Surrogate offered $10,000 to abort baby

[Deleted]

Mar 5, 2013 11:38:12 GMT -5 pescalita said:

Mar 5, 2013 11:21:14 GMT -5 @lcap said:

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.

Because they wanted to make her a ward of the state and put her in foster care. The article doesn't really say but I'm assuming that if they told Kelley that they wanted to take her home and raise her after all she would have let them. That was the plan they all agreed upon after all.

The whole thing is desperately sad. The GC was absolutely 100% in the wrong. I just can't believe that they let the baby be adopted by someone else, is all.

[runforrest]

Damn, what a mess.

I read the article but still don't see how the surrogate was allowed to just up and leave with someone else's kid. Isn't a surrogate just carrying the baby and has no parental rights/decision making capabilities, right?

I think the intended parents had every right to decide what to do with their baby, even though it was probably a heart-wrenching decision.

Also, one lesson learned should be to have an iron-clad contract. The article said that "major fetal abnormalities" or whatever the terminology was, was not defined in the contract. I think if they had specifically outlined what that meant, or who gets to decide what is a "major fetal abnormality", maybe they would have had more say?

Either way, at this point the baby is born and I just hope she can live as long and as happy a life as possible.

[KateAggie]

Mar 5, 2013 11:21:14 GMT -5 @lcap said:

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.

It's a lot more complicated to decide what choices are the most humane after the child is born. Which surgeries are "fair", which treatment plan causes the least amount of pain, etc. The parents wanted to prevent a lifetime of pain and suffering. Their only option shouldn't be to make those decisions after the child is born. Not like they were even given an opportunity to make decisions for the child after birth, since Ms. Surrogate decided that she could play God as long as it fit her opinions and beliefs.

[ttt]

Mar 5, 2013 11:21:14 GMT -5 @lcap said:

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.

Their other children are special needs, so I think they are well aware of all this.

[pescalita]

Mar 5, 2013 11:45:16 GMT -5 @lcap said:

Mar 5, 2013 11:38:12 GMT -5 pescalita said:

The GC left the state to absolve the IPs of their rights.

Because they wanted to make her a ward of the state and put her in foster care. The article doesn't really say but I'm assuming that if they told Kelley that they wanted to take her home and raise her after all she would have let them. That was the plan they all agreed upon after all.

The whole thing is desperately sad. The GC was absolutely 100% in the wrong. I just can't believe that they let the baby be adopted by someone else, is all.

And I'm skeptical they ever would have given her up to the state, I think that may have been a scare tactic/last ditch effort to get Kelley to comply. The plan they all agreed upon included termination, so Kelley had already refused to follow that plan.

I'm not sure an iron-clad contract would have saved them here either runforrest. They had termination in there, but Kelley had to call and make the appt for herself, and then show up. I'm sure they could sue her for breech of contract, and they may have even been able to get a court order to make the appt (? non-lawyer speaking), but at the end of the day a contract cannot physically force a person to undergo a medical procedure.

[Deleted]

Mar 5, 2013 12:05:32 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

Mar 5, 2013 11:45:16 GMT -5 @lcap said:

Because they wanted to make her a ward of the state and put her in foster care. The article doesn't really say but I'm assuming that if they told Kelley that they wanted to take her home and raise her after all she would have let them. That was the plan they all agreed upon after all.

The whole thing is desperately sad. The GC was absolutely 100% in the wrong. I just can't believe that they let the baby be adopted by someone else, is all.

The GC didn't want to raise the child, either; she had her adopted out.  IMO, all the gestational carrier wanted was martyrdom.   

Where is the value in forcing a parent to raise a child they don't want to raise?  How loved would that child be?  Why is it not more valuable to have that child adopted out to parents who will love and care for her?

