You are talking to a lawyer. Exploring the law is fun for me. Mostly I think someone in CT dropped the ball, not that I think we need to dream up novel ways to punish this woman. Like I said, I don't believe she is all evil. Nor are the parents all good. Or vice versa. It's a complicated, messy case and wondering where the law fits into it all is another layer of complication/intrigue.
Oh and in one more going to hell thought, I would not want to be the only "healthy" child and the youngest at that in a family full of special needs. There's something entirely squicky about that to me.
Oh and in one more going to hell thought, I would not want to be the only "healthy" child and the youngest at that in a family full of special needs. There's something entirely squicky about that to me.
kind of like a Jodi Piccoult book...I thought of that, too.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
I can only see genetic material. That wasn't a child when in CT. It was in MI and so the GC is on the birth certificate. CT doesn't have the power to change that, do they? So what claim could these people make?
I don't necessarily know that it was considered a child when in MI. We just don't recognize surrogacy or GC.
I mean that it was a child once it was born in MI and had a birth certificate issued recognizing the GC as the mother.
Actually the whole interplay between modern fertility practices and the law is so incredibly fascinating to me.
It is fascinating, yes.
Only slightly related but I really can't wait for the day when we can get more definitive information about a baby's health and long term prognosis before 20 weeks.
I'm not gonna flame ya. It's not a choice I would've made, for sure.
However, since the other kids SN-ness (IDK what to call it) is due to the IM's inability to stay pregnant to term, I can totally see folks going into it thinking that this kid will be "OK" because someone else is carrying it, that they've removed the "risk" from the pregnancy. People can be irrationally optimistic about stuff like this.
Does the surrogate have other children?
Because I do see it. I guess what I don't is either reason to believe it wouldn't happen to someone else or the risk being worth the money they are taking out of their own household, away from their existing children to lay on that risk, kwim?
Now I have Alanis Morissette stuck in my head even though there is nearly nothing ironic about any of those situations.
Yep. Two IIRC. I might not be. I read this yesterday. My memory only goes back a few hours.
I totally agree with your second paragraph. It's not a choice I would have made. I crave security, particularly financial, over all other things.
I'm reading it now. She has children and she had two miscarriages. It seems the primary reasons she went into surrogacy was to pay her bills and help ease the pain of miscarriage ersumsuch for other couples. Yeah, not surrogate material doesn't even begin to cover it.