IVF embryo error, custody settlement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who's a couple weeks off the birth of my second I just can't see divorcing the connection you have with a baby you carry, not unless you're a knowing surrogate going in and are putting that mental distance in already.

I talk to him, notice his patterns, notice his hiccups, etc. We see him in the ultrasounds and my husband watches him kick. To me that's a connection that's separate from DNA. I'm in the thick of it right now but I had the same with my first kid too.

So if this couple had no reason to suspect this baby wasn't their genetic kid, mom would have gone through the same bonding and feelings.

I just can't dismiss that easily.

?

Nobody is suggesting that the woman who carried the baby for 9 months didn’t feel a bond.

Rather, some of us are baffled as to why this woman’s feelings trump doing what’s best for the baby longterm.

If someone could magically swap out this baby with one genetically connected to the white parents, I bet they would agree to the swap.

I don’t understand the assumption above about what’s best for the baby. It sounds as though both sets of parents are equally able to provide good parenting and a loving home for this baby. Since the baby is already bonded with the family she was born into, wouldn’t it be traumatic to take her and give her to a different family now? Even if they are her genetic parents?

We don't know that both sets of parents are "equally able" to provide good parenting for the child. We don't have information about the biological parents, but we do know that birth parent are unmarried, a different race from the child, and begging for money from Go Fund Me.

The birth parents knew immediately upon birth that this was not their genetic child. Within a few months, they located the bio parents. Had the birth parents wanted to minimize trauma for the child (as opposed to themselves), they could've surrendered the baby to the bio parents then.

Instead, the birth parents made clear that they intended to keep the baby. They also sued for money (not that I blame them), ran a Go Fund Me, and took the story public.

What does “different race” matter? People adopt children of different races all the time. I have a number of friends with kids of different races, either by adoption or because the other parent was of a different race and it is not a big deal.

Generally speaking, it doesn’t matter in the context of a traditional adoption where the birth parents voluntarily give up their child and typically have a hand in selecting the adoptive parents. And most adoptions are closed.

This situation is unique: a mixup prompted the custodial parents to claim parental rights.

Racial differences always prompt looks and questions (even in 2026). The kid will grow up looking different from her parents. Moreover, she will know exactly who her birth parents are, that they wanted her, and only consented to this ridiculous setup because the law was against them and the people raising her didn’t relinquish rights to the bio parents who look like her.

If you don’t see how this will saddle the child with a lifetime of baggage, then let’s agree to disagree.

PS - I know a woman whose adoption went off the rails and she had to give the baby back a couple weeks after receiving the newborn from a troubled teen mom. Guess what? It was hard, but she quickly got over it once she was able to adopt another baby.

It speaks volumes that people keep calling the non birthing bio parents “birth parents.” You’re telling on yourself that you know giving birth to a child actually does matter.

That was a typo. I meant bio parents. And I don’t think the thread has confused the two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who's a couple weeks off the birth of my second I just can't see divorcing the connection you have with a baby you carry, not unless you're a knowing surrogate going in and are putting that mental distance in already.

I talk to him, notice his patterns, notice his hiccups, etc. We see him in the ultrasounds and my husband watches him kick. To me that's a connection that's separate from DNA. I'm in the thick of it right now but I had the same with my first kid too.

So if this couple had no reason to suspect this baby wasn't their genetic kid, mom would have gone through the same bonding and feelings.

I just can't dismiss that easily.

?

Nobody is suggesting that the woman who carried the baby for 9 months didn’t feel a bond.

Rather, some of us are baffled as to why this woman’s feelings trump doing what’s best for the baby longterm.

If someone could magically swap out this baby with one genetically connected to the white parents, I bet they would agree to the swap.

I don’t understand the assumption above about what’s best for the baby. It sounds as though both sets of parents are equally able to provide good parenting and a loving home for this baby. Since the baby is already bonded with the family she was born into, wouldn’t it be traumatic to take her and give her to a different family now? Even if they are her genetic parents?