This is a good point but so sad. They couldn't love this child because of her problems? I don't know, I've never been in this position but I just can't fathom it. I look at my children and can't imagine giving them up for any reason whatsoever. I can understand them being beyond angry with the surrogate. Her selfish actions created a horrible mess (especially since she didn't want to raise the baby either! wth). But once the child was born, what option do loving parents really have but to take her home and give her the best possible life you can? I'm trying not to judge their choice too harshly but it honestly surprises me that they let her be adopted by someone else.

Eta: And why didn't they just give her the extra 5k??? They were willing to give her 10k, what's an additional 5 if it would spare the baby pain? I'm assuming they are pretty affluent because IVF + donor eggs + a GC isn't cheap, particularly when they already have 3 children at home. I would have done that and then maybe looked into suing her later for breach of contract or extortion or something.

[runforrest]

Mar 5, 2013 12:12:27 GMT -5 pescalita said:

Mar 5, 2013 11:45:16 GMT -5 @lcap said:

Because they wanted to make her a ward of the state and put her in foster care. The article doesn't really say but I'm assuming that if they told Kelley that they wanted to take her home and raise her after all she would have let them. That was the plan they all agreed upon after all.

The whole thing is desperately sad. The GC was absolutely 100% in the wrong. I just can't believe that they let the baby be adopted by someone else, is all.

And I'm skeptical they ever would have given her up to the state, I think that may have been a scare tactic/last ditch effort to get Kelley to comply. The plan they all agreed upon included termination, so Kelley had already refused to follow that plan.

I'm not sure an iron-clad contract would have saved them here either runforrest. They had termination in there, but Kelley had to call and make the appt for herself, and then show up. I'm sure they could sue her for breech of contract, and they may have even been able to get a court order to make the appt (? non-lawyer speaking), but at the end of the day a contract cannot physically force a person to undergo a medical procedure.

Yeah, I'm not sure either.  It's just such a messy situation.  What if the baby needed surgery in-utero to fix a defect or something?  Could the intended parents make the surrogate undergo that type of procedure?

[msmerymac]

Mar 5, 2013 11:21:14 GMT -5 @lcap said:

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 agree that before having children, you should realize that things could happen. The baby could be born with something not apparent at first, too, like severe autism. 

The point is that this baby's problems were something that the doctor could see, and could determine would be pretty severe. So the IPs HAD the choice of whether or not to parent this child. It's that the surrogate had different ideas. If the mother had been carrying the child herself, it wouldn't have been an issue. If the parents were in agreement, no one would have forced them to give birth to that child just because "that's life, suck it up."

[Deleted]

Mar 5, 2013 12:24:14 GMT -5 @mx said:

Mar 5, 2013 12:12:39 GMT -5 @lcap said:

This is a good point but so sad. They couldn't love this child because of her problems? I don't know, I've never been in this position but I just can't fathom it. I look at my children and can't imagine giving them up for any reason whatsoever. I can understand them being beyond angry with the surrogate. Her selfish actions created a horrible mess (especially since she didn't want to raise the baby either! wth). But once the child was born, what option do loving parents really have but to take her home and give her the best possible life you can? I'm trying not to judge their choice too harshly but it honestly surprises me that they let her be adopted by someone else.

Eta: And why didn't they just give her the extra 5k??? They were willing to give her 10k, what's an additional 5 if it would spare the baby pain? I'm assuming they are pretty affluent because IVF + donor eggs + a GC isn't cheap, particularly when they already have 3 children at home. I would have done that and then maybe looked into suing her later for breach of contract or extortion or something.

Are you opposed to all adoptions or just this one? Because your argument is one against adoption in general and it's a pretty dumb one at that. Once the child was born how could they "let her be adopted by someone else?" Do you really mean that?

No just this one. It's not like this was an unplanned pregnancy. And I can completely understand not feeling prepared to raise a child with significant disabilities. I would have wanted to have an abortion too. But when you're thrust into that situation by fate, when the child is born and has to be taken home by someone, what can you really do? You're going to let someone else step up and take responsibility for your child? Yes, I do condemn that at least a little bit.

