Surrogacy case - Michigan

[SKL]

Just saw this and wondered what the Hive would think of this.

Personally I think some judges are confused.  Paternity established by DNA doesn't require a contract.  The surrogacy contract can't be enforced, but because nobody is trying to break it, that shouldn't matter.

So this couple has to adopt its own children ... hopefully there is a reasonably quick and easy process for them to do so.

Thoughts?

https://fox8.com/news/parents-denied-legal-rights-to-their-babies-due-to-outdated-law/

[PeterPan]

It looks like the premature birth of the babies caused them to miss the step that would have prevented this problem. 

https://www.americansurrogacy.com/surrogacy/michigan-surrogacy-laws

https://www.americansurrogacy.com/parents/pre-birth-orders

I don't know why they wouldn't have anticipated the premature births (since that's common in twin gestation) and had this taken care of. I don't know if it would have solved the problem, since I know nothing about law, MI, surrogacy, etc. Mainly it looks like they screwed up and are trying to get people to pity them and presumably cover the cost of the adoptions. Seems a little late to expect a law change.

[SKL]

7 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

It looks like the premature birth of the babies caused them to miss the step that would have prevented this problem. 

https://www.americansurrogacy.com/surrogacy/michigan-surrogacy-laws

https://www.americansurrogacy.com/parents/pre-birth-orders

I don't know why they wouldn't have anticipated the premature births (since that's common in twin gestation) and had this taken care of. I don't know if it would have solved the problem, since I know nothing about law, MI, surrogacy, etc. Mainly it looks like they screwed up and are trying to get people to pity them and presumably cover the cost of the adoptions. Seems a little late to expect a law change.

I think if they do look for $, it would be to cover the cost of medical care that isn't covered by insurance.  Hopefully the costs of adopting kids in-state where the legal parent is on-board should not be much (I'm not in Michigan though).

I assume that if the dad didn't want the kid, paternity could be used to force him to provide support, so it seems backwards to prevent him from taking on the legal responsibilities when he wants to.

I assume the law was written to protect women who would want to back out and keep the child, particularly if the surrogate was also a biological parent, neither of which applies here.

While I think the fact that both parents provided the DNA of child should allow them to be legal parents without an adoption, I also think that MI needs to look at amending the law to consider cases like this.

I never realized before that surrogacy cancels all biological parenthood.

[PeterPan]

4 minutes ago, SKL said:

I never realized before that surrogacy cancels all biological parenthood.

Think about the problems if it didn't. 

[Murphy101]

I think using women as incubators is a bad thing in general.  So I’m not surprised when it doesn’t go well or smoothly. 

[SKL]

1 minute ago, PeterPan said:

Think about the problems if it didn't. 

It would be complicated, but so are a lot of things in life.  Most adoptions in the US are "open adoptions" where there is some ongoing connection between the first mother and adoptive parents.  Why would surrogacy pose more difficulty (assuming all willing parties)?  Especially when the surrogate has no DNA connection to the child?

I understand the parties go in knowing there are all kinds of risks.  And I can understand why many people would prefer to just not go there.  I dunno, I just assumed your DNA is your DNA unless you do something to legally terminate ties.  Don't even sperm donors have to sign off that they have no rights to their biological kids?

Color me ignorant, I guess.

[prairiewindmomma]

My thoughts? Surrogacy in a state with a well-known law against in, in a county known for denying pre-birth orders....they were stupid, and ill advised by whatever counsel they used to draft the surrogacy contract.

Odds are this will come up in their state’s CLE yearly review of big cases.

Look, it’s one thing to try to push the law forward to match society better—we’ve seen that in a wide variety of areas—but you have to advise your clients as to the realities of the current state of things and NICU bills easily run $xxx,xxx. It would have been cheaper to relocate out of state  or to even pick a better county.

[HS Mom in NC]

(I'm the parent of an international adoptee and 2 bio kids.)


Here's the primary problem in this situation:

“But we also believed with everything inside of us that there was no way a judge could hear our story and look into our faces and tell us that we do not have rights to our biological children.”