We don't know that both sets of parents are "equally able" to provide good parenting for the child. We don't have information about the biological parents, but we do know that birth parent are unmarried, a different race from the child, and begging for money from Go Fund Me.

The birth parents knew immediately upon birth that this was not their genetic child. Within a few months, they located the bio parents. Had the birth parents wanted to minimize trauma for the child (as opposed to themselves), they could've surrendered the baby to the bio parents then.

Instead, the birth parents made clear that they intended to keep the baby. They also sued for money (not that I blame them), ran a Go Fund Me, and took the story public.

What does “different race” matter? People adopt children of different races all the time. I have a number of friends with kids of different races, either by adoption or because the other parent was of a different race and it is not a big deal.

Generally speaking, it doesn’t matter in the context of a traditional adoption where the birth parents voluntarily give up their child and typically have a hand in selecting the adoptive parents. And most adoptions are closed.

This situation is unique: a mixup prompted the custodial parents to claim parental rights.

Racial differences always prompt looks and questions (even in 2026). The kid will grow up looking different from her parents. Moreover, she will know exactly who her birth parents are, that they wanted her, and only consented to this ridiculous setup because the law was against them and the people raising her didn’t relinquish rights to the bio parents who look like her.

If you don’t see how this will saddle the child with a lifetime of baggage, then let’s agree to disagree.

PS - I know a woman whose adoption went off the rails and she had to give the baby back a couple weeks after receiving the newborn from a troubled teen mom. Guess what? It was hard, but she quickly got over it once she was able to adopt another baby.

It speaks volumes that people keep calling the non birthing bio parents “birth parents.” You’re telling on yourself that you know giving birth to a child actually does matter.

That was a typo. I meant bio parents. And I don’t think the thread has confused the two.

This is at least the third time someone on this thread has made this scrivener’s error.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who's a couple weeks off the birth of my second I just can't see divorcing the connection you have with a baby you carry, not unless you're a knowing surrogate going in and are putting that mental distance in already.

I talk to him, notice his patterns, notice his hiccups, etc. We see him in the ultrasounds and my husband watches him kick. To me that's a connection that's separate from DNA. I'm in the thick of it right now but I had the same with my first kid too.

So if this couple had no reason to suspect this baby wasn't their genetic kid, mom would have gone through the same bonding and feelings.

I just can't dismiss that easily.

?

Nobody is suggesting that the woman who carried the baby for 9 months didn’t feel a bond.

Rather, some of us are baffled as to why this woman’s feelings trump doing what’s best for the baby longterm.

If someone could magically swap out this baby with one genetically connected to the white parents, I bet they would agree to the swap.

I don’t understand the assumption above about what’s best for the baby. It sounds as though both sets of parents are equally able to provide good parenting and a loving home for this baby. Since the baby is already bonded with the family she was born into, wouldn’t it be traumatic to take her and give her to a different family now? Even if they are her genetic parents?

We don't know that both sets of parents are "equally able" to provide good parenting for the child. We don't have information about the biological parents, but we do know that birth parent are unmarried, a different race from the child, and begging for money from Go Fund Me.

The birth parents knew immediately upon birth that this was not their genetic child. Within a few months, they located the bio parents. Had the birth parents wanted to minimize trauma for the child (as opposed to themselves), they could've surrendered the baby to the bio parents then.

Instead, the birth parents made clear that they intended to keep the baby. They also sued for money (not that I blame them), ran a Go Fund Me, and took the story public.

They were trying to track down the bio parents because the clinic was no help. I'm not saying the birth parents are fantastic people or anything, but we know nothing about the bio parents whatsoever and have no basis to conclude that they are better or more fit from the information available. People here are just filling in with their own projections.

It's possible the bio parents would have been the best and most loving parents with the most sympathetic circumstances. It's also possible the bio parents are 70 years old, the embryo had been frozen for decades, the bio parents are divorced/impoverished/in bad health/felons/etc. We. Do. Not. Know.