[Deleted]

Mar 5, 2013 12:27:57 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Mar 5, 2013 11:21:14 GMT -5 @lcap said:

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 agree that before having children, you should realize that things could happen. The baby could be born with something not apparent at first, too, like severe autism. 

The point is that this baby's problems were something that the doctor could see, and could determine would be pretty severe. So the IPs HAD the choice of whether or not to parent this child. It's that the surrogate had different ideas. If the mother had been carrying the child herself, it wouldn't have been an issue. If the parents were in agreement, no one would have forced them to give birth to that child just because "that's life, suck it up."

They made the choice not to parent and then that choice was wrongly taken out of their hands. I don't think anyone is disputing that what the surrogate did wasn't completely horrible, least of all me. The IPs shouldn't have found themselves in the position that they did. But the reality is that they did. Someone had to take that child home and start making decisions regarding her welfare. And yes I think it's side eye worthy that they wanted this pregnancy and this child but then changed their minds once they realized that she had severe disabilities. They had the decision to parent once she was born and they didn't fight for her. If your child gets hurt or gets sick, you stick by them no matter what. You don't just give up on them because that's the easiest thing to do.

[hopecounts]

Mar 5, 2013 11:48:53 GMT -5 runforrest said:

Damn, what a mess.

I read the article but still don't see how the surrogate was allowed to just up and leave with someone else's kid. Isn't a surrogate just carrying the baby and has no parental rights/decision making capabilities, right?

I think the intended parents had every right to decide what to do with their baby, even though it was probably a heart-wrenching decision.

Also, one lesson learned should be to have an iron-clad contract. The article said that "major fetal abnormalities" or whatever the terminology was, was not defined in the contract. I think if they had specifically outlined what that meant, or who gets to decide what is a "major fetal abnormality", maybe they would have had more say?
Either way, at this point the baby is born and I just hope she can live as long and as happy a life as possible.

Yes and no.
in general the GC has the right to decide her medical care and until the baby is born the GC can largely do what she wants since fighting out the contract would likely take longer than the pregnancy.
GC contracts are also as pointed out only enforceable in the states that recognize them and forcing someone not to move is tricky.
this is rare since most GC's respect the IPs right to make these decisions and honor them.
the woman in this case shouldn't have been a GC.

[Deleted]

The adoptive parents in this case facilitated the GC moving from one state to another to skirt the law and contract she agreed too. They don't smell of roses.

[Deleted]

Mar 5, 2013 12:49:33 GMT -5 @mx said:

I don't even know what to say. You are only ok with adoption in the case of unplanned pregnancies?

But that is directly conflicted by your following statement that once the child is there you better "step up" and take them home because someone has to. So you are only ok with people with unplanned pregnancies considering adoption but you judge them if they don't change their mind and decide to parent once the child is born?

I don't even know how to understand this point of view.

What? No. I'm saying that they wanted this pregnancy (very much if we look at how much they paid for it to come about) and this child and then changed their minds when they found out that she had severe disabilities. I can understand feeling not capable of taking that on. But unfortunately that choice was taken out of their hands. When the child was born, someone had to take her home and start making decisions regarding her medical care. I think it's morally wrong that they let someone else take that on. It's sad that they didn't want to take her home after she was born, even if ideally they wished for her own sake that she hadn't been. This is the child they wanted very much and tried to move heaven and earth to create.

You can feel free to disagree if you want to.

[meshaliuknits]

Mar 5, 2013 12:59:28 GMT -5 @lcap said:

Mar 5, 2013 12:49:33 GMT -5 @mx said:

I don't even know what to say. You are only ok with adoption in the case of unplanned pregnancies?

But that is directly conflicted by your following statement that once the child is there you better "step up" and take them home because someone has to. So you are only ok with people with unplanned pregnancies considering adoption but you judge them if they don't change their mind and decide to parent once the child is born?

I don't even know how to understand this point of view.

