IVF embryo error, custody settlement

[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.

While this case is rare it isn't unique. In situations where this has happened in the past in progress states like NY, CA, the baby goes back to the biological parents. There was a case of a Korean-American woman had twins through IVF in NY, the twins were a different race and each twin had a different biological parent. Each twin after a few weeks went back to their biological parent.

Unfortunately, the baby was born in Florida in the Handmaiden South, where a mother's intent of what should happen to her biological child doesn't matter. Their baby was legally stolen.

The backwards law in Florida means they couldn't get their biological child back even though the biological mother had NO intention of giving up her embryo or child and the woman who carried the baby had no intent of carrying another women's child. Genetics and intent matter in progressive states like New York, CA, etc. which is why in those states the biological parents would have gotten their child back.

I don’t even think you know what a handmaiden is. Forcing a woman to give birth and hand her baby over to a woman of higher social standing is what handmaidens are forced to do. So if anyone would be a handmaiden, it would be the birth mother forced to give up the baby she carried.

Yeah, the genetic parents (both people of color) who got outlawyered by the white lady are totally “of higher social standing.” GMAFB.

[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.

While this case is rare it isn't unique. In situations where this has happened in the past in progress states like NY, CA, the baby goes back to the biological parents. There was a case of a Korean-American woman had twins through IVF in NY, the twins were a different race and each twin had a different biological parent. Each twin after a few weeks went back to their biological parent.

Unfortunately, the baby was born in Florida in the Handmaiden South, where a mother's intent of what should happen to her biological child doesn't matter. Their baby was legally stolen.

The backwards law in Florida means they couldn't get their biological child back even though the biological mother had NO intention of giving up her embryo or child and the woman who carried the baby had no intent of carrying another women's child. Genetics and intent matter in progressive states like New York, CA, etc. which is why in those states the biological parents would have gotten their child back.

I don’t even think you know what a handmaiden is. Forcing a woman to give birth and hand her baby over to a woman of higher social standing is what handmaidens are forced to do. So if anyone would be a handmaiden, it would be the birth mother forced to give up the baby she carried.

Yeah, the genetic parents (both people of color) who got outlawyered by the white lady are totally “of higher social standing.” GMAFB.

Who grew and birthed the baby, Diane? And aren’t all of you insisting the birth mom can’t be a good mother because of her lack of financial capacity?

[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.

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.

While this case is rare it isn't unique. In situations where this has happened in the past in progress states like NY, CA, the baby goes back to the biological parents. There was a case of a Korean-American woman had twins through IVF in NY, the twins were a different race and each twin had a different biological parent. Each twin after a few weeks went back to their biological parent.

Unfortunately, the baby was born in Florida in the Handmaiden South, where a mother's intent of what should happen to her biological child doesn't matter. Their baby was legally stolen.

The backwards law in Florida means they couldn't get their biological child back even though the biological mother had NO intention of giving up her embryo or child and the woman who carried the baby had no intent of carrying another women's child. Genetics and intent matter in progressive states like New York, CA, etc. which is why in those states the biological parents would have gotten their child back.

I don’t even think you know what a handmaiden is. Forcing a woman to give birth and hand her baby over to a woman of higher social standing is what handmaidens are forced to do. So if anyone would be a handmaiden, it would be the birth mother forced to give up the baby she carried.

Yeah, the genetic parents (both people of color) who got outlawyered by the white lady are totally “of higher social standing.” GMAFB.

Who grew and birthed the baby, Diane? And aren’t all of you insisting the birth mom can’t be a good mother because of her lack of financial capacity?

What is "Diane" a typo for?

[Anonymous]

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

Money grabbers too. Horrible couple.

[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.

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.

While this case is rare it isn't unique. In situations where this has happened in the past in progress states like NY, CA, the baby goes back to the biological parents. There was a case of a Korean-American woman had twins through IVF in NY, the twins were a different race and each twin had a different biological parent. Each twin after a few weeks went back to their biological parent.

Unfortunately, the baby was born in Florida in the Handmaiden South, where a mother's intent of what should happen to her biological child doesn't matter. Their baby was legally stolen.

