Surrogate wants to keep baby AND recieve child support

[Meshavrischika]

http://www.wesh.com/news/14101529/detail.html

Seems to me this is a case of not covering all your bases and opening your big fat mouth getting you in trouble.

 

[DoomRyderOCST]

Sad story. Hopefully the baby will end up with the right person/people.

 

[Meshavrischika]

The question is, who is that?

The whole thing STINKS.

 

[Billnew]

States need to figure these issues out.

Imo no signed contract, no leg to stand on.

If they can show that they paid her to be the serregate,
then they should get $1500 back or use it as pay ahead of child support.
He is the Dad no matter what happens. He should also
have visitation, same reason.

Everything should have been completed before concieving the child.

 

[Meshavrischika]

States need to figure these issues out.

Imo no signed contract, no leg to stand on.

If they can show that they paid her to be the serregate,
then they should get $1500 back or use it as pay ahead of child support.
He is the Dad no matter what happens. He should also
have visitation, same reason.

Everything should have been completed before concieving the child.

I think so too... but at this point what to do is the question. I think it's probably a safer thing to give the child to the dad/non-mom and give the mom visitation. It is clear from the outset that they were the ones who were preparing and went to concieve this baby. She just happens to be the bio mom (IMO) but because they were STUPID and did this before the contract was final, she has rights.

 

[SimplyMe]

I think so too... but at this point what to do is the question. I think it's probably a safer thing to give the child to the dad/non-mom and give the mom visitation. It is clear from the outset that they were the ones who were preparing and went to concieve this baby. She just happens to be the bio mom (IMO) but because they were STUPID and did this before the contract was final, she has rights.

I'm not sure of state laws, in this case, but typically cashing the check can be legally interpreted as agreeing to the terms of the contract. I also agree this is one area where the law needs to provide more guidelines; at what point does the mother lose her rights to the child (at the signing of the contract, at birth), what types of visitation rights is the birth mother allowed, and if the birth mother decides to keep the child then what, if any, support is she allowed from the biological father.

 

[horuhe00]

The surrogate has no just foothold.
She cashed the check.
The pregnancy was not natural insemination.
Both sides agree that the plan was to give the baby to the real parents, not the surrogate.

For her to want to keep the child, and then demand money for it is another example of how bad western society has become.

 

[SteveAtheist]

The surrogate has no just foothold.
She cashed the check.
The pregnancy was not natural insemination.
Both sides agree that the plan was to give the baby to the real parents, not the surrogate.

For her to want to keep the child, and then demand money for it is another example of how bad western society has become.

So western society has given us the technology to artificially inseminate a woman in order to bring a biological child to a man who's wife cannot give him children. Then the surrogate mother breaches the understood contract and asks for money and you blame it on western society? I suppose you have examples of how other societies are far better?

Sorry, but people have been greedy, selfish and paranoid long before the west developed.

 

[horuhe00]

So western society has given us the technology to artificially inseminate a woman in order to bring a biological child to a man who's wife cannot give him children. Then the surrogate mother breaches the understood contract and asks for money and you blame it on western society? I suppose you have examples of how other societies are far better?

Sorry, but people have been greedy, selfish and paranoid long before the west developed.

No, western society didn't get the technology. That was western science.

I'm saying that the greedy, "your wiper got my car dirty and I'm suing you" mentality that prevails in the western society and judicial system can add this case as another example of its fruits.

 

[pgp_protector]

No, western society didn't get the technology. That was western science.

I'm saying that the greedy, "your wiper got my car dirty and I'm suing you" mentality that prevails in the western society and judicial system can add this case as another example of its fruits.

I don't think the sue first, sue now , sue last mentality is the majority, it just gets the most news. Most people I believe just work out there problems, but that doesn't make good news.

 

[SteveAtheist]

No, western society didn't get the technology. That was western science.

I'm saying that the greedy, "your wiper got my car dirty and I'm suing you" mentality that prevails in the western society and judicial system can add this case as another example of its fruits.

Western science is a product of Western society. I agree that the 'sue happy' mentality sucks, but it is a product of human greed. I have a problem with anyone who blames something so human on the society that has benefitted us all.

I ask you again, can you give me an example of a better society?

 

[horuhe00]

Western science is a product of Western society. I agree that the 'sue happy' mentality sucks, but it is a product of human greed. I have a problem with anyone who blames something so human on the society that has benefitted us all.

I ask you again, can you give me an example of a better society?

I haven't said one society is better than another. All societies have good and bad things. This is simply one of the bad things about our society. Or do you think our society is all nice and good?

 

[horuhe00]

I don't think the sue first, sue now , sue last mentality is the majority, it just gets the most news. Most people I believe just work out there problems, but that doesn't make good news.

I certainly believe it's not the majority. However, it seems to have risen quite a bit in the last 10-15 years. At least that's my perception. It's certainly risen in the past 50 years.

 

[SteveAtheist]

I haven't said one society is better than another. All societies have good and bad things. This is simply one of the bad things about our society. Or do you think our society is all nice and good?

Of course our society has its share of problems, but they are certainly not new. My point was that greed is natural and exists in all human societies. Taking advantage of someone else is a product of greed and not 'our society'.

I do not think our society is 'all nice and good' but I do think that our society has progressed and is currently the best that humanity has to offer.

 

[Billnew]

I think so too... but at this point what to do is the question. I think it's probably a safer thing to give the child to the dad/non-mom and give the mom visitation. It is clear from the outset that they were the ones who were preparing and went to concieve this baby. She just happens to be the bio mom (IMO) but because they were STUPID and did this before the contract was final, she has rights.

The courts have, if I have heard right, given the benefit of the doubt & giving prefered treatment to the birth Mom.


Verbal contracts are weak, even with cashing the check, I don't think the courts will take a child away from the birth Mom on such a weak interaction.

No matter what, these 4 people will be dealing with each other for at least 18 yrs, unless one side withdrawls from this childs life.

 

[Fantine]

It seems to me that a contract should be in place before the in vitro fertilization ever takes place.

At least it would resolve disputes such as this before they had a chance to get to the courts.

 

[LouTheWicked]

I get angry at these stories. She agreed to a deal, she was supposed to abide to it. But no, she ended up getting attached. A waste of time and a disappointment to the people who TRUSTED her to carry their baby.

I came across a story like this a while ago in the newspaper, infertile couple hire a surrogate, surrogate gets attached. She decided to keep a pair of twins she'd been carrying. If you ask me, I think it's bloody selfish. The scary thing was, the author of the article seemed to be siding with her, blech.

 

[trunks2k]

It seems to me that a contract should be in place before the in vitro fertilization ever takes place.

That was my thought as well. Who the heck starts a process like this without having the contract ready first? Why was a check written without a contract having been signed? It's simple. Sign the contract saying the surrogate agrees to carry the child to be given to the parents after birth, and insemination will take place after an initial check is received.

 

[Meshavrischika]

It seems to me that a contract should be in place before the in vitro fertilization ever takes place.

At least it would resolve disputes such as this before they had a chance to get to the courts.

shoulda woulda coulda...

DIDN'T

(again, stupid IMO)

 

[happydance]

Whatever the outcome, I hope final custody is decided early in the child's life.

IMAO, I think the father should should have the choice between visitation/support or no contact if the custody is given to the surrogate mother.