Another surrogacy case in the news

[JumpyTheFrog]

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/02/surrogacy-contract-melissa-cook/463323/

 

A surrogate mom carrying triplets for a single dad is suing him because he wants her to abort one of the babies (supposedly healthy) and she wants to adopt the one he doesn't want.

[Entropymama]

I'm interested to see how this plays out. There are so many variables. 

 

He's the biological dad. Do all biological dads have the right to demand abortions? Although she is not the biological mom. But if the bio dad can demand an abortion in this case, could a bio dad block an abortion if bio mom is the one pregnant? Where are the lines pertaining to his rights? 

 

Her body, her choice, right? How can someone else demand she have an abortion? Doesn't that violate her rights as a woman? 

 

He claims it would be more cruel to separate the triplets by adopting one out than by aborting one. That's odd. Sanctity of life issues seem to come into play. 

 

All very interesting, and more than a little disturbing. 

 

My personal belief, if anyone is interested, is that all life has intrinsic value, so I'm against abortion but pro-adoption and I think our society in general needs to give a lot more support to women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant. I'm not sure about surrogacy. In most cases it's a wonderful gift, but when it goes wrong, the lives of the new people who've been created through the process are put in jeopardy. We can't just create new life without committing to its well-being. 

 

 

[SKL]

Surrogates need to make sure these things are covered in the contract.  In this case she should have the right to refuse an abortion if he asked for it.

 

I do think state laws would uphold her right to say no to an abortion, unless she signed that away by contract.  I don't need to say why it would be wrong for people to be allowed to legally force women into abortions.

[Tap]

Just thinking off the cuff, I reserve the right to change my mind once I think things through a bit more. LOL

 

So, the amount of time it is taking for the courts to make a decision, pretty much make it certain that she won't get the abortion (past the legal time window). Which pretty much leaves open the decision of what to do with the baby.

 

1. dad can take all 3 and raise triplets alone! Wow that seems so very hard.

 

2. surrogate can keep one, and dad can take two.  That seems sad to break up the trio and I don't think she should keep one anyways.  She signed the contract and knew what the parameters were.  I don't think she should get rewarded with a baby in the end.

 

3. Dad can take two, and adopt out one. Sad all the way around for the trio, but makes the most sense legally (but not emotionally).

 

4. Dad can take all 3 and demand that she pay child support for one.  But then that gives her legal rights to see the child, and that could just be a huge nightmare for all of them.  And then....does she only get to see one off the children?  How odd would that be for the child to grow up knowing the circumstances of why they are in existence.

 

 

 

 

Honestly, I think dad should take all 3 and the state should help to pay to raise one.  In my state, that would be something like $3-400 and state medicaid until they were 18yo.  The state won't force the surrogate to honor the contract and force her to abort.  Morally I agree (no one should be forced into an abortion!), but legally that is another matter.  If the state isn't going to uphold the contract, then they should be forced to provide care.  BUT, wow.....that opens up a whole nuther can of worms for future families and fraud!

 

 

I think that this case should show that the abortion clause needs to be removed from contracts like these and the family who are paying the surrogate, have to take as many babies as they make! To me, it is the same as getting 3 women pg at the same time and telling one that they have to abort, because he only wants 2 kids.  

[SKL]

I am not a fan of selective abortion for financial reasons in the first place.  For bona fide health reasons, I might be swayed.

 

When we decide to become parents, we decide to take the bad with the good.  Nobody knows how much their choice to become a parent is going to cost.  If a person can't accept the possibilities, the person should not have gone forward with the plan to become a father.

 

It's not like this guy is going to be the first ever single parent of three.  IMO he needs to get over the shock and buck up and deal with it, like all the other single parents out there do.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Just thinking off the cuff, I reserve the right to change my mind once I think things through a bit more. LOL

 

So, the amount of time it is taking for the courts to make a decision, pretty much make it certain that she won't get the abortion (past the legal time window). Which pretty much leaves open the decision of what to do with the baby.

 

1. dad can take all 3 and raise triplets alone! Wow that seems so very hard.

 

2. surrogate can keep one, and dad can take two.  That seems sad to break up the trio and I don't think she should keep one anyways.  She signed the contract and knew what the parameters were.  I don't think she should get rewarded with a baby in the end.