The backwards law in Florida means they couldn't get their biological child back even though the biological mother had NO intention of giving up her embryo or child and the woman who carried the baby had no intent of carrying another women's child. Genetics and intent matter in progressive states like New York, CA, etc. which is why in those states the biological parents would have gotten their child back.

I don’t even think you know what a handmaiden is. Forcing a woman to give birth and hand her baby over to a woman of higher social standing is what handmaidens are forced to do. So if anyone would be a handmaiden, it would be the birth mother forced to give up the baby she carried.

Yeah, the genetic parents (both people of color) who got outlawyered by the white lady are totally “of higher social standing.” GMAFB.

Who grew and birthed the baby, Diane? And aren’t all of you insisting the birth mom can’t be a good mother because of her lack of financial capacity?

Well that and her lack of morals and selfishness. This kid is screwed. Maybe the partners will separate and she can visit 3 households.

[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.

While this case is rare it isn't unique. In situations where this has happened in the past in progress states like NY, CA, the baby goes back to the biological parents. There was a case of a Korean-American woman had twins through IVF in NY, the twins were a different race and each twin had a different biological parent. Each twin after a few weeks went back to their biological parent.

Unfortunately, the baby was born in Florida in the Handmaiden South, where a mother's intent of what should happen to her biological child doesn't matter. Their baby was legally stolen.

The backwards law in Florida means they couldn't get their biological child back even though the biological mother had NO intention of giving up her embryo or child and the woman who carried the baby had no intent of carrying another women's child. Genetics and intent matter in progressive states like New York, CA, etc. which is why in those states the biological parents would have gotten their child back.

I don’t even think you know what a handmaiden is. Forcing a woman to give birth and hand her baby over to a woman of higher social standing is what handmaidens are forced to do. So if anyone would be a handmaiden, it would be the birth mother forced to give up the baby she carried.

Handmaidens are the BIOLOGICAL mother's of the children and they have no rights to their own BIOLOGICAL children. Just like in the south where a mother no longer has a right to determine what happens to her body and fetus.

This baby absolutely belongs to her biological parents who did not give up their parental rights, did not authorize anyone else to carry their child, and are not getting their parental rights terminated due to not being able to adequately and safely raise their child. Their embryos were STOLEN. Their baby was STOLEN. There is no other word to describe what has happened. In progressive states like New York and CA the baby would legally go back to the biological parents.

And it makes it even worse the couple who stole their child is getting any type of sympathy. Within one month of the birth the gestational carrier filed a lawsuit because they wanted to find their own biological child and in that legal filling the mother argued the baby the she carried "should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her". Once they realized no child was conceived with their embryos they decided to keep the South Asian baby because Florida law is on their side.

The biological parents (known only as Patient 004) have chosen to remain completely anonymous. Because they refuse to do interviews or show their faces, the public is hearing the narrative framed by the birthing couple as this is something the biological parents have willingly agreed to do. Most likely the biological parents are doing this to protect their biological child. They have much more sense than the people who stole the baby, are heavily publicizing this case, and have a GoFund Me.

[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.

While this case is rare it isn't unique. In situations where this has happened in the past in progress states like NY, CA, the baby goes back to the biological parents. There was a case of a Korean-American woman had twins through IVF in NY, the twins were a different race and each twin had a different biological parent. Each twin after a few weeks went back to their biological parent.

Unfortunately, the baby was born in Florida in the Handmaiden South, where a mother's intent of what should happen to her biological child doesn't matter. Their baby was legally stolen.

The backwards law in Florida means they couldn't get their biological child back even though the biological mother had NO intention of giving up her embryo or child and the woman who carried the baby had no intent of carrying another women's child. Genetics and intent matter in progressive states like New York, CA, etc. which is why in those states the biological parents would have gotten their child back.

I don’t even think you know what a handmaiden is. Forcing a woman to give birth and hand her baby over to a woman of higher social standing is what handmaidens are forced to do. So if anyone would be a handmaiden, it would be the birth mother forced to give up the baby she carried.

Handmaidens are the BIOLOGICAL mother's of the children and they have no rights to their own BIOLOGICAL children. Just like in the south where a mother no longer has a right to determine what happens to her body and fetus.

