IVF embryo error, custody settlement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone been following the story of the couple who mistakenly received an embryo that was not their own, then pursued custody after the infant (different race/ethnicity) was born? Amazingly they will have primary custody of the now six-month-old child. If I were the biological parents, I would not have been able to agree to that, but I guess I'm happy for the couple that it worked out the way they hoped.

https://people.com/couple-ivf-embryo-mixup-reach-custody-agreement-daughters-biological-parents-11998206

The biological parents did not want custody.

Where does it say that? They could be sharing custody.

The reporting suggests their involvement is up in the air. All we know for sure is the couple subjected to the mix-up now have primary custody as part of a settlement, suggesting the bio parents agreed rather than pursue litigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both are the biological parents as the woman who carried the baby is also connected, just as much if not more. Courts do crazy things. The child belongs to the woman who carried it. This wasn't a surrogacy.

This is literally the definition of surrogacy. A woman carried another couple’s embryo and gave birth to a healthy baby with no genetic connection to herself.

If that’s not surrogacy, what is?

I mean she never agreed to being a surrogate so she wasn't mentally preparing herself for it. It's massively unfair to treat her as a surrogate when she had no reason to set the mental boundaries and preparation a surrogate would do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both are the biological parents as the woman who carried the baby is also connected, just as much if not more. Courts do crazy things. The child belongs to the woman who carried it. This wasn't a surrogacy.

This is literally the definition of surrogacy. A woman carried another couple’s embryo and gave birth to a healthy baby with no genetic connection to herself.

If that’s not surrogacy, what is?

Surrogacy is an agreement between two parties. There was no agreement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both are the biological parents as the woman who carried the baby is also connected, just as much if not more. Courts do crazy things. The child belongs to the woman who carried it. This wasn't a surrogacy.

This is literally the definition of surrogacy. A woman carried another couple’s embryo and gave birth to a healthy baby with no genetic connection to herself.

If that’s not surrogacy, what is?

If that was true we would consider women who use donor eggs surrogates, and we don’t. Surrogacy is when you intentionally create a pregnancy and carry it to term with the intention that it will be raised by someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both are the biological parents as the woman who carried the baby is also connected, just as much if not more. Courts do crazy things. The child belongs to the woman who carried it. This wasn't a surrogacy.

This is literally the definition of surrogacy. A woman carried another couple’s embryo and gave birth to a healthy baby with no genetic connection to herself.

If that’s not surrogacy, what is?

If that was true we would consider women who use donor eggs surrogates, and we don’t. Surrogacy is when you intentionally create a pregnancy and carry it to term with the intention that it will be raised by someone else.

Surrogacy also involves a legal contract.
An embryo is not a new born infant. You cannot even compare the 2.
A woman is not a baby machine either. She carried the baby to term and is the natural and the legal mother.
I know this is hard if you’re the family that lost an embryo. There is a world of a difference in losing an embryo and losing your one and only child you just gave birth to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both are the biological parents as the woman who carried the baby is also connected, just as much if not more. Courts do crazy things. The child belongs to the woman who carried it. This wasn't a surrogacy.

This is literally the definition of surrogacy. A woman carried another couple’s embryo and gave birth to a healthy baby with no genetic connection to herself.

If that’s not surrogacy, what is?

If that was true we would consider women who use donor eggs surrogates, and we don’t. Surrogacy is when you intentionally create a pregnancy and carry it to term with the intention that it will be raised by someone else.

Surrogacy also involves a legal contract.
An embryo is not a new born infant. You cannot even compare the 2.
A woman is not a baby machine either. She carried the baby to term and is the natural and the legal mother.
I know this is hard if you’re the family that lost an embryo. There is a world of a difference in losing an embryo and losing your one and only child you just gave birth to.

That's not what the law says, though.

[Anonymous]

With the Fertility Center of Orlando closing, or now closed, I wonder if either set of parents can get any restitution from the center or its owners/former owners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both are the biological parents as the woman who carried the baby is also connected, just as much if not more. Courts do crazy things. The child belongs to the woman who carried it. This wasn't a surrogacy.

This is literally the definition of surrogacy. A woman carried another couple’s embryo and gave birth to a healthy baby with no genetic connection to herself.

If that’s not surrogacy, what is?

If that was true we would consider women who use donor eggs surrogates, and we don’t. Surrogacy is when you intentionally create a pregnancy and carry it to term with the intention that it will be raised by someone else.

Surrogacy also involves a legal contract.
An embryo is not a new born infant. You cannot even compare the 2.
A woman is not a baby machine either. She carried the baby to term and is the natural and the legal mother.
I know this is hard if you’re the family that lost an embryo. There is a world of a difference in losing an embryo and losing your one and only child you just gave birth to.

That's not what the law says, though.

This is what the law says. Surrogacy disputes are all centered around the legal contract

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both are the biological parents as the woman who carried the baby is also connected, just as much if not more. Courts do crazy things. The child belongs to the woman who carried it. This wasn't a surrogacy.

This is literally the definition of surrogacy. A woman carried another couple’s embryo and gave birth to a healthy baby with no genetic connection to herself.

If that’s not surrogacy, what is?

If that was true we would consider women who use donor eggs surrogates, and we don’t. Surrogacy is when you intentionally create a pregnancy and carry it to term with the intention that it will be raised by someone else.

Surrogacy also involves a legal contract.
An embryo is not a new born infant. You cannot even compare the 2.
A woman is not a baby machine either. She carried the baby to term and is the natural and the legal mother.
I know this is hard if you’re the family that lost an embryo. There is a world of a difference in losing an embryo and losing your one and only child you just gave birth to.

That's not what the law says, though.

This is what the law says. Surrogacy disputes are all centered around the legal contract

This was not a surrogacy nor was there an agreement.

[Anonymous]

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.

Could you imagine being the baby and when you grow up realizing your bio parents said, no thanks.

[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.

Could you imagine being the baby and when you grow up realizing your bio parents said, no thanks.

The bio mom whose egg was used is not a parent, never was
Neither is that child a sibling of some unknown person who they have never met.
It’s just genetics. Not ownership. People are not possessions

[Anonymous]

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.

I know a family that had donated two embryos to another couple (they had two kids via IVF from two attempts and were done). Those embryos must have been some super successful ones because the other couple also had two kids. The families keep in touch and plan to introduce their kids at some point.

[Anonymous]

The article I read said that the clinic fertilized the wrong egg. So the bio dad is the husband of the wife who birthed the baby. Is that incorrect? But yes, it is unclear what role the biological mother will play and it’s really none of our business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The article I read said that the clinic fertilized the wrong egg. So the bio dad is the husband of the wife who birthed the baby. Is that incorrect? But yes, it is unclear what role the biological mother will play and it’s really none of our business.

That is not correct. It was an embryo mix-up. The couple raising the baby are not genetically related to the baby who was born in December 2025.

[Anonymous]

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.