 

3. Dad can take two, and adopt out one. Sad all the way around for the trio, but makes the most sense legally (but not emotionally).

 

4. Dad can take all 3 and demand that she pay child support for one.  But then that gives her legal rights to see the child, and that could just be a huge nightmare for all of them.  And then....does she only get to see one off the children?  How odd would that be for the child to grow up knowing the circumstances of why they are in existence.

 

 

 

 

Honestly, I think dad should take all 3 and the state should help to pay to raise one.  In my state, that would be something like $3-400 and state medicaid until they were 18yo.  The state won't force the surrogate to honor the contract and force her to abort.  Morally I agree (no one should be forced into an abortion!), but legally that is another matter.  If the state isn't going to uphold the contract, then they should be forced to provide care.  BUT, wow.....that opens up a whole nuther can of worms for future families and fraud!

 

 

I think that this case should show that the abortion clause needs to be removed from contracts like these and the family who are paying the surrogate, have to take as many babies as they make! To me, it is the same as getting 3 women pg at the same time and telling one that they have to abort, because he only wants 2 kids.  

 

The article said she's due in seven weeks, so yeah, I think that ship has (thankfully) sailed. The real problem is that the consequences of all of those small decisions are enormous. Even if we somehow manage to achieve airtight contracts, the article pointed that restrictions on the process drive an increasing number of would-be parents to go outside the country--where legal, moral, and ethical lines are most likely far more blurry--looking for surrogates. 

 

I'm pro-choice and generally pro-surrogacy, but whew. The dilemmas it creates are mind boggling. 

[Seasider]

This guy has paid for a surrogate pregnancy, a fertilization procedure that has a known risk of producing multiples. He obviously understood that as a single parent, he would likely face some child care costs (if not full time day care). I say, in for a penny, in for a pound. He should be responsible for all of them. I will get flamed but he went into this eyes wide open. If he only wants 2, I think he should not only allow the surrogate to adopt, but he should also pay child support for the third that the surrogate keeps.

[Tsuga]

I don't know where to start, so I'll just say that while I do think people have a right to treat infertility, this makes an excellent case for one-egg-at-a-time in-vitro procedures in almost every case.

[Amira]

Legally, this seems to me to be more about the contract than anything else. I don't think anyone can (or should) be able to force anyone to abort any more than I think abortion should be banned, but if the surrogate knowingly signed a contract that said she might be required to abort, then it's possible she shouldn't be paid the full amount if she violates the terms of the contract. Her signature doesn't necessarily mean the contract is legally binding though, depending on the circumstances.

 

I think there are good reasons for abortion clauses to be in surrogacy contracts if it's going to continue to be acceptable for people to implant more embryos than the legal parent(s) is willing to accept, but it needs to be clear to both parties that the clause exists. It would help if it weren't so expensive to go through the process of implanting a embryo so people don't feel like they have to implant extra embryos to improve their chance of success.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think there should be some firm laws for how these transactions are allowed to play out.  I think ultimately the person carrying the babies should have the final say.  Yes, that is risky for the person renting out her womb, but geesh that is just it in my mind, she's a person not an incubator. 

[snickerplum]

Why should the state pay? There is someone willing to care for and raise the child - the child the father doesn't even want. It's not like he's searching for financial help because he wants to raise all three. He's fine with getting rid of one now, but it's cruel to separate them after they're born? Keeping an unwanted (by him) child and expecting (I know that's not his goal, just something brought up upthread) the state to care for it would be nuts.

[SKL]

If the contract is not upheld, the court should still award the surrogate some reasonable compensation for her services.  After all, the father contracted for babies and he's getting babies (God willing).

[Chris in VA]

Not a fan of surrogacy, but it seems a lot less cruel for the birth mom (is she referred to as a "birth mom?") to have, like, "first dibs," for lack of the proper term, on adopting the 3rd baby. I think he should just be the dad/caregiver for all of them, but if he really wants to only have two, she should get to keep one.

He seems like a douche, really. For lack of the proper term...

[Guest]

This guy has paid for a surrogate pregnancy, a fertilization procedure that has a known risk of producing multiples. He obviously understood that as a single parent, he would likely face some child care costs (if not full time day care). I say, in for a penny, in for a pound. He should be responsible for all of them. I will get flamed but he went into this eyes wide open. If he only wants 2, I think he should not only allow the surrogate to adopt, but he should also pay child support for the third that the surrogate keeps.

