Post by penguingrrl on Mar 4, 2013 21:13:53 GMT -5
What a disturbing story. That surrogate sounds like a manipulator who changed the situation to best suit her. And the poor genetic parents were trying to make a selfless choice to prevent their child pain. While I don't like the idea of forcing a woman to have an abortion she agreed to it in the surrogacy agreement.
You haven't taken on the responsibility of raising her. You aren't paying for her care. You didn't spare her pain and suffering.
You have done everything YOU wanted. You have put yourself and your wanton desire for money (and maybe a little publicity) ahead of this child and her parents. You're the opposite of her mother.
It was obvious that surrogate was in it for all the wrong reasons. I mean who hunts for someone to place a baby in your belly so you can pay the bills. Seems like a disaster just waiting to happen.
I am very thankful there are families out there that are willing to give this little girl a loving home for her time here on earth. That is the bright side of all of this.
Post by somersault72 on Mar 5, 2013 9:14:55 GMT -5
Wow. What a mess. For a second, I did feel sorry for the surrogate, because while the ultrasound did show abnormalities, it wasn't nearly as serious as what came to light after the baby was born. But then I got to the part about her signing the contract saying she'd terminate if there were anomalies, and being willing to take the 15K, and then essentially becoming a martyr and now she makes me sick. I agree with the pp who said the article squicked her out, because that's exactly how I felt reading it.
I don't mean to sound flip but how was this woman ever able to be a surrogate?
Exactly - I don't know much about the process, but it seems like there should be some sort of psychological testing involved before you are placed in the pool of surrogates for families to choose from.
I don't mean to sound flip but how was this woman ever able to be a surrogate?
Exactly - I don't know much about the process, but it seems like there should be some sort of psychological testing involved before you are placed in the pool of surrogates for families to choose from.
You mean like - more than just meeting in the park as if you were selling the reefer?
Exactly - I don't know much about the process, but it seems like there should be some sort of psychological testing involved before you are placed in the pool of surrogates for families to choose from.
You mean like - more than just meeting in the park as if you were selling the reefer?
Or not being able to pay your rent and looking for someone desperate enough to choose you before the 1st of the month comes around?
A close friend of mine was a surrogate. Yes, she had to go through extensive psychological and physical evaluations before she was even matched with a couple. Then she had to take a VERY specific questionnaire about what she was willing to do, including different stages of termination for a variety of circumstances. The reason, obviously, is so they can match up surrogates with parents who are on the same page.
All this said, I feel bad for the parents. They had to right to make that decision.
Exactly - I don't know much about the process, but it seems like there should be some sort of psychological testing involved before you are placed in the pool of surrogates for families to choose from.
You mean like - more than just meeting in the park as if you were selling the reefer?
I know! It sounds like she was with an agency which is even weirder. I could see these types of situations pop up if it's all done independently. Maybe this was just a shady agency.
I don't mean to sound flip but how was this woman ever able to be a surrogate?
Exactly - I don't know much about the process, but it seems like there should be some sort of psychological testing involved before you are placed in the pool of surrogates for families to choose from.
I agree with MLWooten. Technically this is a case of a gestational carrier, not a surrogate, and I wish that was made more clear in the article. Beyond that, there is typically a giant laundry list of psychological, physical, financial, and background screening that happens before a GC is placed into the pool to be matched with intended parents (IP's). The fact that this nutjob managed to slip through the cracks is concerning to me and I would hope the IP's are pursuing all legal avenues to make sure their agency does a review of its current screening procedures; what's in place now clearly isn't enough.
Oh, and as for the financial aspect, $22k might be what the GC is paid (although even that seems low- average is about $35k- $40k or so, with more being paid to successful/experienced GCs) but the actual fees the IPs paid out were likely MUCH higher. Most agencies DH and I looked at would have been in the ballpark of around $60-$75k. There are a few where the base rate is $115k, and some go as high as almost $200k, too.
Just so I have my terminology correct, does the term surrogate mean that you used your own egg whereas a gestational carrier means you didn't?
Yep. GC = the couple's eggs/sperm create embryos which are then transferred into the carrier. Traditional surrogacy is the intended dad's sperm w/ surrogate's eggs (which obviously is a much squickier situation, legally).
Does that 22k go to certain medical costs or do the parents pay for those on top of that?