This baby absolutely belongs to her biological parents who did not give up their parental rights, did not authorize anyone else to carry their child, and are not getting their parental rights terminated due to not being able to adequately and safely raise their child. Their embryos were STOLEN. Their baby was STOLEN. There is no other word to describe what has happened. In progressive states like New York and CA the baby would legally go back to the biological parents.

And it makes it even worse the couple who stole their child is getting any type of sympathy. Within one month of the birth the gestational carrier filed a lawsuit because they wanted to find their own biological child and in that legal filling the mother argued the baby the she carried "should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her". Once they realized no child was conceived with their embryos they decided to keep the South Asian baby because Florida law is on their side.

The biological parents (known only as Patient 004) have chosen to remain completely anonymous. Because they refuse to do interviews or show their faces, the public is hearing the narrative framed by the birthing couple as this is something the biological parents have willingly agreed to do. Most likely the biological parents are doing this to protect their biological child. They have much more sense than the people who stole the baby, are heavily publicizing this case, and have a GoFund Me.

Well said.

[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.

While this case is rare it isn't unique. In situations where this has happened in the past in progress states like NY, CA, the baby goes back to the biological parents. There was a case of a Korean-American woman had twins through IVF in NY, the twins were a different race and each twin had a different biological parent. Each twin after a few weeks went back to their biological parent.

Unfortunately, the baby was born in Florida in the Handmaiden South, where a mother's intent of what should happen to her biological child doesn't matter. Their baby was legally stolen.

The backwards law in Florida means they couldn't get their biological child back even though the biological mother had NO intention of giving up her embryo or child and the woman who carried the baby had no intent of carrying another women's child. Genetics and intent matter in progressive states like New York, CA, etc. which is why in those states the biological parents would have gotten their child back.

I don’t even think you know what a handmaiden is. Forcing a woman to give birth and hand her baby over to a woman of higher social standing is what handmaidens are forced to do. So if anyone would be a handmaiden, it would be the birth mother forced to give up the baby she carried.

Handmaidens are the BIOLOGICAL mother's of the children and they have no rights to their own BIOLOGICAL children. Just like in the south where a mother no longer has a right to determine what happens to her body and fetus.

This baby absolutely belongs to her biological parents who did not give up their parental rights, did not authorize anyone else to carry their child, and are not getting their parental rights terminated due to not being able to adequately and safely raise their child. Their embryos were STOLEN. Their baby was STOLEN. There is no other word to describe what has happened. In progressive states like New York and CA the baby would legally go back to the biological parents.

And it makes it even worse the couple who stole their child is getting any type of sympathy. Within one month of the birth the gestational carrier filed a lawsuit because they wanted to find their own biological child and in that legal filling the mother argued the baby the she carried "should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her". Once they realized no child was conceived with their embryos they decided to keep the South Asian baby because Florida law is on their side.

The biological parents (known only as Patient 004) have chosen to remain completely anonymous. Because they refuse to do interviews or show their faces, the public is hearing the narrative framed by the birthing couple as this is something the biological parents have willingly agreed to do. Most likely the biological parents are doing this to protect their biological child. They have much more sense than the people who stole the baby, are heavily publicizing this case, and have a GoFund Me.

But you’re completely fine with making a woman hand over the baby she grew and birthed through no fault of her own? Because of a greedy and negligent man?

And you’re saying the birth mother, who again, carried the child for 9 months, had a traumatic delivery, and then nursed the child—all through no fault of her own—has “stolen” the baby even though the law is concededly on her side, and the bio parents agreed to give the birth parents sole custody? I mean come on.

The lack of nuance here is astounding. BOTH women’s reproductive rights are at issue here. It is not a black-and-white issue.

[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.

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.

While this case is rare it isn't unique. In situations where this has happened in the past in progress states like NY, CA, the baby goes back to the biological parents. There was a case of a Korean-American woman had twins through IVF in NY, the twins were a different race and each twin had a different biological parent. Each twin after a few weeks went back to their biological parent.

Unfortunately, the baby was born in Florida in the Handmaiden South, where a mother's intent of what should happen to her biological child doesn't matter. Their baby was legally stolen.