100% agree.

[Guest]

Why is seperating a triplet any sadder than seperating regular siblings??

[mamiof5]

Sickening. As I was reading the article I couldn't stop thinking of when we plant our garden, put more seeds than needed and then we have to pull some because we have an excess of plants. These are human beings we are talking about! "Selectively" aborting because too many babies came out of the process? Just sickening :(

[Tsuga]

 

He seems like a douche, really. For lack of the proper term...

 

I actually think that's the technical term in these situations.

[JumpyTheFrog]

Did anyone else notice the dad here is 50? I'm having a hard time understanding why a single man that age would take the risk of having multiple babies. If he only wanted two, he should've only allowed two embryos to be created.

 

Asking the taxpayers to support one is ridiculous. These babies were created intentionally. If he can't afford the third, I think the surrogate should get top priority for adopting (if she still wants to after the birth).

 

What a legal mess.

[Tap]

Did anyone else notice the dad here is 50? I'm having a hard time understanding why a single man that age would take the risk of having multiple babies. If he only wanted two, he should've only allowed two embryos to be created.

 

Asking the taxpayers to support one is ridiculous. These babies were created intentionally. If he can't afford the third, I think the surrogate should get top priority for adopting (if she still wants to after the birth).

 

What a legal mess.

The thing that making taxpayers pay for the child will do.....is change the laws, that allowed a legally forced abortion to be put in a contract in the first place. 

 

 

I don't think taxpayers should pay. I do think that the laws that allowed this to be put in a surrogacy contract, need to be changed.  If this is what it takes, then so be it.  

[SKL]

I understand the slippery slope issue though.  If there were 6 embryos or 8, the risk of wanted babies dying could outweigh the moral aspect of the surrogate being uncomfortable with abortion per se, or unwilling to view the risk the same way as the doctors and the biological parent.  (Though that could be mostly prevented by just not implanting more than 2 embryos.)

 

It could go the other way too, though.  What if the guy decided he didn't want twins, or didn't want girls, or just changed his mind all together?  Where's the line?

 

In this case, it seems like the health issue is not the main consideration, considering the babies are less than 2 months from being expected live births.

[Tsuga]

I understand the slippery slope issue though.  If there were 6 embryos or 8, the risk of wanted babies dying could outweigh the moral aspect of the surrogate being uncomfortable with abortion per se, or unwilling to view the risk the same way as the doctors and the biological parent.  (Though that could be mostly prevented by just not implanting more than 2 embryos.)

 

It could go the other way too, though.  What if the guy decided he didn't want twins, or didn't want girls, or just changed his mind all together?  Where's the line?

 

In this case, it seems like the health issue is not the main consideration, considering the babies are less than 2 months from being expected live births.

 

There are men who insist that if there was a birth control failure, they should have the right to demand an abortion or not pay child support.

 

I disagree with that so much.

 

I agree that it becomes a slippery slope. Her body, her abortion. Exception in case of underage / incapacitated rape or incest, but even then it is a VERY tough call. Schizophrenic minor raped in an institution wants to keep the baby, nobody can care for it... ack.

[LucyStoner]

Surrogacy creates dilemmas that we aren't even close to resolving culturally or legally. It's illegal to buy and sell children. I'm not wholly sure how paid surrogacy is any different than that.

[FaithManor]

I think that there should be a law on the books that states "don't implant more than you are willing to take".

 

By most state laws, she would not have "first dibs" on adoption because she is not the biological mother of the child, not married to the biological father, nothing. The only relationship they have is a contract. The child would be placed up for adoption and couples who have already been vetted, completed their home studies, etc. would have a chance to adopt the baby. It seems odd to us because she is carrying the baby, but states have made it pretty clear that a contract to carry a baby that is not biologically related to surrogate does not make the surrogate the mother. So she would have to get in line behind everyone else I would think unless he signed a placement with her through social services prior to the birth, and again, she'd have to have a home study done for it to be an adoption. He might be able to get a way with a temporary guardianship while they explore the adoption options. Those are pretty quick to have filled out and filed.

