Does anyone know anything about surrogacy?

[Deleted]

SIL and I were talking about surrogacy the other day.  She claims that a surrogate can choose to keep a baby if they want to because they are legally considered the birth mother.

I think that sounds like absolute BS.  Because A: yes, they are the ones to give birth but they are not the biological parent.  And B: there would be a contract in place stating the intention and no judge in their right mind would side with a surrogate over bio mom.

SIL is kind of a know it all but claims surrogate would have to pay back fees plus damages but is legally able to keep the baby if she so chooses.  Please tell me she is nutty...? 

[Deleted]

I think she is nutty.


I bet there is something on google about this.


That is how I always try to prove my mom wrong when we are disagreeing about something weird. LOL.

[Deleted]

I actually this she's correct. I don't think the courts will force a birth mother who isn't unfit to give her child to someone else.

[Deleted]

Jul 10, 2014 9:01:00 GMT -5 @lorelaireadsagain said:

I actually this she's correct. I don't think the courts will force a birth mother who isn't unfit to give her child to someone else.

How is this possible.


It's not her kid? Especially in the case where the mom and donated eggs and sperm.

[Deleted]

Jul 10, 2014 9:01:00 GMT -5 @lorelaireadsagain said:

I actually this she's correct. I don't think the courts will force a birth mother who isn't unfit to give her child to someone else.

My view on the issue is if it my egg and H's sperm the it isn't "her" child.  I mean she carried it and all but biologically it is mine.

[jr009j]

In a lot of states, she is correct. Laws haven't caught up with modern science and presume the birth mother to be the legal mother.

[MWOS]

don't you people watch Lifetime? The surrogate can totes keep the baby.

[Deleted]

Jul 10, 2014 9:03:57 GMT -5 jr009j said:

In a lot of states, she is correct. Laws haven't caught up with modern science and presume the birth mother to be the legal mother.

Wow, this makes me really sad.  I can't imagine the pain of not being able to carry a child (assuming that is why the surrogate is used) and the having the surrogate take away a child that is yours.

[Muddled]

This is state specific. As far as I know, there are no federal laws when it cone to surrogacy.

FWIW, in that Lifetime movie with the crazy surrogate, you were right. The surrogate had no claims because biologically, it was not her child.

[MWOS]

Jul 10, 2014 9:06:53 GMT -5 Muddled said:

This is state specific. As far as I know, there are no federal laws when it cone to surrogacy.

FWIW, in that Lifetime movie with the crazy surrogate, you were right. The surrogate had no claims because biologically, it was not her child.

I actually don't have cable, nor did I know there was an actual movie. It just seemed like a Lifetime thing to do so I went with it.  Glad to hear I was spot on!

[Deleted]

It depends on the laws in the state where the surrogacy is happening.

And apparently the opposite is true, since rumor has it Sheri Sheppard is trying to get out of taking the baby she and her STBXH hired a surrogate for.

jezebel.com/rumor-sherri-shepherd-backs-out-of-surrogacy-agreement-1601710152

[Muddled]

Jul 10, 2014 9:05:57 GMT -5 MWOS said:

don't you people watch Lifetime? The surrogate can totes keep the baby.

Lol. In the one I saw recently- the one with the blonde chick who was macking on the biomom's husband- the surrogate had no claims.

[Deleted]

Jul 10, 2014 9:03:11 GMT -5 @kjewell said:

Jul 10, 2014 9:01:00 GMT -5 @lorelaireadsagain said:

I actually this she's correct. I don't think the courts will force a birth mother who isn't unfit to give her child to someone else.

My view on the issue is if it my egg and H's sperm the it isn't "her" child.  I mean she carried it and all but biologically it is mine.

By "her" child, I meant the child she carried, and I wasn't referring to it as her possession.

The law hasn't caught up with technology in many instances, this being one of them.

[ClosingTime08]

Not helpful - I always wanted to be a gesational surrogate but I figure no one would ever choose me because I am like 60 lbs overweight....

[Muddled]

Jul 10, 2014 9:08:13 GMT -5 MWOS said:

Jul 10, 2014 9:06:53 GMT -5 Muddled said:

This is state specific. As far as I know, there are no federal laws when it cone to surrogacy.

FWIW, in that Lifetime movie with the crazy surrogate, you were right. The surrogate had no claims because biologically, it was not her child.

I actually don't have cable, nor did I know there was an actual movie. It just seemed like a Lifetime thing to do so I went with it.  Glad to hear I was spot on!

Lololol. Of course there's a lifetime movie!

[lilafowler]

Hmmm-my BFF has a friend who is a surrogate right now (embryos from a prior surrogacy were frozen and transferred so it's not genetically her child).

I know there were tons of legal documents involved.

I should ask her.

[Deleted]

Jul 10, 2014 9:02:41 GMT -5 @lazerus24 said:

Jul 10, 2014 9:01:00 GMT -5 @lorelaireadsagain said:

I actually this she's correct. I don't think the courts will force a birth mother who isn't unfit to give her child to someone else.

How is this possible.


It's not her kid? Especially in the case where the mom and donated eggs and sperm.

I think in some states the mother is treated like a mom who said she'd put the baby up for adoption, picks a family ahead of time, and after she gives birth changes her mind. I think they are more concerned about the person who carried the baby and gave birth to it rather than where the biological material came from.

The flip side of that argument would be a mom who used an egg donor and when the baby is born, the donor them trying to claim the baby is hers because it was her egg.

[VeryViolet]

I have learned from Ladies of London/Giuliana and Bill/Elton John news stories that this is very state specific and/or country specific.