What? No. I'm saying that they wanted this pregnancy (very much if we look at how much they paid for it to come about) and this child and then changed their minds when they found out that she had severe disabilities. I can understand feeling not capable of taking that on. But unfortunately that choice was taken out of their hands. When the child was born, someone had to take her home and start making decisions regarding her medical care. I think it's morally wrong that they let someone else take that on. You can feel free to disagree if you want to.

Perhaps they don't feel they could take on a SN kid because they have three at home whose care of and well-being they are most concerned with?

[ttt]

Again, their three children at home are special needs, so all this "they only love and care for healthy children!!" judgement is a bit misplaced.

[debatethis]

Mar 5, 2013 12:30:08 GMT -5 @lcap said:

Mar 5, 2013 12:24:14 GMT -5 @mx said:

Are you opposed to all adoptions or just this one? Because your argument is one against adoption in general and it's a pretty dumb one at that. Once the child was born how could they "let her be adopted by someone else?" Do you really mean that?

No just this one. It's not like this was an unplanned pregnancy. And I can completely understand not feeling prepared to raise a child with significant disabilities. I would have wanted to have an abortion too. But when you're thrust into that situation by fate, when the child is born and has to be taken home by someone, what can you really do? You're going to let someone else step up and take responsibility for your child? Yes, I do condemn that at least a little bit.

Ah, ok, so since MY current IVF pregnancy was completely planned, I shouldn't be able to make the choice of an adoption plan should something go horribly awry between now and November? Only unplanned pregnancies should end in adoption?
Termination was the choice the IPs made in this case and the choice was taken away from them. Saying that they should suck it up and raise a child who is going to suffer a life of immeasurable agony and millions of dollars in medical bills just because it was a wanted pregnancy is, again, asinine. And FTR, it's not unheard of for parents to make their terminally ill children wards of the state for the purposes of care - it surely sucks to be in those parents' shoes but I won't make a value judgment or condemn them for it. It's often the only path they have.

[debatethis]

Mar 5, 2013 12:12:39 GMT -5 @lcap said:

Mar 5, 2013 12:05:32 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

The GC didn't want to raise the child, either; she had her adopted out.  IMO, all the gestational carrier wanted was martyrdom.   

Where is the value in forcing a parent to raise a child they don't want to raise?  How loved would that child be?  Why is it not more valuable to have that child adopted out to parents who will love and care for her?

This is a good point but so sad. They couldn't love this child because of her problems? I don't know, I've never been in this position but I just can't fathom it. I look at my children and can't imagine giving them up for any reason whatsoever. I can understand them being beyond angry with the surrogate. Her selfish actions created a horrible mess (especially since she didn't want to raise the baby either! wth). But once the child was born, what option do loving parents really have but to take her home and give her the best possible life you can? I'm trying not to judge their choice too harshly but it honestly surprises me that they let her be adopted by someone else.

Eta: And why didn't they just give her the extra 5k??? They were willing to give her 10k, what's an additional 5 if it would spare the baby pain? I'm assuming they are pretty affluent because IVF + donor eggs + a GC isn't cheap, particularly when they already have 3 children at home. I would have done that and then maybe looked into suing her later for breach of contract or extortion or something.

Again, you clearly didn't read the article. These were frozen embryos from a cycle years ago. It's also completely possible that this family was financially bankrupted from hiring a GC, and this was their last ditch effort to expand their family but couldn't afford ongoing millions of dollars in medical care for a severely disabled child. It's equally possible that their IVF cycle was completely covered by insurance, since Connecticut is an IF mandate state, or that they mortgaged their house to pay for the surrogate, or any combination therein. You're making HUGE assumptions that they're indepently wealthy because they did IVF and then secondarily that their finances are still such that they could afford in home care for this child PLUS the other children they already have.

[Melissa W.]