 

There is too much grey area in our surrogacy laws. We need a lot more spelling out of the parameters and rights of both the biological parent/s and the surrogate.

 

But number one should be, "don't put more in than you are willing to keep".

[SKL]

Surrogacy creates dilemmas that we aren't even close to resolving culturally or legally. It's illegal to buy and sell children. I'm not wholly sure how paid surrogacy is any different than that.

 

I think we have to look at the big picture though.  How many surrogate births went off without a major hitch last year?  Usually it works like it's supposed to, with a woman using her special ability to help someone else become a parent.  I don't see it as buying/selling a baby.  The bio parent(s) raise their own kid.

 

[TranquilMind]

Just thinking off the cuff, I reserve the right to change my mind once I think things through a bit more. LOL

 

So, the amount of time it is taking for the courts to make a decision, pretty much make it certain that she won't get the abortion (past the legal time window). Which pretty much leaves open the decision of what to do with the baby.

 

1. dad can take all 3 and raise triplets alone! Wow that seems so very hard.

 

2. surrogate can keep one, and dad can take two.  That seems sad to break up the trio and I don't think she should keep one anyways.  She signed the contract and knew what the parameters were.  I don't think she should get rewarded with a baby in the end.

 

3. Dad can take two, and adopt out one. Sad all the way around for the trio, but makes the most sense legally (but not emotionally).

 

4. Dad can take all 3 and demand that she pay child support for one.  But then that gives her legal rights to see the child, and that could just be a huge nightmare for all of them.  And then....does she only get to see one off the children?  How odd would that be for the child to grow up knowing the circumstances of why they are in existence.

 

 

 

 

Honestly, I think dad should take all 3 and the state should help to pay to raise one.  In my state, that would be something like $3-400 and state medicaid until they were 18yo.  The state won't force the surrogate to honor the contract and force her to abort.  Morally I agree (no one should be forced into an abortion!), but legally that is another matter.  If the state isn't going to uphold the contract, then they should be forced to provide care.  BUT, wow.....that opens up a whole nuther can of worms for future families and fraud!

 

 

I think that this case should show that the abortion clause needs to be removed from contracts like these and the family who are paying the surrogate, have to take as many babies as they make! To me, it is the same as getting 3 women pg at the same time and telling one that they have to abort, because he only wants 2 kids.  

I disagree with allowing him to either dictate that she eliminate one baby or disallowing her from keeping what he doesn't want.

 

The whole thing is just what you get when you start monkeying around with this outside the parameters of marriage where it is understood that the two raise their children.   He got three babies.  He should take the three babies because this was completely foreseeable that multiples could happen.  Heck no, the taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for what he voluntarily undertook.  Screw that.  He gets what he gets.   (But I haven't read the entire article yet or the terms of the contract - maybe this was addressed, but still no one should have the right to demand another abort a baby.)

 

If he doesn't want the baby, he should let her have it, though I totally agree that it is terrible to break up the trio. 

 

I think you should have babies the old-fashioned way or adopt one.  So I'm clearly out of touch with whatever is driving these sorts of decisions. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by TranquilMind

[SKL]

I think that there should be a law on the books that states "don't implant more than you are willing to take".

 

I agree, but don't they still sometimes divide after implantation?  Or do I have that wrong?

[TranquilMind]

I think that there should be a law on the books that states "don't implant more than you are willing to take".

 

 

This should just be common sense!  We should not need a law for this. 

[FaithManor]

I agree, but don't they still sometimes divide after implantation?  Or do I have that wrong?

I think they are implanted after the phase in which egg splitting takes place. But I am not entirely certain.

 

I think anybody who contracts with a surrogate needs to understand that even in natural conception there are no guarantees...plenty of twins, and yes occasionally triplets too without fertility treatment. So either the bio needs to be prepared for the risks or refrain from procreating.

 

That would be a great billboard, "Be prepared or refrain from procreating!" :D

[LucyStoner]

I'm really not ready to say that an unrelated surrogate (these are babies conceived from his sperm and donor eggs) should have any claim to any of the children. She got paid. She did this for money, not out of the kindness of her heart. She claims to be pro-life yet she presumably was willing to put her signature on a document that (perhaps illegally) gave that right to the biological father. I would never sign something like that.