The backwards law in Florida means they couldn't get their biological child back even though the biological mother had NO intention of giving up her embryo or child and the woman who carried the baby had no intent of carrying another women's child. Genetics and intent matter in progressive states like New York, CA, etc. which is why in those states the biological parents would have gotten their child back.

I don’t even think you know what a handmaiden is. Forcing a woman to give birth and hand her baby over to a woman of higher social standing is what handmaidens are forced to do. So if anyone would be a handmaiden, it would be the birth mother forced to give up the baby she carried.

Handmaidens are the BIOLOGICAL mother's of the children and they have no rights to their own BIOLOGICAL children. Just like in the south where a mother no longer has a right to determine what happens to her body and fetus.

This baby absolutely belongs to her biological parents who did not give up their parental rights, did not authorize anyone else to carry their child, and are not getting their parental rights terminated due to not being able to adequately and safely raise their child. Their embryos were STOLEN. Their baby was STOLEN. There is no other word to describe what has happened. In progressive states like New York and CA the baby would legally go back to the biological parents.

And it makes it even worse the couple who stole their child is getting any type of sympathy. Within one month of the birth the gestational carrier filed a lawsuit because they wanted to find their own biological child and in that legal filling the mother argued the baby the she carried "should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her". Once they realized no child was conceived with their embryos they decided to keep the South Asian baby because Florida law is on their side.

The biological parents (known only as Patient 004) have chosen to remain completely anonymous. Because they refuse to do interviews or show their faces, the public is hearing the narrative framed by the birthing couple as this is something the biological parents have willingly agreed to do. Most likely the biological parents are doing this to protect their biological child. They have much more sense than the people who stole the baby, are heavily publicizing this case, and have a GoFund Me.

But you’re completely fine with making a woman hand over the baby she grew and birthed through no fault of her own? Because of a greedy and negligent man?

And you’re saying the birth mother, who again, carried the child for 9 months, had a traumatic delivery, and then nursed the child—all through no fault of her own—has “stolen” the baby even though the law is concededly on her side, and the bio parents agreed to give the birth parents sole custody? I mean come on.

The lack of nuance here is astounding. BOTH women’s reproductive rights are at issue here. It is not a black-and-white issue.

Under these circumstances? Yes. This is a tragedy, but the child belongs with her genetic parents who want her.

The law is only on her side because no one ever contemplated this kind of situation. Don't pretend like this outcome reflects anyone's considered judgment of how to handle a scenario like this.

[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.

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.

While this case is rare it isn't unique. In situations where this has happened in the past in progress states like NY, CA, the baby goes back to the biological parents. There was a case of a Korean-American woman had twins through IVF in NY, the twins were a different race and each twin had a different biological parent. Each twin after a few weeks went back to their biological parent.

Unfortunately, the baby was born in Florida in the Handmaiden South, where a mother's intent of what should happen to her biological child doesn't matter. Their baby was legally stolen.

The backwards law in Florida means they couldn't get their biological child back even though the biological mother had NO intention of giving up her embryo or child and the woman who carried the baby had no intent of carrying another women's child. Genetics and intent matter in progressive states like New York, CA, etc. which is why in those states the biological parents would have gotten their child back.

I don’t even think you know what a handmaiden is. Forcing a woman to give birth and hand her baby over to a woman of higher social standing is what handmaidens are forced to do. So if anyone would be a handmaiden, it would be the birth mother forced to give up the baby she carried.

Handmaidens are the BIOLOGICAL mother's of the children and they have no rights to their own BIOLOGICAL children. Just like in the south where a mother no longer has a right to determine what happens to her body and fetus.

This baby absolutely belongs to her biological parents who did not give up their parental rights, did not authorize anyone else to carry their child, and are not getting their parental rights terminated due to not being able to adequately and safely raise their child. Their embryos were STOLEN. Their baby was STOLEN. There is no other word to describe what has happened. In progressive states like New York and CA the baby would legally go back to the biological parents.

