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.
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 of scott free.
Because she wasn't an actual baby when she was in CT - she was still a fetus and not a person. So there wasn't a person to kidnap. If she had the baby in CT and then fled to Michigan, that would be kidnapping.
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 of scott free.
Because she wasn't an actual baby when she was in CT - she was still a fetus and not a person. So there wasn't a person to kidnap. If she had the baby in CT and then fled to Michigan, that would be kidnapping.
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 of scott free.
Because she wasn't an actual baby when she was in CT - she was still a fetus and not a person. So there wasn't a person to kidnap. If she had the baby in CT and then fled to Michigan, that would be kidnapping.
That's what I suppose, at least. IANAL.
Also, this doesn't make sense because then any surrogate could run off with the fetus. "It's not a person so it's not kidnapping."? So if not kidnapping, theft?
"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
why can't it just be plain old "breach of contract"? Unless you're looking for criminal statutes?
Well sure it could be that too.
What I'm trying to understand is why didn't the state of CT get involved? There was clearly some criminal wrongdoing on the surrogate's part.
I read the article yesterday so I don't have much left in my brain, but wouldn't the IPs have to initiate? Did they not initiate? I mean, if it's criminal wouldn't they have to file a complaint with police? Same with any sort of civil action?
"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
What I'm trying to understand is why didn't the state of CT get involved? There was clearly some criminal wrongdoing on the surrogate's part.
I read the article yesterday so I don't have much left in my brain, but wouldn't the IPs have to initiate? Did they not initiate? I mean, if it's criminal wouldn't they have to file a complaint with police? Same with any sort of civil action?
Not necessarily. Crimes are violations against the people. In this case it would be a crime against the people of CT, thus the state would prosecute. But my criminal law is fuzzy and someone can correct me.
yeah, I see your point, but... again, I guess it would depend on what CT's statutes read. If there are criminal penalties attached to breach? Does what I said even make sense?
"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
yeah, I see your point, but... again, I guess it would depend on what CT's statutes read. If there are criminal penalties attached to breach? Does what I said even make sense?
Heyjude, I'm guessing that any surrogate likely could get away with it because I'm guessing it's not actually covered by case law/statues. How often does this happen?
I guess future IPs should add a clause that the GC isn't to leave the state?
I'll state it here for lcap. I have no interest in having a baby born with severe defects. I don't want to make a baby go through the pain and recovery of surgeries. I don't want to go through the cost. And I don't want to go through the heartache. If you want to call me selfish for that, go right ahead. Sure, my husband may need such care in the future, and my hypothetical child might need care while they're young, but that's not preventable. This child's suffering was. That's the big difference.
yeah, I see your point, but... again, I guess it would depend on what CT's statutes read. If there are criminal penalties attached to breach? Does what I said even make sense?
Contractual breaches are generally civil matters.
I'm talking about criminal: kidnapping or theft.
Right, I get it. I guess I'm just thinking that the civil statute would have to spell out any criminal actions that could result from certain actions? Does that make sense?
"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
Right, I get it. I guess I'm just thinking that the civil statute would have to spell out any criminal actions that could result from certain actions? Does that make sense?
Right, I get it. I guess I'm just thinking that the civil statute would have to spell out any criminal actions that could result from certain actions? Does that make sense?
Not...really...
ok, then. I'll take my dunce cap and sit in the corner.
"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
Heyjude, I'm guessing that any surrogate likely could get away with it because I'm guessing it's not actually covered by case law/statues. How often does this happen?
I guess future IPs should add a clause that the GC isn't to leave the state?
I'll state it here for lcap. I have no interest in having a baby born with severe defects. I don't want to make a baby go through the pain and recovery of surgeries. I don't want to go through the cost. And I don't want to go through the heartache. If you want to call me selfish for that, go right ahead. Sure, my husband may need such care in the future, and my hypothetical child might need care while they're young, but that's not preventable. This child's suffering was. That's the big difference.
I don't understand why it's not covered. It could either be theft or kidnapping.
Maybe this is an area of the law that hasn't quite caught up with the technology yet. It seems that there are a lot of holes and questions about this and it varies so much from state to state.
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 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.
"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
At some point a fetus is more than genetic material. At what point in gestation did she flee the state? At what point does CT law prohibit abortions?
Why would that matter if personhood in utero isn't recognized?
Im not sure this has to hinge on personhood. At a certain point in gestation a state has a legal interest in a fetus such that it can't be terminated. If that legal interest exists for the state, why can't kidnapping charges be pursued? Some states (many?) recognize homicide of a fetus when the mother is killed. Why not kidnapping?
"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
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?
I know I'm going to hell and back for this but you have three special needs children at home so you know good and damned well that things don't always turn out the way you expect it, why in the flying hell would you risk surrogacy?
And I'm side eyeing the notion that their special needs children were so physically, emotionally, and financially handicapping but they had the money, time, and energy to mess with a surrogate.
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?
I know I'm going to hell and back for this but you have three special needs children at home so you know good and damned well that things don't always turn out the way you expect it, why in the flying hell would you risk surrogacy?
And I'm side eyeing the notion that their special needs children were so physically, emotionally, and financially handicapping but they had the money, time, and energy to mess with a surrogate.
Flaaaaaaaaaame away.
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.
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.
I don't think we need to further explore the law to find out a way to punish this imbecile at the risk of the implications for other cases down the line.
You know, sort of how regardless of what one asshole woman does we don't want to set any kind of legal precedent that allows a man to have any say over whether or not his gf, wife, ex or whatever gets to abort a baby.