 

I don't think she should have to abort. But she also shouldn't be signing surrogacy agreements if she is prolife. She also shouldn't be a paid surrogate if she wants a child of her own to adopt.

 

I think putting some of the same restrictions on surrogacy as we have on abortion (can't be essentially a sale of a child) would help address some of these problems.

 

I can see why he wouldn't want to adopt out a child after birth even if there is more than he bargained for. If he can afford a surrogate (not even vaguely cheap) he can afford an extra child.

[Laurie4b]

I think the surrogate should have first dibbs to adopt, for the sake of the child. Our understanding of adoption, for instance, has gradually changed to recognize the fact that for the baby, there is a loss of the mother whose body she grew in. Babies know and recognize the mother's voice, heartbeat, etc. 

 

And surrogacy is different from other contracts. She may have felt like she could be detached when she signed the contract, but hormones and the very real bonding that take place as you interact with your unborn child is very real. So I don't think she should be faulted in wanting to keep the baby who is not wanted. 

[LucyStoner]

I think the surrogate should have first dibbs to adopt, for the sake of the child. Our understanding of adoption, for instance, has gradually changed to recognize the fact that for the baby, there is a loss of the mother whose body she grew in. Babies know and recognize the mother's voice, heartbeat, etc.

 

And surrogacy is different from other contracts. She may have felt like she could be detached when she signed the contract, but hormones and the very real bonding that take place as you interact with your unborn child is very real. So I don't think she should be faulted in wanting to keep the baby who is not wanted.

As the biological father, I seriously doubt that once the children are born he will be able to decide WHICH child to adopt out. And if he did opt to place one or more of the children up for adoption, it's his decision as to who, where and how, within the bounds of the law. He can not sell them as she basically sold her womb.

 

I would be very uncomfortable with a precedent that gives unrelated paid surrogates any claim to a child above the biological and legal parent.

 

If the argument is that it is traumatic for babies to be be separated from whoever gestated them (in this case, not the biological or legal mother) or that surrogates can't really consent to the terms of their contracts, then the solution would be to bar surrogacy, not to give paid surrogates parental rights. I seriously doubt that is a step we are willing to take as surrogacy helps many people build their families. Heck, since it is hard for the babies to be separated from whoever gestated them and their siblings, why not just let her have dibs on all of them? Because that's not what she signed up to do. Because he is the biological father.

 

These are his children. She doesn't get "dibs" to a human being she was willing to take money to gestate knowing full well she wasn't the legal or biological parent.

Edited February 19, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Guest]

 

These are his children. She doesn't get "dibs" to a human being she was willing to take money to gestate knowing full well she wasn't the legal or biological parent.

 

Yeahbut, while under regular surrogacy circumstances I might agree with you, this dude is saying he only wants two of his kids.

 

So one is left blowing in the wind regardless. Why NOT let the woman that grew the unwanted child keep the unwanted child?

[MistyMountain]

A neighbor of mine got pregnant with triplets unexpectedly. Multiples run in her family. She adopted one of the three out and kept two because she could not manage three. If he cannot handle three at once and he wants to adopt one out it makes sense for the surrogate to get the other baby. Usually kids that get adopted later end up having siblings they do not live with.

Edited February 19, 2016 by MistyMountain

[redsquirrel]

It's odd b/c things like unexpected multiples are usually covered in the legal part. It's not like things natural surprised twins haven't happened in the world of surrogacy before. It's something that lawyers are paid to consider.

 

And she isn't the 'birth mother' if she isn't genetically involved. She is the surrogate.  At least that is what I have been told.

 

And did someone say the father is 50 and single? That is also not typical for what clinics work with.

 

I think they found each other on Craig's list and thought this would be easy. There is no way a decent lawyer had anything to do with this.

 

[Guest]

It's odd b/c things like unexpected multiples are usually covered in the legal part. It's not like things natural surprised twins haven't happened in the world of surrogacy before. It's something that lawyers are paid to consider.

 

And she isn't the 'birth mother' if she isn't genetically involved. She is the surrogate.  At least that is what I have been told.

 

And did someone say the father is 50 and single? That is also not typical for what clinics work with.

 

I think they found each other on Craig's list and thought this would be easy. There is no way a decent lawyer had anything to do with this.

 

For real. The Atlantic article says this was clearly shady.