And it makes it even worse the couple who stole their child is getting any type of sympathy. Within one month of the birth the gestational carrier filed a lawsuit because they wanted to find their own biological child and in that legal filling the mother argued the baby the she carried "should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her". Once they realized no child was conceived with their embryos they decided to keep the South Asian baby because Florida law is on their side.

The biological parents (known only as Patient 004) have chosen to remain completely anonymous. Because they refuse to do interviews or show their faces, the public is hearing the narrative framed by the birthing couple as this is something the biological parents have willingly agreed to do. Most likely the biological parents are doing this to protect their biological child. They have much more sense than the people who stole the baby, are heavily publicizing this case, and have a GoFund Me.

But you’re completely fine with making a woman hand over the baby she grew and birthed through no fault of her own? Because of a greedy and negligent man?

And you’re saying the birth mother, who again, carried the child for 9 months, had a traumatic delivery, and then nursed the child—all through no fault of her own—has “stolen” the baby even though the law is concededly on her side, and the bio parents agreed to give the birth parents sole custody? I mean come on.

The lack of nuance here is astounding. BOTH women’s reproductive rights are at issue here. It is not a black-and-white issue.

Under these circumstances? Yes. This is a tragedy, but the child belongs with her genetic parents who want her.

The law is only on her side because no one ever contemplated this kind of situation. Don't pretend like this outcome reflects anyone's considered judgment of how to handle a scenario like this.

There is not an easy answer. It’s tragic because every decision results in trauma for multiple parties, and we can only guess at what the best decision is. There is no obvious right or wrong.

I have no idea how the law emerged in Florida on this issue. It was almost certainly judicially made over decades.

I think probably the best decision would be shared custody amongst all four parents, but the law does not allow for that in Florida (I believe it does in California).

I would be very uncomfortable with any law allowing a child to be ripped from the arms of the mom who carried and birthed the child with no knowledge that the embryo wasn’t hers.

[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: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.

While this case is rare it isn't unique. In situations where this has happened in the past in progress states like NY, CA, the baby goes back to the biological parents. There was a case of a Korean-American woman had twins through IVF in NY, the twins were a different race and each twin had a different biological parent. Each twin after a few weeks went back to their biological parent.

Unfortunately, the baby was born in Florida in the Handmaiden South, where a mother's intent of what should happen to her biological child doesn't matter. Their baby was legally stolen.

The backwards law in Florida means they couldn't get their biological child back even though the biological mother had NO intention of giving up her embryo or child and the woman who carried the baby had no intent of carrying another women's child. Genetics and intent matter in progressive states like New York, CA, etc. which is why in those states the biological parents would have gotten their child back.

I don’t even think you know what a handmaiden is. Forcing a woman to give birth and hand her baby over to a woman of higher social standing is what handmaidens are forced to do. So if anyone would be a handmaiden, it would be the birth mother forced to give up the baby she carried.

Handmaidens are the BIOLOGICAL mother's of the children and they have no rights to their own BIOLOGICAL children. Just like in the south where a mother no longer has a right to determine what happens to her body and fetus.

This baby absolutely belongs to her biological parents who did not give up their parental rights, did not authorize anyone else to carry their child, and are not getting their parental rights terminated due to not being able to adequately and safely raise their child. Their embryos were STOLEN. Their baby was STOLEN. There is no other word to describe what has happened. In progressive states like New York and CA the baby would legally go back to the biological parents.

And it makes it even worse the couple who stole their child is getting any type of sympathy. Within one month of the birth the gestational carrier filed a lawsuit because they wanted to find their own biological child and in that legal filling the mother argued the baby the she carried "should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her". Once they realized no child was conceived with their embryos they decided to keep the South Asian baby because Florida law is on their side.

The biological parents (known only as Patient 004) have chosen to remain completely anonymous. Because they refuse to do interviews or show their faces, the public is hearing the narrative framed by the birthing couple as this is something the biological parents have willingly agreed to do. Most likely the biological parents are doing this to protect their biological child. They have much more sense than the people who stole the baby, are heavily publicizing this case, and have a GoFund Me.

But you’re completely fine with making a woman hand over the baby she grew and birthed through no fault of her own? Because of a greedy and negligent man?

