples sperm or egg. The article may point to a lack of laws but this isn't necessarily one to fully blame the laws. A legal contract should have been done. It still could have been contested later on but it's better to have something better than just FB messages and to never have met? This shows a lack of the full understanding of what having a child means. It's a serious responsibility, you're signing up for a life-long commitment and you're not even going to meet up much less try to legally protect yourself?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Other: The Fiancée who got the heck out of dodge.

I wouldn't side with them either. They left their child abandoning them. This was supposed to be her child just as much as the main woman in the legal battle. I'm putting them in the category of "not fit" either. At least the story doesn't mention any contact with the fiancee after the breakup.

 

[disney4us2002]

I guess these matters are different based on state law. Where I am in Maryland, the bio parents can change their minds up to 6 months following the birth. Since the bio parents, asked to reverse the guardianship at 4 1/2 months, I side with the bio parents.

 

[Grand Koalafornian]

It's a long article and I didn't read the whole thing, but I think the best thing for Keanu is stay with the adoptive mother. The bio parents clearly had no intention of raising him from the time before he was conceived until he was 4 1/2 months old. This is what they agreed to. If they weren't sure that they could give up a child, then they shouldn't have promised to give it up.

But man, I cannot comprehend the sheer carelessness of their plan. That's not how surrogacy works. That's not how any of this works. How can you neglect to protect yourself in such an important matter? No one was thinking this through.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

2. The bio parents demanded the newborn be removed from their health insurance. Who does that?

I didn't read that. I did read that when the newborn was added for whatever reason the eldest being removed from the plan without the bio mom consenting. Not sure if it was how many children the plan allowed for or whatever. The article didn't seem to go into that.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I guess these matters are different based on state law. Where I am in Maryland, the bio parents can change their minds up to 6 months following the birth. Since the bio parents, asked to reverse the guardianship at 4 1/2 months, I side with the bio parents.

I think the reason why this presents questions is because the bio parents didn't get pregnant and decide to give their baby up for adoption. They said they would carry this couple a child for them akin to surrogacy. Legally I think that's what is causing the issues it would seem using what laws are most applicable to the state. I would imagine there would be a more clear cut even with laws not present if this was the former situation with a couple who became pregnant and consciously decided to give their child up for adoption. In this case the bio parents didn't get pregnant to have their child they did it solely to give the baby to another couple. They didn't have a vested interest in the child in question.

 

[sam_gordon]

I didn't read that. I did read that when the newborn was added for whatever reason the eldest being removed from the plan without the bio mom consenting. Not sure if it was how many children the plan allowed for or whatever. The article didn't seem to go into that.

It did say "a clerical error". I don't get that. All of the various health plans we've had available to us I don't think ever limited how many people were on the plan. And we had to file paperwork to add them. It was never automatically done.

I side with the adoptive parents. That was the agreement (although the agreement was horribly done), bio mom gave up the child for 4 1/2 months before having a change of heart, and unless there's some specific reason the "intended mother" can't/shouldn't keep the child, I don't agree with rescinding the agreement.

 

[AndreaA]

Adoptive mom, no question.

I mean the whole thing is ridiculously lackadaisical in its planning. However, the bio parents never tried to see the baby and didn’t really request him back until 8 months of age. The message at 4.5 months, which was spurred by the insurance mixup was “adopt him or give him back” - and the adoptive mom HAD to wait until at least 6mo. Not sure why she waited until 8mo, but it’s not like the bio parents were there at 6mo on the dot saying “you didn’t file, hand him over.” Yeah, instead, one of them threw a brick two months later... Not seeing anything that demonstrates the adoptive mom is unfit.

 

[PollyannaMom]

I'm on the kid's side. But I think the best thing for him is to stay where he's been all along.

What an awful situation from the start, though! - Nobody should be deciding on the life of a child over Facebook. None of those parents "deserve" him, but he deserves the "least unfortunate of several unfortunate options" - which I guess means what limited stability he already has.

 

[Princessclab]

I voted bio parents. This is what I got from the story.

First the conception by intercourse is pretty unusual, kind of creepy IMO.

The adoptive mom is not stable, either in her realtionship and mentally.
Why did the adoptive mom not put the baby on her health insurance, she had guardianship? It appears that the adoptive couple did not want to take responsibility.
It appears the bio parents believed that the adoptive parents were together and the baby would have both parents but intervened when the adoptive parents behaviors did not seem to be in the best interest or safety of the baby.
Just a couple of thoughts, IMO. Very messy.

 

[nancipants]

Surrogacy, adoption, and donation (egg/sperm/embryo) have LOTS of laws surrounding them, all varying by state. Everyone involved in this situation was foolish to not get lawyers involved and write contracts. Anyone who has any knowledge of fertility issues would have told them this. I feel for the child.

 

[Forevermarypoppins]

Wow, just wow!

Based on the article info, I would favor the Adoptive Mother.

 

[sam_gordon]

The adoptive mom is not stable, either in her realtionship and mentally.

What makes you say the 'mentally' portion? I know the adoptive mom and her (then) fiancé broke up, but if that was a reason to have kids taken away, we'd have even more kids in foster homes.

Why did the adoptive mom not put the baby on her health insurance, she had guardianship? It appears that the adoptive couple did not want to take responsibility.

I must have missed this also. Did the adoptive mom not put the baby on her health insurance?

It appears the bio parents believed that the adoptive parents were together and the baby would have both parents but intervened when the adoptive parents behaviors did not seem to be in the best interest or safety of the baby.
Just a couple of thoughts, IMO. Very messy.

Except she didn't "intervene" until 4 1/2 months after the baby was born, then again at eight months.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

wow. legally that is a mess. the idea was for the bio parents to conceive a child, pop the baby out and then just give it to the other couple. No written contract, no legal agreements other than Facebook messages, neither adoptive parent is a bio parent, the adoptive parents have separated. The two women involved had never even met in person until the kid was born.

Article says right there in the hospital the bio parents handed the baby over to this lady they'd just met in person, which caused hospital staff to file a neglect complaint. Then the bio parents flipped out and asked for the kid back and when adoptive mom (who hasn't legally adopted the kid yet) says no they start harassing her. Judge had to pick the lesser of two evils since the state of Massachusetts had no real guidance in the form of law. Looks like the kid stays with adoptive mom.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Sounds like
1. The fiance was the smartest one of the bunch.
2. That kid is going to need a lot of therapy.

 

[gopher101]

I bet after this Massachusetts will put a new law on the books about this. And this case will be put into law books. I just do not get why no one thought to visit a lawyer, or even google state laws about this.