IVF embryo error, custody settlement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic parents realized the law was not on their side and it would likely be a costly and unsuccessful lawsuit to win custody so they agreed to this arrangement to be allowed to stay in the child’s life. It is very sad for the genetic parents.

The birth mother has said the genetic parents are staying a part of their shared child’s life.

I suppose we will ignore epigenetics, because in a very real sense, both mothers are genetic parents.

Well, let’s ignore it then because this baby will grow up forever confused.

It’s not really confusing? Lots of children are conceived with sperm, egg, and embryo donation. The parents can and should explain what happened here.

Yeah, hey kid your real parents really wanted you but we decided to selfishly keep you ourselves instead of making a hard choice for an unfortunate situation.

Or the actual story. “Hey, kid, when you were born, we realized the doctor mixed something up. We realized that someone else made the embryo you grew from. When we found out, we looked everywhere—all over the world— for the people who made your embryo so we could make sure they knew about you and how much we loved you. We both love you so much, and so that’s why we’re all involved and part of your life. Your embryo parents thought it would be really hard and scary to take you away from us, when we’re the only people to have raised you from when you were a baby. So they made a selfless decision and agreed that we would raise you, but we would all be part of your life and love you.]

So you would just spew a bunch of lies? Searching all over the world, what? They were all patients at the same clinic and the bio parents are heartbroken that the law will be an uphill battle for them to get her back. The baby will learn the truth someday and know that she was very much wanted by the bio parents and denied the chance to grow up with them by the selfish couple who can't have their own kids.

After the child’s birth, the family immediately went to national and international media trying to identify the baby’s genetic parents because they said the genetic parents deserved to know?

Don't you think this was going to be an issue? The baby she birthed was obviously not from their embryos. The problem was glaring and staring them in the face. Can't exactly sweep it under the rug, they weren't being magnanimous by trying to find the bio parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think I would have figured out that the child was not biologically my own since the child in this situation looked nothing like her parents.
She was much darker skin-toned.

But for the sake of my child, if I truly believed her parents loved her like their own, I would have let them keep her.

Because disrupting a happy family’s dynamic is not something I would want my legacy to be. ✨

People aren’t always born with much darker skin tones. Babies gradually gain color over the first few months. Remember they were in a darkroom for 40 weeks with no exposure to sunlight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

If you have embryos on ice there is always the chance of another baby. Nobody asked them for permission to use their embryo in the first place. This isn't a finders keepers situation. Do you have any kids of your own? Your detachment from genetic bonds is very odd.

This situation is a tragedy with no easy answers. Have you never given birth? Can you even imagine someone ripping away a child you always understood to be yours after carrying the child for nine months, having a traumatic delivery, and nursing the baby? The trauma of someone taking that child from me (exactly why I could NEVER be a surrogate).

Suggesting that the “obvious” or “easy” solution is that the birth parents should “give the baby back” is just absurd. Again, it’s a terrible situation with no easy answers.
Someone will be harmed no matter what decision is made.

DP but I think the answer is both obvious and incredibly difficult. The parents who are keeping this baby are doing the easy but unethical thing.

+1 These desperate childless parents wanted a baby by any means possible. They are putting their needs above the child's and that's what is absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

If you have embryos on ice there is always the chance of another baby. Nobody asked them for permission to use their embryo in the first place. This isn't a finders keepers situation. Do you have any kids of your own? Your detachment from genetic bonds is very odd.

This situation is a tragedy with no easy answers. Have you never given birth? Can you even imagine someone ripping away a child you always understood to be yours after carrying the child for nine months, having a traumatic delivery, and nursing the baby? The trauma of someone taking that child from me (exactly why I could NEVER be a surrogate).

Suggesting that the “obvious” or “easy” solution is that the birth parents should “give the baby back” is just absurd. Again, it’s a terrible situation with no easy answers.
Someone will be harmed no matter what decision is made.

DP but I think the answer is both obvious and incredibly difficult. The parents who are keeping this baby are doing the easy but unethical thing.