Stop making things up. The baby is now with a couple that isn’t married, need money, with questionable employment. Sounds pretty bad. I doubt they would ever be adoption candidates.

We. Don’t. Know. Anything. About. The. Bio. Parents.

We know about the white couple. Keep up.

They desperately wanted a baby and went through IVF and the sister set up a gofundme? I don’t love the gofundme but that hardly make someone a bad parent. They might be bad, but I don’t think the evidence we have indicates that they are, much less that the bio parents we know nothing about are obviously better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who's a couple weeks off the birth of my second I just can't see divorcing the connection you have with a baby you carry, not unless you're a knowing surrogate going in and are putting that mental distance in already.

I talk to him, notice his patterns, notice his hiccups, etc. We see him in the ultrasounds and my husband watches him kick. To me that's a connection that's separate from DNA. I'm in the thick of it right now but I had the same with my first kid too.

So if this couple had no reason to suspect this baby wasn't their genetic kid, mom would have gone through the same bonding and feelings.

I just can't dismiss that easily.

?

Nobody is suggesting that the woman who carried the baby for 9 months didn’t feel a bond.

Rather, some of us are baffled as to why this woman’s feelings trump doing what’s best for the baby longterm.

If someone could magically swap out this baby with one genetically connected to the white parents, I bet they would agree to the swap.

I don’t understand the assumption above about what’s best for the baby. It sounds as though both sets of parents are equally able to provide good parenting and a loving home for this baby. Since the baby is already bonded with the family she was born into, wouldn’t it be traumatic to take her and give her to a different family now? Even if they are her genetic parents?

We don't know that both sets of parents are "equally able" to provide good parenting for the child. We don't have information about the biological parents, but we do know that birth parent are unmarried, a different race from the child, and begging for money from Go Fund Me.

The birth parents knew immediately upon birth that this was not their genetic child. Within a few months, they located the bio parents. Had the birth parents wanted to minimize trauma for the child (as opposed to themselves), they could've surrendered the baby to the bio parents then.

Instead, the birth parents made clear that they intended to keep the baby. They also sued for money (not that I blame them), ran a Go Fund Me, and took the story public.

What does “different race” matter? People adopt children of different races all the time. I have a number of friends with kids of different races, either by adoption or because the other parent was of a different race and it is not a big deal.

Generally speaking, it doesn’t matter in the context of a traditional adoption where the birth parents voluntarily give up their child and typically have a hand in selecting the adoptive parents. And most adoptions are closed.

This situation is unique: a mixup prompted the custodial parents to claim parental rights.

Racial differences always prompt looks and questions (even in 2026). The kid will grow up looking different from her parents. Moreover, she will know exactly who her birth parents are, that they wanted her, and only consented to this ridiculous setup because the law was against them and the people raising her didn’t relinquish rights to the bio parents who look like her.

If you don’t see how this will saddle the child with a lifetime of baggage, then let’s agree to disagree.

PS - I know a woman whose adoption went off the rails and she had to give the baby back a couple weeks after receiving the newborn from a troubled teen mom. Guess what? It was hard, but she quickly got over it once she was able to adopt another baby.

It speaks volumes that people keep calling the non birthing bio parents “birth parents.” You’re telling on yourself that you know giving birth to a child actually does matter.

That was a typo. I meant bio parents. And I don’t think the thread has confused the two.

This is at least the third time someone on this thread has made this scrivener’s error.

Understandable given the crazy situation.

In a typical adoption scenario with consent, there are two couples: birth parents and adoptive parents.

Neither label seems appropriate in this tragic situation.

Regardless, the baby has bio parents who did not consent to this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who's a couple weeks off the birth of my second I just can't see divorcing the connection you have with a baby you carry, not unless you're a knowing surrogate going in and are putting that mental distance in already.