[MercyA]

"Selective reduction" is vile. I almost can't believe the quote from the director of Vermont Surrogacy Network: "We only match carriers with intended parents who feel exactly the same way about not only abortion in general, but about hypotheticals such as reducing in the event of severe brain damage or physical deformities, or of course, if there’s multiple babies.†Of course, if there are multiple babies?!? Seriously, what are we coming to? I don't think ANY human beings, regardless of their age, should be "reduced" (killed) for being imperfect or disabled, and I sure as heck don't think they should be killed because there's one too many. What do you do, "eeny, meeny, miny, moe" and then stick a needle in that baby's heart?

 

Truly, truly disturbing.

Edited February 19, 2016 by MercyA

[Mommy22alyns]

As the biological father, I seriously doubt that once the children are born he will be able to decide WHICH child to adopt out. And if he did opt to place one or more of the children up for adoption, it's his decision as to who, where and how, within the bounds of the law. He can not sell them as she basically sold her womb.

 

I would be very uncomfortable with a precedent that gives unrelated paid surrogates any claim to a child above the biological and legal parent.

 

If the argument is that it is traumatic for babies to be be separated from whoever gestated them (in this case, not the biological or legal mother) or that surrogates can't really consent to the terms of their contracts, then the solution would be to bar surrogacy, not to give paid surrogates parental rights. I seriously doubt that is a step we are willing to take as surrogacy helps many people build their families. Heck, since it is hard for the babies to be separated from whoever gestated them and their siblings, why not just let her have dibs on all of them? Because that's not what she signed up to do. Because he is the biological father.

 

These are his children. She doesn't get "dibs" to a human being she was willing to take money to gestate knowing full well she wasn't the legal or biological parent.

 

 

Are you comfortable with her being forced into an abortion?

[SKL]

As the biological father, I seriously doubt that once the children are born he will be able to decide WHICH child to adopt out. And if he did opt to place one or more of the children up for adoption, it's his decision as to who, where and how, within the bounds of the law. He can not sell them as she basically sold her womb.

 

I would be very uncomfortable with a precedent that gives unrelated paid surrogates any claim to a child above the biological and legal parent.

 

If the argument is that it is traumatic for babies to be be separated from whoever gestated them (in this case, not the biological or legal mother) or that surrogates can't really consent to the terms of their contracts, then the solution would be to bar surrogacy, not to give paid surrogates parental rights. I seriously doubt that is a step we are willing to take as surrogacy helps many people build their families. Heck, since it is hard for the babies to be separated from whoever gestated them and their siblings, why not just let her have dibs on all of them? Because that's not what she signed up to do. Because he is the biological father.

 

These are his children. She doesn't get "dibs" to a human being she was willing to take money to gestate knowing full well she wasn't the legal or biological parent.

 

Maybe the law needs to evolve to recognize this relationship that didn't exist until recently.  The biological parents should have first rights to a child born alive, but if the biological family rejects the child, then in the best interests of the child, the surrogate should have rights before strangers.  The primal wound of separating the child from the surrogate should bear more weight in the tug-of-war than some cold legalities when the biological family doesn't want the child.

 

Whether the primal wound makes surrogacy a bad idea all around is a topic for another day.

[Katy]

Her right to her body and privacy trump his rights as a future father as the children legally aren't children yet (no matter when they become so morally).

 

I don't know if they wait until after the splitting stage is typically over or not, but I have heard of numerous cases where two embryos were implanted and three were born. It always seems one of them split, creating one set of identical twins and a fraternal triplet.

 

 

[LucyStoner]

Are you comfortable with her being forced into an abortion?

No, I am not comfortable with that- which I said up thread. It's too late for an abortion anyway.

 

Bluntly, I am not really fully comfortable with paid surrogacy. I don't see how the contract is really enforceable or safe for either side. I don't think children should be commodities to be bought.

 

However, if one knows they are prolife they really have no business signing a form which usually states they will consent to selective reduction procedures or having more than 1 embryo implanted at a time.

[LucyStoner]

Yeahbut, while under regular surrogacy circumstances I might agree with you, this dude is saying he only wants two of his kids.

 

So one is left blowing in the wind regardless. Why NOT let the woman that grew the unwanted child keep the unwanted child?

Perhaps he would want a private adoption. She knows who he is and probably could find where he lives. What is to stop her from showing up to introduce the siblings?