Mar 5, 2013 13:34:33 GMT -5 debatethis said:

Mar 5, 2013 12:12:39 GMT -5 @lcap said:

This is a good point but so sad. They couldn't love this child because of her problems? I don't know, I've never been in this position but I just can't fathom it. I look at my children and can't imagine giving them up for any reason whatsoever. I can understand them being beyond angry with the surrogate. Her selfish actions created a horrible mess (especially since she didn't want to raise the baby either! wth). But once the child was born, what option do loving parents really have but to take her home and give her the best possible life you can? I'm trying not to judge their choice too harshly but it honestly surprises me that they let her be adopted by someone else.

Eta: And why didn't they just give her the extra 5k??? They were willing to give her 10k, what's an additional 5 if it would spare the baby pain? I'm assuming they are pretty affluent because IVF + donor eggs + a GC isn't cheap, particularly when they already have 3 children at home. I would have done that and then maybe looked into suing her later for breach of contract or extortion or something.

Again, you clearly didn't read the article. These were frozen embryos from a cycle years ago. It's also completely possible that this family was financially bankrupted from hiring a GC, and this was their last ditch effort to expand their family but couldn't afford ongoing millions of dollars in medical care for a severely disabled child. It's equally possible that their IVF cycle was completely covered by insurance, since Connecticut is an IF mandate state, or that they mortgaged their house to pay for the surrogate, or any combination therein. You're making HUGE assumptions that they're indepently wealthy because they did IVF and then secondarily that their finances are still such that they could afford in home care for this child PLUS the other children they already have.

Duh. People from CT swimming in money and drive Volvos. 

[Bad Dingo]

I've been busy w/work so coming in to this super late. Personal anecdote alert - a friend actually interviewed the gestational carrier for a nanny job very recently. She said that Kelley seemed a bit off and she talked at length about her upcoming feature on CNN. I can't imagine why she'd think it was a good idea to be looking for a nanny position while all of this was going on. Nor can I imagine that she's stable enough to care for someone else's children. What if she decided that the parents weren't parenting right and decided to run off with them to give them a better life? (a huge stretch I know).

[crazytalk]

Mar 6, 2013 9:19:22 GMT -5 Bad Dingo said:

I've been busy w/work so coming in to this super late. Personal anecdote alert - a friend actually interviewed the gestational carrier for a nanny job very recently. She said that Kelley seemed a bit off and she talked at length about her upcoming feature on CNN. I can't imagine why she'd think it was a good idea to be looking for a nanny position while all of this was going on. Nor can I imagine that she's stable enough to care for someone else's children. What if she decided that the parents weren't parenting right and decided to run off with them to give them a better life? (a huge stretch I know).

I actually don't think that's a huge stretch ... I was thinking the same thing actually when I read that she's a nanny. I could imagine her agreeing to one way of caring for the kids to the parents, but then doing something vastly different when it came down to it. That's not ok, at all. Read her blog - she keeps referring to herself as the mommy to that little baby. That shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of being a surrogate. Or a nanny, for that matter. The whole point of both situations is that you're caring for a baby FOR the baby's parents, you are there to follow through on their wishes. The fact that she signed an agreement to termination before she got pregnant, and then refused, is nuts to me.

[Melissa W.]

Mar 6, 2013 9:28:23 GMT -5 crazytalk said:

Mar 6, 2013 9:19:22 GMT -5 Bad Dingo said:

I've been busy w/work so coming in to this super late. Personal anecdote alert - a friend actually interviewed the gestational carrier for a nanny job very recently. She said that Kelley seemed a bit off and she talked at length about her upcoming feature on CNN. I can't imagine why she'd think it was a good idea to be looking for a nanny position while all of this was going on. Nor can I imagine that she's stable enough to care for someone else's children. What if she decided that the parents weren't parenting right and decided to run off with them to give them a better life? (a huge stretch I know).

