IVF embryo error, custody settlement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

+1. I get her desperation, but it’s focused on just this time in the child’s life. The baby years are short. This child will be a teenager and an adult wondering about their genetic family and very likely have negative feelings about not being able to be raised by them.

As others have said, it’s a lose-lose situation, but I think the better choice would have been to give the child to their genetic family, assuming that’s what they wanted.

The genetic parents have visitation rights and will remain in the child’s life.

So you disagree with surrogacy?

No? I do disagree with non consensual, forced surrogacy.

Is forced embryo donation ok?

No! Neither is okay! As explained repeatedly, both sets of parents are real and valid parents with real and valid ties to the child. To act like what’s in the best interest of the child is an easy or obvious decision here is ridiculous.

Doing the right thing is not always easy now they will have an awkward custody situation.

All options are bad. No options are perfect. Keeping both sets of parents in the child’s life in some way is obviously in the child’s best interest.

Yes she should have been with the bio parents with her real family, culture, and community. The gestational parent can have visitation. But the baby wouldn't remember her or care about her later. There will always be a connection with the bio parents and other family. To deny this is ridiculous. It's why adoptees seek out their bio parents.

Have you ever heard of The Primal Wound? Again, all bad options here.

Adoptees seek out bio parents of course. This child will have access to her bio parents per the agreement.

How kind to give her parents access. These people are horrendous and selfish. This isn't their baby.

This is her child.

No, it’s really not. Everyone knows this.

She carried and gave birth. She’s on the birth certificate. Her child.

[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.

By your reasoning, every hired surrogate is a biological parent?

This isn’t a surrogacy and yes they are connected.

No they aren’t. They carry the baby then hand it over and go on with their lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

+1. I get her desperation, but it’s focused on just this time in the child’s life. The baby years are short. This child will be a teenager and an adult wondering about their genetic family and very likely have negative feelings about not being able to be raised by them.

As others have said, it’s a lose-lose situation, but I think the better choice would have been to give the child to their genetic family, assuming that’s what they wanted.

The genetic parents have visitation rights and will remain in the child’s life.

So you disagree with surrogacy?

No? I do disagree with non consensual, forced surrogacy.

Is forced embryo donation ok?

No! Neither is okay! As explained repeatedly, both sets of parents are real and valid parents with real and valid ties to the child. To act like what’s in the best interest of the child is an easy or obvious decision here is ridiculous.

Doing the right thing is not always easy now they will have an awkward custody situation.

All options are bad. No options are perfect. Keeping both sets of parents in the child’s life in some way is obviously in the child’s best interest.

Yes she should have been with the bio parents with her real family, culture, and community. The gestational parent can have visitation. But the baby wouldn't remember her or care about her later. There will always be a connection with the bio parents and other family. To deny this is ridiculous. It's why adoptees seek out their bio parents.

Have you ever heard of The Primal Wound? Again, all bad options here.

Adoptees seek out bio parents of course. This child will have access to her bio parents per the agreement.

How kind to give her parents access. These people are horrendous and selfish. This isn't their baby.

This is her child.

No, it’s really not. Everyone knows this.

She carried and gave birth. She’s on the birth certificate. Her child.

Yeah sure. Would you tell your kid that and never be honest?

[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.

By your reasoning, every hired surrogate is a biological parent?

This isn’t a surrogacy and yes they are connected.

No they aren’t. They carry the baby then hand it over and go on with their lives.

This is the most twisted logic I have ever heard.
A woman is not a baby machine.
A woman is a mother, a human being.
What so you not understand?
Everyone knows the difference between an embryo in a dish and a brand new full term baby that is 8lb and 4oz

[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.

By your reasoning, every hired surrogate is a biological parent?

This isn’t a surrogacy and yes they are connected.

No they aren’t. They carry the baby then hand it over and go on with their lives.

This is the most twisted logic I have ever heard.
A woman is not a baby machine.
A woman is a mother, a human being.
What so you not understand?
Everyone knows the difference between an embryo in a dish and a brand new full term baby that is 8lb and 4oz

So you don’t know what a surrogate is? You can lie to your kids all you want but this girl will know from a young age who she is.

[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.

By your reasoning, every hired surrogate is a biological parent?

This isn’t a surrogacy and yes they are connected.

No they aren’t. They carry the baby then hand it over and go on with their lives.

This is the most twisted logic I have ever heard.
A woman is not a baby machine.
A woman is a mother, a human being.
What so you not understand?
Everyone knows the difference between an embryo in a dish and a brand new full term baby that is 8lb and 4oz

So you don’t know what a surrogate is? You can lie to your kids all you want but this girl will know from a young age who she is.