I talk to him, notice his patterns, notice his hiccups, etc. We see him in the ultrasounds and my husband watches him kick. To me that's a connection that's separate from DNA. I'm in the thick of it right now but I had the same with my first kid too.

So if this couple had no reason to suspect this baby wasn't their genetic kid, mom would have gone through the same bonding and feelings.

I just can't dismiss that easily.

?

Nobody is suggesting that the woman who carried the baby for 9 months didn’t feel a bond.

Rather, some of us are baffled as to why this woman’s feelings trump doing what’s best for the baby longterm.

If someone could magically swap out this baby with one genetically connected to the white parents, I bet they would agree to the swap.

I don’t understand the assumption above about what’s best for the baby. It sounds as though both sets of parents are equally able to provide good parenting and a loving home for this baby. Since the baby is already bonded with the family she was born into, wouldn’t it be traumatic to take her and give her to a different family now? Even if they are her genetic parents?

We don't know that both sets of parents are "equally able" to provide good parenting for the child. We don't have information about the biological parents, but we do know that birth parent are unmarried, a different race from the child, and begging for money from Go Fund Me.

The birth parents knew immediately upon birth that this was not their genetic child. Within a few months, they located the bio parents. Had the birth parents wanted to minimize trauma for the child (as opposed to themselves), they could've surrendered the baby to the bio parents then.

Instead, the birth parents made clear that they intended to keep the baby. They also sued for money (not that I blame them), ran a Go Fund Me, and took the story public.

They were trying to track down the bio parents because the clinic was no help. I'm not saying the birth parents are fantastic people or anything, but we know nothing about the bio parents whatsoever and have no basis to conclude that they are better or more fit from the information available. People here are just filling in with their own projections.

It's possible the bio parents would have been the best and most loving parents with the most sympathetic circumstances. It's also possible the bio parents are 70 years old, the embryo had been frozen for decades, the bio parents are divorced/impoverished/in bad health/felons/etc. We. Do. Not. Know.

Stop making things up. The baby is now with a couple that isn’t married, need money, with questionable employment. Sounds pretty bad. I doubt they would ever be adoption candidates.

We. Don’t. Know. Anything. About. The. Bio. Parents.

We know about the white couple. Keep up.

They desperately wanted a baby and went through IVF and the sister set up a gofundme? I don’t love the gofundme but that hardly make someone a bad parent. They might be bad, but I don’t think the evidence we have indicates that they are, much less that the bio parents we know nothing about are obviously better.

Odds are the child will believe her bio parents would have been the easier path forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who's a couple weeks off the birth of my second I just can't see divorcing the connection you have with a baby you carry, not unless you're a knowing surrogate going in and are putting that mental distance in already.

I talk to him, notice his patterns, notice his hiccups, etc. We see him in the ultrasounds and my husband watches him kick. To me that's a connection that's separate from DNA. I'm in the thick of it right now but I had the same with my first kid too.

So if this couple had no reason to suspect this baby wasn't their genetic kid, mom would have gone through the same bonding and feelings.

I just can't dismiss that easily.

?

Nobody is suggesting that the woman who carried the baby for 9 months didn’t feel a bond.

Rather, some of us are baffled as to why this woman’s feelings trump doing what’s best for the baby longterm.

If someone could magically swap out this baby with one genetically connected to the white parents, I bet they would agree to the swap.

I don’t understand the assumption above about what’s best for the baby. It sounds as though both sets of parents are equally able to provide good parenting and a loving home for this baby. Since the baby is already bonded with the family she was born into, wouldn’t it be traumatic to take her and give her to a different family now? Even if they are her genetic parents?

We don't know that both sets of parents are "equally able" to provide good parenting for the child. We don't have information about the biological parents, but we do know that birth parent are unmarried, a different race from the child, and begging for money from Go Fund Me.

The birth parents knew immediately upon birth that this was not their genetic child. Within a few months, they located the bio parents. Had the birth parents wanted to minimize trauma for the child (as opposed to themselves), they could've surrendered the baby to the bio parents then.