And you’re saying the birth mother, who again, carried the child for 9 months, had a traumatic delivery, and then nursed the child—all through no fault of her own—has “stolen” the baby even though the law is concededly on her side, and the bio parents agreed to give the birth parents sole custody? I mean come on.

The lack of nuance here is astounding. BOTH women’s reproductive rights are at issue here. It is not a black-and-white issue.

Under these circumstances? Yes. This is a tragedy, but the child belongs with her genetic parents who want her.

The law is only on her side because no one ever contemplated this kind of situation. Don't pretend like this outcome reflects anyone's considered judgment of how to handle a scenario like this.

There is not an easy answer. It’s tragic because every decision results in trauma for multiple parties, and we can only guess at what the best decision is. There is no obvious right or wrong.

I have no idea how the law emerged in Florida on this issue. It was almost certainly judicially made over decades.

I think probably the best decision would be shared custody amongst all four parents, but the law does not allow for that in Florida (I believe it does in California).

I would be very uncomfortable with any law allowing a child to be ripped from the arms of the mom who carried and birthed the child with no knowledge that the embryo wasn’t hers.

I simply disagree that there is no obvious right or wrong answer here.

[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: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.

While this case is rare it isn't unique. In situations where this has happened in the past in progress states like NY, CA, the baby goes back to the biological parents. There was a case of a Korean-American woman had twins through IVF in NY, the twins were a different race and each twin had a different biological parent. Each twin after a few weeks went back to their biological parent.

Unfortunately, the baby was born in Florida in the Handmaiden South, where a mother's intent of what should happen to her biological child doesn't matter. Their baby was legally stolen.

The backwards law in Florida means they couldn't get their biological child back even though the biological mother had NO intention of giving up her embryo or child and the woman who carried the baby had no intent of carrying another women's child. Genetics and intent matter in progressive states like New York, CA, etc. which is why in those states the biological parents would have gotten their child back.

I don’t even think you know what a handmaiden is. Forcing a woman to give birth and hand her baby over to a woman of higher social standing is what handmaidens are forced to do. So if anyone would be a handmaiden, it would be the birth mother forced to give up the baby she carried.

Handmaidens are the BIOLOGICAL mother's of the children and they have no rights to their own BIOLOGICAL children. Just like in the south where a mother no longer has a right to determine what happens to her body and fetus.

This baby absolutely belongs to her biological parents who did not give up their parental rights, did not authorize anyone else to carry their child, and are not getting their parental rights terminated due to not being able to adequately and safely raise their child. Their embryos were STOLEN. Their baby was STOLEN. There is no other word to describe what has happened. In progressive states like New York and CA the baby would legally go back to the biological parents.

And it makes it even worse the couple who stole their child is getting any type of sympathy. Within one month of the birth the gestational carrier filed a lawsuit because they wanted to find their own biological child and in that legal filling the mother argued the baby the she carried "should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her". Once they realized no child was conceived with their embryos they decided to keep the South Asian baby because Florida law is on their side.

The biological parents (known only as Patient 004) have chosen to remain completely anonymous. Because they refuse to do interviews or show their faces, the public is hearing the narrative framed by the birthing couple as this is something the biological parents have willingly agreed to do. Most likely the biological parents are doing this to protect their biological child. They have much more sense than the people who stole the baby, are heavily publicizing this case, and have a GoFund Me.

But you’re completely fine with making a woman hand over the baby she grew and birthed through no fault of her own? Because of a greedy and negligent man?

And you’re saying the birth mother, who again, carried the child for 9 months, had a traumatic delivery, and then nursed the child—all through no fault of her own—has “stolen” the baby even though the law is concededly on her side, and the bio parents agreed to give the birth parents sole custody? I mean come on.

The lack of nuance here is astounding. BOTH women’s reproductive rights are at issue here. It is not a black-and-white issue.

Under these circumstances? Yes. This is a tragedy, but the child belongs with her genetic parents who want her.

The law is only on her side because no one ever contemplated this kind of situation. Don't pretend like this outcome reflects anyone's considered judgment of how to handle a scenario like this.

There is not an easy answer. It’s tragic because every decision results in trauma for multiple parties, and we can only guess at what the best decision is. There is no obvious right or wrong.