+1

It’s obvious the baby wasn’t their baby.

And the bio parents wanted the baby.

The birth parents will likely regret this down the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

The genetic parents' lawyer said they were devastated to learn the law would not be on their side if they fought for custody.

The birth parents didn’t create “the law.” The law is what it is. And their lawyer was right. That doesn’t mean the birth family strong armed anyone.

Nobody said they created the law. Stop tilting at windmills. You asked if "anyone even [knew] if the genetic parents wanted another baby" and I told you how we know that they wanted THIS baby, which is their baby. The birthing parents made it clear they would fight for custody, the lawyers made it clear to the genetic parents that they would lose that fight, and trying to have any access to the child through a personal agreement to stay in its life was the only path forward. They were strongarmed.

Both families wanted the baby. The law said the birth mom gets the baby. Not strong arming. Just what the law is.

What a neat pivot from claiming they probably didn't even want the baby to "suck it up genetic parents, you lose."

You’re the one pivoting. The dispute is whether the birth family “strong armed” the genetic family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

If you have embryos on ice there is always the chance of another baby. Nobody asked them for permission to use their embryo in the first place. This isn't a finders keepers situation. Do you have any kids of your own? Your detachment from genetic bonds is very odd.

This situation is a tragedy with no easy answers. Have you never given birth? Can you even imagine someone ripping away a child you always understood to be yours after carrying the child for nine months, having a traumatic delivery, and nursing the baby? The trauma of someone taking that child from me (exactly why I could NEVER be a surrogate).

Suggesting that the “obvious” or “easy” solution is that the birth parents should “give the baby back” is just absurd. Again, it’s a terrible situation with no easy answers.
Someone will be harmed no matter what decision is made.

DP but I think the answer is both obvious and incredibly difficult. The parents who are keeping this baby are doing the easy but unethical thing.

+1 These desperate childless parents wanted a baby by any means possible. They are putting their needs above the child's and that's what is absurd.

She carried a baby in her uterus that she genuinely believed was her own until she gave birth. I cannot believe people are blaming the birth mother for the situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

The genetic parents' lawyer said they were devastated to learn the law would not be on their side if they fought for custody.

The birth parents didn’t create “the law.” The law is what it is. And their lawyer was right. That doesn’t mean the birth family strong armed anyone.

Nobody said they created the law. Stop tilting at windmills. You asked if "anyone even [knew] if the genetic parents wanted another baby" and I told you how we know that they wanted THIS baby, which is their baby. The birthing parents made it clear they would fight for custody, the lawyers made it clear to the genetic parents that they would lose that fight, and trying to have any access to the child through a personal agreement to stay in its life was the only path forward. They were strongarmed.

Both families wanted the baby. The law said the birth mom gets the baby. Not strong arming. Just what the law is.

What a neat pivot from claiming they probably didn't even want the baby to "suck it up genetic parents, you lose."

You’re the one pivoting. The dispute is whether the birth family “strong armed” the genetic family.

Obviously they did. The law doesn't force them to keep her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

If you have embryos on ice there is always the chance of another baby. Nobody asked them for permission to use their embryo in the first place. This isn't a finders keepers situation. Do you have any kids of your own? Your detachment from genetic bonds is very odd.

This situation is a tragedy with no easy answers. Have you never given birth? Can you even imagine someone ripping away a child you always understood to be yours after carrying the child for nine months, having a traumatic delivery, and nursing the baby? The trauma of someone taking that child from me (exactly why I could NEVER be a surrogate).

Suggesting that the “obvious” or “easy” solution is that the birth parents should “give the baby back” is just absurd. Again, it’s a terrible situation with no easy answers.
Someone will be harmed no matter what decision is made.

DP but I think the answer is both obvious and incredibly difficult. The parents who are keeping this baby are doing the easy but unethical thing.

Just to be clear, you think taking a child from the woman who birthed, nursed, and raised her for six months won’t have any ill effects on the child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

The genetic parents' lawyer said they were devastated to learn the law would not be on their side if they fought for custody.