Instead, the birth parents made clear that they intended to keep the baby. They also sued for money (not that I blame them), ran a Go Fund Me, and took the story public.

They were trying to track down the bio parents because the clinic was no help. I'm not saying the birth parents are fantastic people or anything, but we know nothing about the bio parents whatsoever and have no basis to conclude that they are better or more fit from the information available. People here are just filling in with their own projections.

It's possible the bio parents would have been the best and most loving parents with the most sympathetic circumstances. It's also possible the bio parents are 70 years old, the embryo had been frozen for decades, the bio parents are divorced/impoverished/in bad health/felons/etc. We. Do. Not. Know.

Stop making things up. The baby is now with a couple that isn’t married, need money, with questionable employment. Sounds pretty bad. I doubt they would ever be adoption candidates.

We. Don’t. Know. Anything. About. The. Bio. Parents.

We know about the white couple. Keep up.

They desperately wanted a baby and went through IVF and the sister set up a gofundme? I don’t love the gofundme but that hardly make someone a bad parent. They might be bad, but I don’t think the evidence we have indicates that they are, much less that the bio parents we know nothing about are obviously better.

Odds are the child will believe her bio parents would have been the easier path forward.

You have no odds or individualized information. You're just projecting your personal values.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who's a couple weeks off the birth of my second I just can't see divorcing the connection you have with a baby you carry, not unless you're a knowing surrogate going in and are putting that mental distance in already.

I talk to him, notice his patterns, notice his hiccups, etc. We see him in the ultrasounds and my husband watches him kick. To me that's a connection that's separate from DNA. I'm in the thick of it right now but I had the same with my first kid too.

So if this couple had no reason to suspect this baby wasn't their genetic kid, mom would have gone through the same bonding and feelings.

I just can't dismiss that easily.

?

Nobody is suggesting that the woman who carried the baby for 9 months didn’t feel a bond.

Rather, some of us are baffled as to why this woman’s feelings trump doing what’s best for the baby longterm.

If someone could magically swap out this baby with one genetically connected to the white parents, I bet they would agree to the swap.

I don’t understand the assumption above about what’s best for the baby. It sounds as though both sets of parents are equally able to provide good parenting and a loving home for this baby. Since the baby is already bonded with the family she was born into, wouldn’t it be traumatic to take her and give her to a different family now? Even if they are her genetic parents?

We don't know that both sets of parents are "equally able" to provide good parenting for the child. We don't have information about the biological parents, but we do know that birth parent are unmarried, a different race from the child, and begging for money from Go Fund Me.

The birth parents knew immediately upon birth that this was not their genetic child. Within a few months, they located the bio parents. Had the birth parents wanted to minimize trauma for the child (as opposed to themselves), they could've surrendered the baby to the bio parents then.

Instead, the birth parents made clear that they intended to keep the baby. They also sued for money (not that I blame them), ran a Go Fund Me, and took the story public.

They were trying to track down the bio parents because the clinic was no help. I'm not saying the birth parents are fantastic people or anything, but we know nothing about the bio parents whatsoever and have no basis to conclude that they are better or more fit from the information available. People here are just filling in with their own projections.

It's possible the bio parents would have been the best and most loving parents with the most sympathetic circumstances. It's also possible the bio parents are 70 years old, the embryo had been frozen for decades, the bio parents are divorced/impoverished/in bad health/felons/etc. We. Do. Not. Know.

Stop making things up. The baby is now with a couple that isn’t married, need money, with questionable employment. Sounds pretty bad. I doubt they would ever be adoption candidates.

We. Don’t. Know. Anything. About. The. Bio. Parents.

We know about the white couple. Keep up.

They desperately wanted a baby and went through IVF and the sister set up a gofundme? I don’t love the gofundme but that hardly make someone a bad parent. They might be bad, but I don’t think the evidence we have indicates that they are, much less that the bio parents we know nothing about are obviously better.