I have no idea how the law emerged in Florida on this issue. It was almost certainly judicially made over decades.

I think probably the best decision would be shared custody amongst all four parents, but the law does not allow for that in Florida (I believe it does in California).

I would be very uncomfortable with any law allowing a child to be ripped from the arms of the mom who carried and birthed the child with no knowledge that the embryo wasn’t hers.

I simply disagree that there is no obvious right or wrong answer here.

And I simply agree that the obvious answer is that the baby go to bio parents!

[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: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.

While this case is rare it isn't unique. In situations where this has happened in the past in progress states like NY, CA, the baby goes back to the biological parents. There was a case of a Korean-American woman had twins through IVF in NY, the twins were a different race and each twin had a different biological parent. Each twin after a few weeks went back to their biological parent.

Unfortunately, the baby was born in Florida in the Handmaiden South, where a mother's intent of what should happen to her biological child doesn't matter. Their baby was legally stolen.

The backwards law in Florida means they couldn't get their biological child back even though the biological mother had NO intention of giving up her embryo or child and the woman who carried the baby had no intent of carrying another women's child. Genetics and intent matter in progressive states like New York, CA, etc. which is why in those states the biological parents would have gotten their child back.

I don’t even think you know what a handmaiden is. Forcing a woman to give birth and hand her baby over to a woman of higher social standing is what handmaidens are forced to do. So if anyone would be a handmaiden, it would be the birth mother forced to give up the baby she carried.

Handmaidens are the BIOLOGICAL mother's of the children and they have no rights to their own BIOLOGICAL children. Just like in the south where a mother no longer has a right to determine what happens to her body and fetus.

This baby absolutely belongs to her biological parents who did not give up their parental rights, did not authorize anyone else to carry their child, and are not getting their parental rights terminated due to not being able to adequately and safely raise their child. Their embryos were STOLEN. Their baby was STOLEN. There is no other word to describe what has happened. In progressive states like New York and CA the baby would legally go back to the biological parents.

And it makes it even worse the couple who stole their child is getting any type of sympathy. Within one month of the birth the gestational carrier filed a lawsuit because they wanted to find their own biological child and in that legal filling the mother argued the baby the she carried "should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her". Once they realized no child was conceived with their embryos they decided to keep the South Asian baby because Florida law is on their side.

The biological parents (known only as Patient 004) have chosen to remain completely anonymous. Because they refuse to do interviews or show their faces, the public is hearing the narrative framed by the birthing couple as this is something the biological parents have willingly agreed to do. Most likely the biological parents are doing this to protect their biological child. They have much more sense than the people who stole the baby, are heavily publicizing this case, and have a GoFund Me.

But you’re completely fine with making a woman hand over the baby she grew and birthed through no fault of her own? Because of a greedy and negligent man?

And you’re saying the birth mother, who again, carried the child for 9 months, had a traumatic delivery, and then nursed the child—all through no fault of her own—has “stolen” the baby even though the law is concededly on her side, and the bio parents agreed to give the birth parents sole custody? I mean come on.

The lack of nuance here is astounding. BOTH women’s reproductive rights are at issue here. It is not a black-and-white issue.

Under these circumstances? Yes. This is a tragedy, but the child belongs with her genetic parents who want her.

The law is only on her side because no one ever contemplated this kind of situation. Don't pretend like this outcome reflects anyone's considered judgment of how to handle a scenario like this.

There is not an easy answer. It’s tragic because every decision results in trauma for multiple parties, and we can only guess at what the best decision is. There is no obvious right or wrong.

I have no idea how the law emerged in Florida on this issue. It was almost certainly judicially made over decades.

I think probably the best decision would be shared custody amongst all four parents, but the law does not allow for that in Florida (I believe it does in California).

I would be very uncomfortable with any law allowing a child to be ripped from the arms of the mom who carried and birthed the child with no knowledge that the embryo wasn’t hers.

I simply disagree that there is no obvious right or wrong answer here.

And I simply agree that the obvious answer is that the baby go to bio parents!

I'm glad I could change your mind.

[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: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.