From the research I've done, usually medical costs are above and beyond any payment the surrogate gets. And I believe there are some states that don't allow direct payment to the surrogate, so instead bio-parents will pay rent, electrical, bills, etc.
In this case, the surrogate was transferred two frozen embryos from the couples own attempts at IVF. The IP (intended parents) did not disclose the Intended Mother was not the genetic mother until after the transfer at some point.
The Intended father is the genetic father of the baby. The IPs have special needs children at home, based on their prematurity, and the difficulty the IM had carrying to term.
So, this is a shady gestational carrier, shady shady. The IPs have some shadiness, too, not disclosing the IM's non genetic connection to the embryo, and the Adoptive Parents are shady because they encouraged and assisted the "surrogate" to move to Michigan where the laws were in her favor.
The only person not shady in this whole story is the baby, who is suffering multiple surgeries and birth defects.
In this case, the surrogate was transferred two frozen embryos from the couples own attempts at IVF. The IP (intended parents) did not disclose the Intended Mother was not the genetic mother until after the transfer at some point.
The Intended father is the genetic father of the baby. The IPs have special needs children at home, based on their prematurity, and the difficulty the IM had carrying to term.
So, this is a shady gestational carrier, shady shady. The IPs have some shadiness, too, not disclosing the IM's non genetic connection to the embryo, and the Adoptive Parents are shady because they encouraged and assisted the "surrogate" to move to Michigan where the laws were in her favor.
The only person not shady in this whole story is the baby, who is suffering multiple surgeries and birth defects.
Fuck people, man.
I am asking because I don't know, but do the IP's have any moral/ethical or legal obligation to disclose that to a GC? For all legal intents and purposes, the IPs are sole owners of the embryo(s) that were transferred, regardless of genetic connection.
For DH and I do do IVF, we had to sign 60 pages of documents regarding legal ownership of any embryos that were created and what we would choose to do with them (in the event of divorce or death or eventual use w/ a GC). Even if we had used a donor egg or donor sperm, we would have legal rights to any embryos created, NOT the genetic parent.
In this case, the surrogate was transferred two frozen embryos from the couples own attempts at IVF. The IP (intended parents) did not disclose the Intended Mother was not the genetic mother until after the transfer at some point.
The Intended father is the genetic father of the baby. The IPs have special needs children at home, based on their prematurity, and the difficulty the IM had carrying to term.
So, this is a shady gestational carrier, shady shady. The IPs have some shadiness, too, not disclosing the IM's non genetic connection to the embryo, and the Adoptive Parents are shady because they encouraged and assisted the "surrogate" to move to Michigan where the laws were in her favor.
The only person not shady in this whole story is the baby, who is suffering multiple surgeries and birth defects.
Fuck people, man.
I am asking because I don't know, but do the IP's have any moral/ethical or legal obligation to disclose that to a GC? For all legal intents and purposes, the IPs are sole owners of the embryo(s) that were transferred, regardless of genetic connection.
For DH and I do do IVF, we had to sign 60 pages of documents regarding legal ownership of any embryos that were created and what we would choose to do with them (in the event of divorce or death or eventual use w/ a GC). Even if we had used a donor egg or donor sperm, we would have legal rights to any embryos created, NOT the genetic parent.
I think in a normal situation no, but my reading of this was that it didn't come out until the abortion stuff started happening. And they held themselves out as GPs and there are very specific laws for genetic parents in CT, vs. IPs.
So on the regular, no they don't have a moral compulsion to tell, but when shit hits the fan like this you sort of do.
Wow. What a mess. For a second, I did feel sorry for the surrogate, because while the ultrasound did show abnormalities, it wasn't nearly as serious as what came to light after the baby was born. But then I got to the part about her signing the contract saying she'd terminate if there were anomalies, and being willing to take the 15K, and then essentially becoming a martyr and now she makes me sick. I agree with the pp who said the article squicked her out, because that's exactly how I felt reading it.
Yeah, see I sort of doubt this. I think this is part of the bias of the surrogate and the reporting.
I am asking because I don't know, but do the IP's have any moral/ethical or legal obligation to disclose that to a GC? For all legal intents and purposes, the IPs are sole owners of the embryo(s) that were transferred, regardless of genetic connection.