Odds are the child will believe her bio parents would have been the easier path forward.

You have no odds or individualized information. You're just projecting your personal values.

How many non-white adoptees do you know? I know several who were raised by lovely white parents. And all of them have said they wish they had been raised by their birth parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who's a couple weeks off the birth of my second I just can't see divorcing the connection you have with a baby you carry, not unless you're a knowing surrogate going in and are putting that mental distance in already.

I talk to him, notice his patterns, notice his hiccups, etc. We see him in the ultrasounds and my husband watches him kick. To me that's a connection that's separate from DNA. I'm in the thick of it right now but I had the same with my first kid too.

So if this couple had no reason to suspect this baby wasn't their genetic kid, mom would have gone through the same bonding and feelings.

I just can't dismiss that easily.

?

Nobody is suggesting that the woman who carried the baby for 9 months didn’t feel a bond.

Rather, some of us are baffled as to why this woman’s feelings trump doing what’s best for the baby longterm.

If someone could magically swap out this baby with one genetically connected to the white parents, I bet they would agree to the swap.

I don’t understand the assumption above about what’s best for the baby. It sounds as though both sets of parents are equally able to provide good parenting and a loving home for this baby. Since the baby is already bonded with the family she was born into, wouldn’t it be traumatic to take her and give her to a different family now? Even if they are her genetic parents?

NP. The poor child will go through trauma regardless. She could have gone through trauma now, but probably gotten over it as she’s so young. Instead she is going to go through massive trauma when she realizes her parents didn’t want her until they realized their own embryos weren’t implanted elsewhere, and she’s going to be raised by people who know nothing of her cultural heritage. I hope that poor child never, ever reads the language in that appalling GoFundMe but if they talk like that publicly, god knows what they’ll say to the child as she grows up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who's a couple weeks off the birth of my second I just can't see divorcing the connection you have with a baby you carry, not unless you're a knowing surrogate going in and are putting that mental distance in already.

I talk to him, notice his patterns, notice his hiccups, etc. We see him in the ultrasounds and my husband watches him kick. To me that's a connection that's separate from DNA. I'm in the thick of it right now but I had the same with my first kid too.

So if this couple had no reason to suspect this baby wasn't their genetic kid, mom would have gone through the same bonding and feelings.

I just can't dismiss that easily.

?

Nobody is suggesting that the woman who carried the baby for 9 months didn’t feel a bond.

Rather, some of us are baffled as to why this woman’s feelings trump doing what’s best for the baby longterm.

If someone could magically swap out this baby with one genetically connected to the white parents, I bet they would agree to the swap.

I don’t understand the assumption above about what’s best for the baby. It sounds as though both sets of parents are equally able to provide good parenting and a loving home for this baby. Since the baby is already bonded with the family she was born into, wouldn’t it be traumatic to take her and give her to a different family now? Even if they are her genetic parents?

No. Children are adopted into families at these young ages and adjust swiftly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s bizarre how so many posters think a few months with a baby is “raising a child” that outweighs the rights of the biological parents. If this happened in a modern state, the baby would go back to its biological parents but since it happened in a backwater Southern state, the real parents are left out.

This forum is full of infertile women who believe they have an inalienable right to use other women’s bodies to procure a child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Found their gofundme which clears up some questions. They knew within days this was not their bio child confirmed by DNA.

Also they recognized the moral obligation to find the parents, but I guess that stops short of letting the child be with their bio family.

There are also details about their personal life and work situation. Seems like this information might have been helpful in determining which family was better for the child's interests.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/TiffandSteveIVFmixup

Anyone who seriously believes that these people feel that this baby is theirs need to read the description of the Go Fund Me. When they learned this baby wasn't genetically theirs, they believed that their embryo had ended up in another woman and had resulted in a baby. As the GFM makes clear, they wanted to find their "living, breathing children" and to be reunited. (Apparently they don't consider this baby their living, breathing child.) It wasn't until they learned that their embryo had not been successfully implanted in another woman that their goal changed to keeping this baby.