 

He's an older parent. Would giving her "dibs" on one baby give her grounds to contest his custody wishes (perhaps a relative of his) if he were to die young?

[Frances]

I think they are implanted after the phase in which egg splitting takes place. But I am not entirely certain.

 

I think anybody who contracts with a surrogate needs to understand that even in natural conception there are no guarantees...plenty of twins, and yes occasionally triplets too without fertility treatment. So either the bio needs to be prepared for the risks or refrain from procreating.

 

That would be a great billboard, "Be prepared or refrain from procreating!" :D

Yes, it would be a great billboard, and also would apply to getting a baby the old fashioned way.

[OnMyOwn]

Perhaps he would want a private adoption. She knows who he is and probably could find where he lives. What is to stop her from showing up to introduce the siblings?

 

He's an older parent. Would giving her "dibs" on one baby give her grounds to contest his custody wishes (perhaps a relative of his) if he were to die young?

What gives her "dibs" in my mind is that she just went through a triplet pregnancy and also a hellishly stressful legal dispute at the same time and it might be in the best interest of the child. Yes, surrogacy is a legal contract but, especially if she never had children before, she had no idea of what her feelings would be during a pregnancy. Also, we give all kinds of people who do horrible things breaks and second chances. She may have agreed to the abortion clause because she thought it would never happen. Foolish mistake, but not something that makes me disregard her as a possible mother to the child the father doesn't want.

 

These are just my feelings. I know surrogacy laws are in place for a reason and I've never looked into them, so I don't know how fair and just they are. I just can't help but feel for a woman who just went through what she has. If she's a decent person and would make a good mom to that baby, I'm rooting for her.

[Pamela H in Texas]

So according to the article, there was ONE egg.  It could have been a typo or misunderstanding, but...

 

My first thought was "don't put in more than you're willing to parent" also; but that is pretty hard if they are identical triplets.  If a parent puts in two eggs (the most common scenario these days) and both split, now you're up to quadruplets.  

 

However, I strongly would be against selective reduction. 

As for "dibs"....well, I can side with both parents on this one.  

 

First, he is the father so definitely should be making the decision.  She doesn't just get to decide she wants his baby and keep it anymore than I can just decide to keep any child I meet on the street or even love in my home for 5 or 11 months or whatever.  Of course, most people "get what they get and don't throw a fit."  All sorts of people get an oops baby late in life and keep it.  All sorts of people get twins and keep the second baby.  Stuff happens.  Suck it up daddy and enjoy all three of your kids.  BUT, it is his decision to make.

 

Second, though, if he is going to adopt one child out, I do believe she would be the most probable person to get the third baby in terms of what is best for the child.  There is a lot of evidence that shows that losing your first mother can be very problematic.  Some people have issues due to this scar.  Others do not.  But this is one relationship that does not have to end.  The person, heartbeat, voice  can continue to nurturing her after birth keeping her from having this separation.  Assuming she is living a pretty normal life, she was "good enough" (health, etc) to carry the child, she's probably "good enough" to raise her.  

 

 

[mom@shiloh]

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly, I think dad should take all 3 and the state should help to pay to raise one.  In my state, that would be something like $3-400 and state medicaid until they were 18yo.  The state won't force the surrogate to honor the contract and force her to abort.  Morally I agree (no one should be forced into an abortion!), but legally that is another matter.  If the state isn't going to uphold the contract, then they should be forced to provide care.  BUT, wow.....that opens up a whole nuther can of worms for future families and fraud!

 

 

I think that this case should show that the abortion clause needs to be removed from contracts like these and the family who are paying the surrogate, have to take as many babies as they make! To me, it is the same as getting 3 women pg at the same time and telling one that they have to abort, because he only wants 2 kids.  

I know this isn't the issue here, but I just can't get past the bolded statement here.  The "state' should pay??  You know that's like saying that you and I should be paying for this, right?  

[poppy]

I'm pro-choice, but no one gets to tell a woman she has to have an abortion. Just no. 

That needs to be between the woman and her physician.

 

I think what makes the most sense is for the dad to keep 2, and adopt 1 out.   I don't think the surrogate has any claim to one of the infants.  It's an incredibly difficult job, being a surrogate, but proper boundaries are part of it. Baby #3 deserves a fresh start in life. I don't think he'll have any problem finding a loving set of parents to take the baby.