I actually don't think that's a huge stretch ... I was thinking the same thing actually when I read that she's a nanny. I could imagine her agreeing to one way of caring for the kids to the parents, but then doing something vastly different when it came down to it. That's not ok, at all. Read her blog - she keeps referring to herself as the mommy to that little baby. That shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of being a surrogate. Or a nanny, for that matter. The whole point of both situations is that you're caring for a baby FOR the baby's parents, you are there to follow through on their wishes. The fact that she signed an agreement to termination before she got pregnant, and then refused, is nuts to me.

That article gave me the chills reading it. 

[pescalita]

Mar 5, 2013 12:44:23 GMT -5 @lcap said:

Mar 5, 2013 12:27:57 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

I agree that before having children, you should realize that things could happen. The baby could be born with something not apparent at first, too, like severe autism. 

The point is that this baby's problems were something that the doctor could see, and could determine would be pretty severe. So the IPs HAD the choice of whether or not to parent this child. It's that the surrogate had different ideas. If the mother had been carrying the child herself, it wouldn't have been an issue. If the parents were in agreement, no one would have forced them to give birth to that child just because "that's life, suck it up."

They made the choice not to parent and then that choice was wrongly taken out of their hands. I don't think anyone is disputing that what the surrogate did wasn't completely horrible, least of all me. The IPs shouldn't have found themselves in the position that they did. But the reality is that they did. Someone had to take that child home and start making decisions regarding her welfare. And yes I think it's side eye worthy that they wanted this pregnancy and this child but then changed their minds once they realized that she had severe disabilities. They had the decision to parent once she was born and they didn't fight for her. If your child gets hurt or gets sick, you stick by them no matter what. You don't just give up on them because that's the easiest thing to do.

If you think the IPs are motivated by what's easiest for them, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of their motives. Sometimes there are no easy or even easiest choices.

[decemberwedding07]

Mar 4, 2013 19:26:00 GMT -5 sushi said:

What a clusterfuck. And a prejudicial headline.

ETA And why would the surrogate agree to termination in writing if she was so opposed to it?

This is what I thought, too.  I had never thought about it before, but most surrogates are very conservative Christians.  I don't know that we would ever feel comfortable using a surrogate after reading this story.  Adoption is just such a looooooong road.

[decemberwedding07]

Mar 6, 2013 10:24:09 GMT -5 @majorwife said:

Mar 6, 2013 10:19:48 GMT -5 decemberwedding07 said:

This is what I thought, too.  I had never thought about it before, but most surrogates are very conservative Christians.  I don't know that we would ever feel comfortable using a surrogate after reading this story.  Adoption is just such a looooooong road.

not all of them. see my post above. i wish you good luck!

If you are still open to being a surrogate in a year or so, I might be contacting you!

[Deleted]

Mar 6, 2013 10:15:17 GMT -5 @cse1960 said:

lcap, you can't imagine finding out that your baby will be born with terrible disabilities and deciding to terminate the pregnancy? Or give it up for adoption, if someone compels you by force to have that child? Because that's what this woman did.

No if someone forced me to have the baby (for example if we found out about the problem after it was no longer legal to have an abortion) I would not give it up for adoption. I've been thinking about this story a lot since yesterday because I realize my position on this is pretty unpopular to say the least I feel for these people. They probably feel like they were being tortured. And I don't know anything about their home situation or their finances. PPs are probably coreect in that there are extenuating circumstances that make it impossible to raise this child. But if it was more a case of not wanting to raise a child with severe disabilities...well I think that is kind of crappy. It may not be the case with these people (it sounds like it's not since someone said they have another child or children with special needs) but it definitely happens. If you honestly feel that you don't have the emotional resources to raise a child with special needs, then I guess it makes the most sense for you to seek out a loving family who can. But I think it's sad that they can't try to find it within themselves to love and care for the child. What if your child is born healthy but with severe emotional problems that aren't apparent until later? Or if your child is hurt or gets sick later in life? You're not going to just abandon them, are you? Most people get pregnant expecting to give birth to a healthy child. But if it's not perfect, are you going to give them up? It's a sad situation. Thankfully there is a loving family out there who was willing to take this child in and care for her and are excited about the progress she's made so far.