I can kinda understand them. A bird in hand and all that. But of course it’s not their (bio) child, no matter what the overly sentimental and not too smart people say

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Found their gofundme which clears up some questions. They knew within days this was not their bio child confirmed by DNA.

Also they recognized the moral obligation to find the parents, but I guess that stops short of letting the child be with their bio family.

There are also details about their personal life and work situation. Seems like this information might have been helpful in determining which family was better for the child's interests.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/TiffandSteveIVFmixup

Anyone who seriously believes that these people feel that this baby is theirs need to read the description of the Go Fund Me. When they learned this baby wasn't genetically theirs, they believed that their embryo had ended up in another woman and had resulted in a baby. As the GFM makes clear, they wanted to find their "living, breathing children" and to be reunited. (Apparently they don't consider this baby their living, breathing child.) It wasn't until they learned that their embryo had not been successfully implanted in another woman that their goal changed to keeping this baby.

Her partner? They aren’t even married?

And they couldn’t afford the IVF?

I would be livid if my baby was living with unmarried parents with unstable work and limited means.

Unmarried doesn’t matter and we only know her work is unstable, no info about his.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Found their gofundme which clears up some questions. They knew within days this was not their bio child confirmed by DNA.

Also they recognized the moral obligation to find the parents, but I guess that stops short of letting the child be with their bio family.

There are also details about their personal life and work situation. Seems like this information might have been helpful in determining which family was better for the child's interests.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/TiffandSteveIVFmixup

Anyone who seriously believes that these people feel that this baby is theirs need to read the description of the Go Fund Me. When they learned this baby wasn't genetically theirs, they believed that their embryo had ended up in another woman and had resulted in a baby. As the GFM makes clear, they wanted to find their "living, breathing children" and to be reunited. (Apparently they don't consider this baby their living, breathing child.) It wasn't until they learned that their embryo had not been successfully implanted in another woman that their goal changed to keeping this baby.

That's interesting. So they believed they had the right to take their own biological child but now they conveniently don't believe that thinking applies to their baby's biological parents.

🤨

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s bizarre how so many posters think a few months with a baby is “raising a child” that outweighs the rights of the biological parents. If this happened in a modern state, the baby would go back to its biological parents but since it happened in a backwater Southern state, the real parents are left out.

This forum is full of infertile women who believe they have an inalienable right to use other women’s bodies to procure a child.

I just can't fathom how anyone who's gone through a pregnancy could be so cavalier about demanding someone give up the child they carried.

[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: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

No, it isn't just that simple. There will always be a biological pull and you can't take away tens of thousands of years of evolution. You can't magically erase that. It becomes even more complicated when a child is of a different race than the adoptive parents. It can be hard for a child of color to grow up with white parents and it makes it harder knowing you have parents and a biological sibling who looks like you do.

The couple who got custody never should have publicly identified themselves and certainly shouldn't have agreed to post a picture of their family.

Surrogacy with donor embryos is 41 years old. I don’t think evolution has caught up such that a kid knows on some instinctual level that the woman who birthed her isn’t her biological mom.

I don’t dispute that transracial adoption is very challenging on adoptees. But let’s not throw in pseudoscience about a genetic pull toward biology in this type of situation, absent citation.

By the time that kid is three she is going to know she looks nothing like her parents. I would assume the biological parents have other children because if not they would have fought tooth and nail for this baby. So as the child grows up it isn't like in many adoptions the birth mother is unable to take care of the child or the birth family is unstable or the parents willingly gave up their child. The later article said the birth family is South Asian. The baby is losing her culture and will realize it.

Dp.
The baby does look S Asian to me but I thought she was black?
If the other couple is South Asian and the father is not one of the couple, then it all tracks. They want a South Asian baby

Someone please tell me people are not this stupid.

They just want a baby. Any baby at this point. They look to be pressing 50.