[Saddlemomma]

Sickening. As I was reading the article I couldn't stop thinking of when we plant our garden, put more seeds than needed and then we have to pull some because we have an excess of plants. These are human beings we are talking about! "Selectively" aborting because too many babies came out of the process? Just sickening :(

 

Yeah, my sentiments exactly.  Human beings being reduced to excess sprouts in a garden.  What a sad world we live in.

[Laurie4b]

Maybe the law needs to evolve to recognize this relationship that didn't exist until recently.  The biological parents should have first rights to a child born alive, but if the biological family rejects the child, then in the best interests of the child, the surrogate should have rights before strangers.  The primal wound of separating the child from the surrogate should bear more weight in the tug-of-war than some cold legalities when the biological family doesn't want the child.

 

Whether the primal wound makes surrogacy a bad idea all around is a topic for another day.

 

Yes. Exactly. This is what I was saying. The surrogate is not "nothing" to the unborn child. The child didn't sign the darn contract. And in cases like this, for the child's sake, not for the surrogate's sake, , she she get the opportunity to adopt. 

Edited February 19, 2016 by Laurie4b

[Entropymama]

Just thinking off the cuff, I reserve the right to change my mind once I think things through a bit more. LOL

 

So, the amount of time it is taking for the courts to make a decision, pretty much make it certain that she won't get the abortion (past the legal time window). Which pretty much leaves open the decision of what to do with the baby.

 

1. dad can take all 3 and raise triplets alone! Wow that seems so very hard.

 

2. surrogate can keep one, and dad can take two.  That seems sad to break up the trio and I don't think she should keep one anyways.  She signed the contract and knew what the parameters were.  I don't think she should get rewarded with a baby in the end.

 

3. Dad can take two, and adopt out one. Sad all the way around for the trio, but makes the most sense legally (but not emotionally).

 

4. Dad can take all 3 and demand that she pay child support for one.  But then that gives her legal rights to see the child, and that could just be a huge nightmare for all of them.  And then....does she only get to see one off the children?  How odd would that be for the child to grow up knowing the circumstances of why they are in existence.

 

 

 

 

Honestly, I think dad should take all 3 and the state should help to pay to raise one.  In my state, that would be something like $3-400 and state medicaid until they were 18yo.  The state won't force the surrogate to honor the contract and force her to abort.  Morally I agree (no one should be forced into an abortion!), but legally that is another matter.  If the state isn't going to uphold the contract, then they should be forced to provide care.  BUT, wow.....that opens up a whole nuther can of worms for future families and fraud!

 

 

I think that this case should show that the abortion clause needs to be removed from contracts like these and the family who are paying the surrogate, have to take as many babies as they make! To me, it is the same as getting 3 women pg at the same time and telling one that they have to abort, because he only wants 2 kids.  

 

Re: the bolded - this is what makes these cases so hard. In general, if we were talking about cars, or real estate, or cash, I would agree. You don't violate a contract and then get what you want. But the baby isn't a reward, it's a person. 

 

"Selective reduction" is vile. I almost can't believe the quote from the director of Vermont Surrogacy Network: "We only match carriers with intended parents who feel exactly the same way about not only abortion in general, but about hypotheticals such as reducing in the event of severe brain damage or physical deformities, or of course, if there’s multiple babies.†Of course, if there's multiple babies?!? Seriously, what are we coming to? I don't think ANY human beings, regardless of their age, should be "reduced" (killed) for being imperfect or disabled, and I sure as heck don't think they should be killed because there's one too many. What do you do, "eeny, meeny, miny, moe" and then stick a needle in that baby's heart?

 

Truly, truly disturbing.

 

Personally, I would never be involved with a professional organization that uses bad grammar. There are multiple babies, not there's multiple babies. Sheesh. 

[momacacia]

As a side note, I do wish adoption felt like more of an option for people in this man's position. Sure, he wants a bio child, but there are many even babies, older infants who need parents. It would be so, so much more responsible to adopt a child than to end up in this situation. I so appreciate seeing the "older" single people I know who have adopted. I really think it's a lovely thing, for both parties.

Edited February 20, 2016 by momacacia