Some people just aren't a good fit for legally complicated families because they think their feelings are primary.  But they aren't; laws are. There was a long history of that jurisdiction having anti-surrogacy laws and premie twins are incredibly common. So they gambled foolishly and lost.

Don't interpret that to mean I support anti-surrogacy laws.  The reality there is that there are anti-surrogacy laws on the books, like it or not.  You don't have to like a law to be subject to it.  Neither does a law being stupid make it null and void. 

[marbel]

10 hours ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

(I'm the parent of an international adoptee and 2 bio kids.)


Here's the primary problem in this situation:

“But we also believed with everything inside of us that there was no way a judge could hear our story and look into our faces and tell us that we do not have rights to our biological children.”

Some people just aren't a good fit for legally complicated families because they think their feelings are primary.  But they aren't; laws are. There was a long history of that jurisdiction having anti-surrogacy laws and premie twins are incredibly common. So they gambled foolishly and lost.

Don't interpret that to mean I support anti-surrogacy laws.  The reality there is that there are anti-surrogacy laws on the books, like it or not.  You don't have to like a law to be subject to it.  Neither does a law being stupid make it null and void. 

I had highlighted the bolded to post before I saw this Homeschool Mom's comments. Yes, indeed.

And what a terrible judge he or she would be, if they had flouted a law because, well, feels.

I feel sorry for all involved. But the parents should have known what they were doing 

Edited January 22, 2021 by marbel

[Dmmetler]

17 hours ago, SKL said:

It would be complicated, but so are a lot of things in life.  Most adoptions in the US are "open adoptions" where there is some ongoing connection between the first mother and adoptive parents.  Why would surrogacy pose more difficulty (assuming all willing parties)?  Especially when the surrogate has no DNA connection to the child?

I understand the parties go in knowing there are all kinds of risks.  And I can understand why many people would prefer to just not go there.  I dunno, I just assumed your DNA is your DNA unless you do something to legally terminate ties.  Don't even sperm donors have to sign off that they have no rights to their biological kids?

Color me ignorant, I guess.

I know one person who has been a surrogate multiple times. She has, in the past, had multiple easy pregnancies, feels good while pregnant, and feels this is a gift she can give these families which also allows her to be home for her kids. Until COVID, she also did home daycare and was able to actually care for a couple of the children she gestated. 

 

I think surrogacy, or, for that matter, adoption of an infant when the plans are made before birth, both would be really, really hard for the birthmother. Even if you emotionally know this isn't your child, your body won't know that, and your hormones won't know that. 

[Drama Llama]

19 hours ago, SKL said:

Just saw this and wondered what the Hive would think of this.

Personally I think some judges are confused.  Paternity established by DNA doesn't require a contract.  The surrogacy contract can't be enforced, but because nobody is trying to break it, that shouldn't matter.

So this couple has to adopt its own children ... hopefully there is a reasonably quick and easy process for them to do so.

Thoughts?

https://fox8.com/news/parents-denied-legal-rights-to-their-babies-due-to-outdated-law/

Generally, if a woman is married, then her husband is automatically the legal father of any child(ren) born to them.

While I do support surrogacy being a legal option, I think that it makes sense to continue to automatically recognize a woman who carries a pregnancy as the mother of a child, and her husband as the father of that child, unless there is legal documentation that takes precedence.  

[Murphy101]

1 hour ago, BaseballandHockey said:

Generally, if a woman is married, then her husband is automatically the legal father of any child(ren) born to them.

While I do support surrogacy being a legal option, I think that it makes sense to continue to automatically recognize a woman who carries a pregnancy as the mother of a child, and her husband as the father of that child, unless there is legal documentation that takes precedence.  

I don’t support surrogacy being a legal option but otherwise agree with you. 

[J-rap]

I'm not speaking to this particular case, but I think any surrogacy situation needs to have very, very clear steps and laws in place, which are easily available to know and understand.  Both the parents and the woman carrying the baby should have been clearly advised, every step.   I suppose that would start with medical clinics.  So many entities are involved in this ~ much moreso than a typical adoption.

That said, I do support surrogacy in certain situations.   I do feel sorry for everyone involved.  It's complicated.