I think she'll know... She's obviously not related to her legal parents. Her bio parents are staying in her life. And the story is all over the news. Who is saying anything is going to be kept secret?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

+1. I get her desperation, but it’s focused on just this time in the child’s life. The baby years are short. This child will be a teenager and an adult wondering about their genetic family and very likely have negative feelings about not being able to be raised by them.

As others have said, it’s a lose-lose situation, but I think the better choice would have been to give the child to their genetic family, assuming that’s what they wanted.

The genetic parents have visitation rights and will remain in the child’s life.

So you disagree with surrogacy?

No? I do disagree with non consensual, forced surrogacy.

Is forced embryo donation ok?

No! Neither is okay! As explained repeatedly, both sets of parents are real and valid parents with real and valid ties to the child. To act like what’s in the best interest of the child is an easy or obvious decision here is ridiculous.

Doing the right thing is not always easy now they will have an awkward custody situation.

All options are bad. No options are perfect. Keeping both sets of parents in the child’s life in some way is obviously in the child’s best interest.

Yes she should have been with the bio parents with her real family, culture, and community. The gestational parent can have visitation. But the baby wouldn't remember her or care about her later. There will always be a connection with the bio parents and other family. To deny this is ridiculous. It's why adoptees seek out their bio parents.

Have you ever heard of The Primal Wound? Again, all bad options here.

Adoptees seek out bio parents of course. This child will have access to her bio parents per the agreement.

How kind to give her parents access. These people are horrendous and selfish. This isn't their baby.

This is her child.

No, it’s really not. Everyone knows this.

She carried and gave birth. She’s on the birth certificate. Her child.

Yeah sure. Would you tell your kid that and never be honest?

Did the woman birth her? Yeah? Then it definitely makes sense for the birth mom to be on the birth certificate.

Fun fact. Did you know all states issue new birth certificates after a child is adopted with the adoptive parents' names on it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

By your reasoning, every hired surrogate is a biological parent?

This isn’t a surrogacy and yes they are connected.

No they aren’t. They carry the baby then hand it over and go on with their lives.

This is the most twisted logic I have ever heard.
A woman is not a baby machine.
A woman is a mother, a human being.
What so you not understand?
Everyone knows the difference between an embryo in a dish and a brand new full term baby that is 8lb and 4oz

So you don’t know what a surrogate is? You can lie to your kids all you want but this girl will know from a young age who she is.

I think she'll know... She's obviously not related to her legal parents. Her bio parents are staying in her life. And the story is all over the news. Who is saying anything is going to be kept secret?

Only someone who has no bio kids thinks this story will have a happy ending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

+1. I get her desperation, but it’s focused on just this time in the child’s life. The baby years are short. This child will be a teenager and an adult wondering about their genetic family and very likely have negative feelings about not being able to be raised by them.

As others have said, it’s a lose-lose situation, but I think the better choice would have been to give the child to their genetic family, assuming that’s what they wanted.

The genetic parents have visitation rights and will remain in the child’s life.

So you disagree with surrogacy?

No? I do disagree with non consensual, forced surrogacy.

Is forced embryo donation ok?

No! Neither is okay! As explained repeatedly, both sets of parents are real and valid parents with real and valid ties to the child. To act like what’s in the best interest of the child is an easy or obvious decision here is ridiculous.

Doing the right thing is not always easy now they will have an awkward custody situation.

All options are bad. No options are perfect. Keeping both sets of parents in the child’s life in some way is obviously in the child’s best interest.

Yes she should have been with the bio parents with her real family, culture, and community. The gestational parent can have visitation. But the baby wouldn't remember her or care about her later. There will always be a connection with the bio parents and other family. To deny this is ridiculous. It's why adoptees seek out their bio parents.

Have you ever heard of The Primal Wound? Again, all bad options here.

Adoptees seek out bio parents of course. This child will have access to her bio parents per the agreement.

How kind to give her parents access. These people are horrendous and selfish. This isn't their baby.

This is her child.

No, it’s really not. Everyone knows this.

She carried and gave birth. She’s on the birth certificate. Her child.

Yeah sure. Would you tell your kid that and never be honest?

Did the woman birth her? Yeah? Then it definitely makes sense for the birth mom to be on the birth certificate.

Fun fact. Did you know all states issue new birth certificates after a child is adopted with the adoptive parents' names on it?

Bless your heart. As if adoptees just let it end there.

[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.

By your reasoning, every hired surrogate is a biological parent?

This isn’t a surrogacy and yes they are connected.

No they aren’t. They carry the baby then hand it over and go on with their lives.

No, this is their child. No, you don't do IVF, struggling to have a child to hand one over and go on with your life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

+1. I get her desperation, but it’s focused on just this time in the child’s life. The baby years are short. This child will be a teenager and an adult wondering about their genetic family and very likely have negative feelings about not being able to be raised by them.