The birth parents didn’t create “the law.” The law is what it is. And their lawyer was right. That doesn’t mean the birth family strong armed anyone.

Nobody said they created the law. Stop tilting at windmills. You asked if "anyone even [knew] if the genetic parents wanted another baby" and I told you how we know that they wanted THIS baby, which is their baby. The birthing parents made it clear they would fight for custody, the lawyers made it clear to the genetic parents that they would lose that fight, and trying to have any access to the child through a personal agreement to stay in its life was the only path forward. They were strongarmed.

Both families wanted the baby. The law said the birth mom gets the baby. Not strong arming. Just what the law is.

What a neat pivot from claiming they probably didn't even want the baby to "suck it up genetic parents, you lose."

You’re the one pivoting. The dispute is whether the birth family “strong armed” the genetic family.

Obviously they did. The law doesn't force them to keep her.

“Not giving the kid away” = “strong-arming”? Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

If you have embryos on ice there is always the chance of another baby. Nobody asked them for permission to use their embryo in the first place. This isn't a finders keepers situation. Do you have any kids of your own? Your detachment from genetic bonds is very odd.

This situation is a tragedy with no easy answers. Have you never given birth? Can you even imagine someone ripping away a child you always understood to be yours after carrying the child for nine months, having a traumatic delivery, and nursing the baby? The trauma of someone taking that child from me (exactly why I could NEVER be a surrogate).

Suggesting that the “obvious” or “easy” solution is that the birth parents should “give the baby back” is just absurd. Again, it’s a terrible situation with no easy answers.
Someone will be harmed no matter what decision is made.

DP but I think the answer is both obvious and incredibly difficult. The parents who are keeping this baby are doing the easy but unethical thing.

+1 These desperate childless parents wanted a baby by any means possible. They are putting their needs above the child's and that's what is absurd.

She carried a baby in her uterus that she genuinely believed was her own until she gave birth. I cannot believe people are blaming the birth mother for the situation.

I'm the one who said this is obvious but incredibly difficult. I don't blame her for the situation. I do think she's in a terrible situation not of her making, and I still think she's behaving unethically by keeping the child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

The genetic parents' lawyer said they were devastated to learn the law would not be on their side if they fought for custody.

The birth parents didn’t create “the law.” The law is what it is. And their lawyer was right. That doesn’t mean the birth family strong armed anyone.

Nobody said they created the law. Stop tilting at windmills. You asked if "anyone even [knew] if the genetic parents wanted another baby" and I told you how we know that they wanted THIS baby, which is their baby. The birthing parents made it clear they would fight for custody, the lawyers made it clear to the genetic parents that they would lose that fight, and trying to have any access to the child through a personal agreement to stay in its life was the only path forward. They were strongarmed.

Both families wanted the baby. The law said the birth mom gets the baby. Not strong arming. Just what the law is.

What a neat pivot from claiming they probably didn't even want the baby to "suck it up genetic parents, you lose."

You’re the one pivoting. The dispute is whether the birth family “strong armed” the genetic family.

Obviously they did. The law doesn't force them to keep her.

“Not giving the kid away” = “strong-arming”? Got it.

Telling the birth parents "you can fight us in court, lose, and never see your child again, or sign this document that says you'll be allowed in its life" = "strongarming". Got it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't followed it all the way, but I remember being shocked that they located the biological parents and they didn't choose to sue for custody. I get why it's not the birth couple's fault, but I couldn't be so generous.

I went through IVF and I can't imagine being either couple in this scenario.

I think it was a very loving choice by the genetic parents. They didn't want to take a baby from the only family it has known or put parents who had bonded with and carried a baby through the pain of loss.

Well sure, I called it generous. I just couldn't do it.

+1

Maybe the couple "lucked out" in the sense that the biological parents had already completed their family, and it was a surplus embryo. We're not given any details but it could be something along those lines.

Is that actually lucky? Can you imagine being the biological couple’s other children and knowing that your parents would just give your siblings away? It would make me feel very disposable.