Really though I read some of the information at my RE's office on this and I think most people choose a carrier in states with laws that support the parents not the gestational carrier. Also, any reputable facility screens the carriers and has very specific rules around it, i.e. they can't be the egg donor and the carrier, they carrier has to have had a successful pregnancy and be done having children of their own, etc.

[jlt19]

There was a story a couple years back where a family from the east coast used a surrogate but then the surrogate went to Michigan to keep the baby and I think the law in that state was on her side. I'm not sure whose egg was used though.

I understand the laws can get tricky when other people donate eggs/use a surrogate or any combo of the two, but that's why there should be a clear cut contract for each specific situation and THAT should be followed legally, IMO.

[katfco]

There was a case a few months ago where a surrogate kept the baby because the baby was found to have medical problems and the biological parents wanted it aborted. She refused and kept the baby until she found someone to adopt her.

[calledout]

In the states where surrogacy contracts are unenforceable, the idea is that you can't contract a human being.

[Mrs.Rad888]

Jul 10, 2014 9:35:52 GMT -5 jlt19 said:

There was a story a couple years back where a family from the east coast used a surrogate but then the surrogate went to Michigan to keep the baby and I think the law in that state was on her side. I'm not sure whose egg was used though.

I understand the laws can get tricky when other people donate eggs/use a surrogate or any combo of the two, but that's why there should be a clear cut contract for each specific situation and THAT should be followed legally, IMO.

Jul 10, 2014 9:45:14 GMT -5 katfco said:

There was a case a few months ago where a surrogate kept the baby because the baby was found to have medical problems and the biological parents wanted it aborted. She refused and kept the baby until she found someone to adopt her.

I think these are the same case. I believe the surrogate ended up adopting the baby after asking for money to abort and being denied, even though it was in the contract that the fetus would be aborted if there were problems found.


Found the article.

[katfco]

Jul 10, 2014 10:17:15 GMT -5 Mrs.Rad888 said:

Jul 10, 2014 9:35:52 GMT -5 jlt19 said:

There was a story a couple years back where a family from the east coast used a surrogate but then the surrogate went to Michigan to keep the baby and I think the law in that state was on her side. I'm not sure whose egg was used though.

I understand the laws can get tricky when other people donate eggs/use a surrogate or any combo of the two, but that's why there should be a clear cut contract for each specific situation and THAT should be followed legally, IMO.

Jul 10, 2014 9:45:14 GMT -5 katfco said:

There was a case a few months ago where a surrogate kept the baby because the baby was found to have medical problems and the biological parents wanted it aborted. She refused and kept the baby until she found someone to adopt her.

I think these are the same case. I believe the surrogate ended up adopting the baby after asking for money to abort and being denied, even though it was in the contract that the fetus would be aborted if there were problems found.


Found the article.

Yeah, I think we posted at the same time. She was initially offered 10K to abort. She found a family to adopt the baby. Here's the original CNN article

[teacup]

I would think an ironclad legal document would be your friend if you wanted to pursue surrogacy either as the carrier or the noncarrier.

Also, I feel a quick, "people suck" is relevant here.

[teacup]

Jul 10, 2014 10:40:56 GMT -5 katfco said:

Jul 10, 2014 10:17:15 GMT -5 Mrs.Rad888 said:

I think these are the same case. I believe the surrogate ended up adopting the baby after asking for money to abort and being denied, even though it was in the contract that the fetus would be aborted if there were problems found.


Found the article.

Yeah, I think we posted at the same time. She was initially offered 10K to abort. She found a family to adopt the baby. Here's the original CNN article

I read the "found the article" to be really icky. This in particular: The hero in this story is undoubtedly the selfless adoptive mother who was happy to care for Baby S and love her like her own. I can only hope that the child’s upcoming surgeries are successful and her medical condition improves.

[discogranny]

In many states, even if the woman is just a gestational carrier (she is carrying an embryo made of the sperm/egg of the intended parental couple), the intended parents still have to adopt the baby from the original "mother." Of course there are legal agreements in place but there is also a great level of trust involved.

Gestational surrogacy is actually still considered illegal in New York: www.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/fashion/In-New-York-Some-Couples-Push-for-Legalization-of-Compensated-Surrogacy.html?_r=0

Here's the breakdown of the law in NY:
www.creativefamilyconnections.com/state-map/new-york-surrogacy-laws

[katfco]

Jul 10, 2014 10:50:45 GMT -5 teacup said:

Jul 10, 2014 10:40:56 GMT -5 katfco said:

Yeah, I think we posted at the same time. She was initially offered 10K to abort. She found a family to adopt the baby. Here's the original CNN article

I read the "found the article" to be really icky. This in particular: The hero in this story is undoubtedly the selfless adoptive mother who was happy to care for Baby S and love her like her own. I can only hope that the child’s upcoming surgeries are successful and her medical condition improves.

It's certainly not an unbiased representation of the facts. 

[hopecounts]

Jul 10, 2014 12:42:14 GMT -5 carrotsmakemefat said:

Even if it does depend on the state, I assume a contract signed by both parties is binding right (detailing who gets parental rights, steps after the birth, etc?) Why else would celebs and other people feel comfortable with a surrogate if the woman who gives birth could change her mind?

No it's not, if a state doesn't recognize surrogacy the agreement has no binding effect on either party.
the reasons celebs do it is they do it in California with a highly screened GC where it is recognized so the agreement is binding and protects them from problems.
But strictly speaking if the GC ran off to a non-surrogate friendly state it's laws would bind and the agreement would only be useful in arguing intent.