[debatethis]

Crystal Kelley is a fucking nutbar. This is a blog post of hers from December:
You may notice things are changing. And I'm sorry to do it so suddenly, but it seems as though something needs to be done.

Baby S's family needs their privacy. I respect that. I respect that as much as I want to write about every little thing that happens, and share every picture of her with the world, she is not mine to do that with.

It makes me sad, but I have to let Baby S's family have her. I have to let go of that desire to share her with everyone, and let her family make those decisions. She's not my child anymore, and so the decisions are no longer mine. This blog is public, and at any point some random creeper could find it. The links to the blog have been shared in many different public forums, on Facebook, and will probably be shared a lot more in the future as others learn of her and our story.

But she's just a baby. She's a person, and like every other person she has a right to her own anonymity. Her family has the right to live their own life without the risk of some crazy finding them and harassing them. So things are changing.

I have my own family blog at the original link.
The link and name of this blog have been changed.
and many of the references have been changed in past posts.

Please do me a favor and show me that you can respect my baby girl and her new family.


Uh, no lady. She was NEVER YOURS. surrogateinsanity.blogspot.com/

[heyjude]

I don't think that blog post makes her appear nutty. I think she comes off as fairly rational and caring.

But overall, except for that precious baby, I don't think anyone is purely evil or purely good in this story. Its not a movie, these are real humans with real shades of gray motivations and feelings.

I'm not sure how anyone can look at that baby and say she should have been aborted. I mean I understand it logically, but not emotionally.

I agree though that this woman should never be a surrogate, nor a nanny for that matter.

Why was she not charged with kidnapping?

[ttt]

Mar 6, 2013 13:09:08 GMT -5 heyjude said:

I don't think that blog post makes her appear nutty. I think she comes off as fairly rational and caring.

But overall, except for that precious baby, I don't think anyone is purely evil or purely good in this story. Its not a movie, these are real humans with real shades of gray motivations and feelings.

I'm not sure how anyone can look at that baby and say she should have been aborted. I mean I understand it logically, but not emotionally.

I agree though that this woman should never be a surrogate, nor a nanny for that matter.

Why was she not charged with kidnapping?

Becuase she had the baby in Michigan, which doesn't recognize surrogacy, so as long as the baby came out of her body, the state recognized it as hers, not the biological parents'.

[heyjude]

Mar 6, 2013 13:18:22 GMT -5 ttt said:

Mar 6, 2013 13:09:08 GMT -5 heyjude said:

I don't think that blog post makes her appear nutty. I think she comes off as fairly rational and caring.

But overall, except for that precious baby, I don't think anyone is purely evil or purely good in this story. Its not a movie, these are real humans with real shades of gray motivations and feelings.

I'm not sure how anyone can look at that baby and say she should have been aborted. I mean I understand it logically, but not emotionally.

I agree though that this woman should never be a surrogate, nor a nanny for that matter.

Why was she not charged with kidnapping?

Becuase she had the baby in Michigan, which doesn't recognize surrogacy, so as long as the baby came out of her body, the state recognized it as hers, not the biological parents'.

I disagree that MI laws give you a "free pass" to kidnap a baby of Connecticut origins. Why didn't the long arm of Connecticut criminal statutes step in and charge her with kidnapping? You can't just do something illegal in one state, hop off to another state where such an act is not a crime, and get off scott free, as if the new state's laws give you immunity from the old sate's criminal statutes .

[gpw]

Mar 6, 2013 10:31:44 GMT -5 decemberwedding07 said:

Mar 6, 2013 10:24:09 GMT -5 @majorwife said:

not all of them. see my post above. i wish you good luck!

If you are still open to being a surrogate in a year or so, I might be contacting you!

H and I have also considered MW.  Hopefully we don't have to fight over her!