They didn’t just give the kid away, nor did they treat the baby as disposable. But way to make adopted kids feel like crap. Some of your people are so one dimensional. We have no idea how long ago the embryo was frozen or whether the bio parents were in a marital, physical, emotional or financial state to become parents again.

For all we know they are 70 or 80 years old now and that’s a 40 year old embryo. Would totally make sense for the new family to keep this baby

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

The genetic parents' lawyer said they were devastated to learn the law would not be on their side if they fought for custody.

The birth parents didn’t create “the law.” The law is what it is. And their lawyer was right. That doesn’t mean the birth family strong armed anyone.

Nobody said they created the law. Stop tilting at windmills. You asked if "anyone even [knew] if the genetic parents wanted another baby" and I told you how we know that they wanted THIS baby, which is their baby. The birthing parents made it clear they would fight for custody, the lawyers made it clear to the genetic parents that they would lose that fight, and trying to have any access to the child through a personal agreement to stay in its life was the only path forward. They were strongarmed.

Both families wanted the baby. The law said the birth mom gets the baby. Not strong arming. Just what the law is.

What a neat pivot from claiming they probably didn't even want the baby to "suck it up genetic parents, you lose."

You’re the one pivoting. The dispute is whether the birth family “strong armed” the genetic family.

Obviously they did. The law doesn't force them to keep her.

“Not giving the kid away” = “strong-arming”? Got it.

Telling the birth parents "you can fight us in court, lose, and never see your child again, or sign this document that says you'll be allowed in its life" = "strongarming". Got it?

Do you know what a birth parent is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

The genetic parents' lawyer said they were devastated to learn the law would not be on their side if they fought for custody.

The birth parents didn’t create “the law.” The law is what it is. And their lawyer was right. That doesn’t mean the birth family strong armed anyone.

Nobody said they created the law. Stop tilting at windmills. You asked if "anyone even [knew] if the genetic parents wanted another baby" and I told you how we know that they wanted THIS baby, which is their baby. The birthing parents made it clear they would fight for custody, the lawyers made it clear to the genetic parents that they would lose that fight, and trying to have any access to the child through a personal agreement to stay in its life was the only path forward. They were strongarmed.

Both families wanted the baby. The law said the birth mom gets the baby. Not strong arming. Just what the law is.

What a neat pivot from claiming they probably didn't even want the baby to "suck it up genetic parents, you lose."

You’re the one pivoting. The dispute is whether the birth family “strong armed” the genetic family.

Obviously they did. The law doesn't force them to keep her.

“Not giving the kid away” = “strong-arming”? Got it.

Telling the birth parents "you can fight us in court, lose, and never see your child again, or sign this document that says you'll be allowed in its life" = "strongarming". Got it?

Do you know what a birth parent is?

You're being ridiculous. You get mad if they're called surrogates, you get mad if they're called "birth parents". I'm not going to call them biological parents to soothe your conscience. They're not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

If you have embryos on ice there is always the chance of another baby. Nobody asked them for permission to use their embryo in the first place. This isn't a finders keepers situation. Do you have any kids of your own? Your detachment from genetic bonds is very odd.

This situation is a tragedy with no easy answers. Have you never given birth? Can you even imagine someone ripping away a child you always understood to be yours after carrying the child for nine months, having a traumatic delivery, and nursing the baby? The trauma of someone taking that child from me (exactly why I could NEVER be a surrogate).

Suggesting that the “obvious” or “easy” solution is that the birth parents should “give the baby back” is just absurd. Again, it’s a terrible situation with no easy answers.
Someone will be harmed no matter what decision is made.

DP but I think the answer is both obvious and incredibly difficult. The parents who are keeping this baby are doing the easy but unethical thing.

Just to be clear, you think taking a child from the woman who birthed, nursed, and raised her for six months won’t have any ill effects on the child?

Probably fewer ill effects than feeling abandoned and in a place you don't necessarily fit in or belong when your bio family desperately wanted you.