As others have said, it’s a lose-lose situation, but I think the better choice would have been to give the child to their genetic family, assuming that’s what they wanted.

The genetic parents have visitation rights and will remain in the child’s life.

So you disagree with surrogacy?

No? I do disagree with non consensual, forced surrogacy.

Is forced embryo donation ok?

No! Neither is okay! As explained repeatedly, both sets of parents are real and valid parents with real and valid ties to the child. To act like what’s in the best interest of the child is an easy or obvious decision here is ridiculous.

Doing the right thing is not always easy now they will have an awkward custody situation.

All options are bad. No options are perfect. Keeping both sets of parents in the child’s life in some way is obviously in the child’s best interest.

Yes she should have been with the bio parents with her real family, culture, and community. The gestational parent can have visitation. But the baby wouldn't remember her or care about her later. There will always be a connection with the bio parents and other family. To deny this is ridiculous. It's why adoptees seek out their bio parents.

Have you ever heard of The Primal Wound? Again, all bad options here.

Adoptees seek out bio parents of course. This child will have access to her bio parents per the agreement.

How kind to give her parents access. These people are horrendous and selfish. This isn't their baby.

This is her child.

No, it’s really not. Everyone knows this.

She carried and gave birth. She’s on the birth certificate. Her child.

Yeah sure. Would you tell your kid that and never be honest?

Did the woman birth her? Yeah? Then it definitely makes sense for the birth mom to be on the birth certificate.

Fun fact. Did you know all states issue new birth certificates after a child is adopted with the adoptive parents' names on it?

Fun fact, of course, they do. My kids have two birth certificates. Not a big deal. We are the parents.

[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.

By your reasoning, every hired surrogate is a biological parent?

This isn’t a surrogacy and yes they are connected.

No they aren’t. They carry the baby then hand it over and go on with their lives.

No, this is their child. No, you don't do IVF, struggling to have a child to hand one over and go on with your life.

Really? The surrogate i know has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

+1. I get her desperation, but it’s focused on just this time in the child’s life. The baby years are short. This child will be a teenager and an adult wondering about their genetic family and very likely have negative feelings about not being able to be raised by them.

As others have said, it’s a lose-lose situation, but I think the better choice would have been to give the child to their genetic family, assuming that’s what they wanted.

The genetic parents have visitation rights and will remain in the child’s life.

So you disagree with surrogacy?

No? I do disagree with non consensual, forced surrogacy.

Is forced embryo donation ok?

No! Neither is okay! As explained repeatedly, both sets of parents are real and valid parents with real and valid ties to the child. To act like what’s in the best interest of the child is an easy or obvious decision here is ridiculous.

Doing the right thing is not always easy now they will have an awkward custody situation.

All options are bad. No options are perfect. Keeping both sets of parents in the child’s life in some way is obviously in the child’s best interest.

Yes she should have been with the bio parents with her real family, culture, and community. The gestational parent can have visitation. But the baby wouldn't remember her or care about her later. There will always be a connection with the bio parents and other family. To deny this is ridiculous. It's why adoptees seek out their bio parents.

Have you ever heard of The Primal Wound? Again, all bad options here.

Adoptees seek out bio parents of course. This child will have access to her bio parents per the agreement.

How kind to give her parents access. These people are horrendous and selfish. This isn't their baby.

This is her child.

No, it’s really not. Everyone knows this.

She carried and gave birth. She’s on the birth certificate. Her child.

Yeah sure. Would you tell your kid that and never be honest?

We adopted and my kid knows everything, good and bad. We are very honest, are you?

[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.

That makes sense. It just doesn't compute otherwise.

Computes if the other couple only wanted a baby who would have them both as bio parents. Not the other couple’s husband

[Anonymous]

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.

Epigenetics are a real thing, but the subject has been grossly distorted and misrepresented to make infertile women who purchase other women's eggs feel better about it.

I did RIVF, so I carried a baby not related to me but didn't "purchase" anyone's eggs. I feel a strong physical connection to my child despite the lack of genetic relationship.

Sure. I'm not saying otherwise. But as you acknowledged, the child has no genetic connection to you. I'm not diminishing your love for your kid, but the people who push the epigenetics myth assert that by carrying the child, you create a genetic relationship to the child.

We have a physical and genetic connection. I am also not a bio parent.

I have no idea what your specific circumstances are, but if your child was created from the egg of someone who is not you or is not genetically related to you, you have no genetic connection to your child. That doesn't diminish your love and emotional connection at all, but the fact remains.

I'm not infertile or delusional. We're not genetically related, and I am not the biological parent. But my carrying my child had a permanent physical impact on my child's genetic expression. That is beyond dispute.