For DH and I do do IVF, we had to sign 60 pages of documents regarding legal ownership of any embryos that were created and what we would choose to do with them (in the event of divorce or death or eventual use w/ a GC). Even if we had used a donor egg or donor sperm, we would have legal rights to any embryos created, NOT the genetic parent.
I think in a normal situation no, but my reading of this was that it didn't come out until the abortion stuff started happening. And they held themselves out as GPs and there are very specific laws for genetic parents in CT, vs. IPs.
So on the regular, no they don't have a moral compulsion to tell, but when shit hits the fan like this you sort of do.
Right, but your comment about "shadiness" implies that they were intentionally withholding information that would be to their detriment, either ethically or legally. IDK if that's really the case. (And again, I'm just speculating - I know CT laws for GCs are some of the strictest in the country but beyond that I'm not real familiar with them since H and I were successful w/IVF and haven't pursued a GC further)
Wow I don't usually get judgey about these situations but this one is messed up. First of all, the intended parents should have considered a situation like this and created a contract with the surrogate to resolve it. What pregnant woman doesn't at least consider what she'd do if the fetus is found to have health problems?
And I'm really side eyeing their decision to let the baby be adopted by another family. I understand that they didn't want to bring this baby into the world. But once it was out of their hands and she was born anyway, they should have stepped up. That's what you do for your children. Period. What would they do if one of their older children was in a bad car crash and suffered severe disabilities as a result? Just abandon him or her? Doubtful. You go into parenthood knowing that your children make you vulnerable to the world and that they might get hurt or sick. Things don't always work out for the best. You know this ahead of time.
What a sad situation. I'm glad the baby was adopted by a loving family at least.
Wow I don't usually get judgey about these situations but this one is messed up. First of all, the intended parents should have considered a situation like this and created a contract with the surrogate to resolve it. What pregnant woman doesn't at least consider what she'd do if the fetus is found to have health problems?
And I'm really side eyeing their decision to let the baby be adopted by another family. I understand that they didn't want to bring this baby into the world. But once it was out of their hands and she was born anyway, they should have stepped up. That's what you do for your children. Period. What would they do if one of their older children was in a bad car crash and suffered severe disabilities as a result? Just abandon him or her? Doubtful. You go into parenthood knowing that your children make you vulnerable to the world and that they might get hurt or sick. Things don't always work out for the best. You know this ahead of time.
What a sad situation. I'm glad the baby was adopted by a loving family at least.
Did you read the article or any of the comments here at all? There WAS a contract in place with express agreement by the surrogate to terminate in the event of severe fetal malformation. The surrogate breached the contract, attempted to extort more money out of the IPs to the tune of $15,000, and then when that didn't work, ran away to another state and arranged her own adoptive parents for the baby. All of that is against the contract.
And your second comment is just downright asinine. Yeah, go ahead and tell a family they need to go completely bankrupt and not be able to care for their other children at home in order to pay for the extensive, extensive medical care for a child that they a) elected to terminate and b) will have such a poor quality of life in severe amounts of pain that she probably won't see many birthdays anyways.
Oh, but every parent should be completely prepared to parent even the most medically fragile of children no matter how impossible it is to prepare for a situation such as this.
I missed the part about the contract. But I do stand by my opinion that the IPs should have taken her home. Should people be prepared to parent even the most medically fragile children even if they're not prepared? Yes, I think so. Anything can happen to your children even if they're born healthy. What if your kid gets cancer at seven? Or is in a horrific car accident and left paralyzed? God forbid, but you can't know for sure that that will never happen. You don't just abandon them. Obviously this situation is more complicated in that they weren't able to abort. But once that decision was taken out of their hands, I do think they should have taken her home. If they don't want her to live long in pain, then they can make decisions regarding that with her doctors.You're free to disagree of course.
I missed the part about the contract. But I do stand by my opinion that the IPs should have taken her home. Should people be prepared to parent even the most medically fragile children even if they're not prepared? Yes, I think so. Anything can happen to your children even if they're born healthy. What if your kid gets cancer at seven? Or is in a horrific car accident and left paralyzed? God forbid, but you can't know for sure that that will never happen. You don't just abandon them. Obviously this situation is more complicated in that they weren't able to abort. But once that decision was taken out of their hands, I do think they should have taken her home. If they don't want her to live long in pain, then they can make decisions regarding that with her doctors.You're free to disagree of course.
The GC left the state to absolve the IPs of their rights.