While this case is rare it isn't unique. In situations where this has happened in the past in progress states like NY, CA, the baby goes back to the biological parents. There was a case of a Korean-American woman had twins through IVF in NY, the twins were a different race and each twin had a different biological parent. Each twin after a few weeks went back to their biological parent.

Unfortunately, the baby was born in Florida in the Handmaiden South, where a mother's intent of what should happen to her biological child doesn't matter. Their baby was legally stolen.

The backwards law in Florida means they couldn't get their biological child back even though the biological mother had NO intention of giving up her embryo or child and the woman who carried the baby had no intent of carrying another women's child. Genetics and intent matter in progressive states like New York, CA, etc. which is why in those states the biological parents would have gotten their child back.

I don’t even think you know what a handmaiden is. Forcing a woman to give birth and hand her baby over to a woman of higher social standing is what handmaidens are forced to do. So if anyone would be a handmaiden, it would be the birth mother forced to give up the baby she carried.

Handmaidens are the BIOLOGICAL mother's of the children and they have no rights to their own BIOLOGICAL children. Just like in the south where a mother no longer has a right to determine what happens to her body and fetus.

This baby absolutely belongs to her biological parents who did not give up their parental rights, did not authorize anyone else to carry their child, and are not getting their parental rights terminated due to not being able to adequately and safely raise their child. Their embryos were STOLEN. Their baby was STOLEN. There is no other word to describe what has happened. In progressive states like New York and CA the baby would legally go back to the biological parents.

And it makes it even worse the couple who stole their child is getting any type of sympathy. Within one month of the birth the gestational carrier filed a lawsuit because they wanted to find their own biological child and in that legal filling the mother argued the baby the she carried "should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her". Once they realized no child was conceived with their embryos they decided to keep the South Asian baby because Florida law is on their side.

The biological parents (known only as Patient 004) have chosen to remain completely anonymous. Because they refuse to do interviews or show their faces, the public is hearing the narrative framed by the birthing couple as this is something the biological parents have willingly agreed to do. Most likely the biological parents are doing this to protect their biological child. They have much more sense than the people who stole the baby, are heavily publicizing this case, and have a GoFund Me.

But you’re completely fine with making a woman hand over the baby she grew and birthed through no fault of her own? Because of a greedy and negligent man?

And you’re saying the birth mother, who again, carried the child for 9 months, had a traumatic delivery, and then nursed the child—all through no fault of her own—has “stolen” the baby even though the law is concededly on her side, and the bio parents agreed to give the birth parents sole custody? I mean come on.

The lack of nuance here is astounding. BOTH women’s reproductive rights are at issue here. It is not a black-and-white issue.

Under these circumstances? Yes. This is a tragedy, but the child belongs with her genetic parents who want her.

The law is only on her side because no one ever contemplated this kind of situation. Don't pretend like this outcome reflects anyone's considered judgment of how to handle a scenario like this.

There is not an easy answer. It’s tragic because every decision results in trauma for multiple parties, and we can only guess at what the best decision is. There is no obvious right or wrong.

I have no idea how the law emerged in Florida on this issue. It was almost certainly judicially made over decades.

I think probably the best decision would be shared custody amongst all four parents, but the law does not allow for that in Florida (I believe it does in California).

I would be very uncomfortable with any law allowing a child to be ripped from the arms of the mom who carried and birthed the child with no knowledge that the embryo wasn’t hers.

I simply disagree that there is no obvious right or wrong answer here.

Weird this is perfectly obvious to many people. The incubators feelings don’t trump biology.

[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: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.

While this case is rare it isn't unique. In situations where this has happened in the past in progress states like NY, CA, the baby goes back to the biological parents. There was a case of a Korean-American woman had twins through IVF in NY, the twins were a different race and each twin had a different biological parent. Each twin after a few weeks went back to their biological parent.

Unfortunately, the baby was born in Florida in the Handmaiden South, where a mother's intent of what should happen to her biological child doesn't matter. Their baby was legally stolen.

The backwards law in Florida means they couldn't get their biological child back even though the biological mother had NO intention of giving up her embryo or child and the woman who carried the baby had no intent of carrying another women's child. Genetics and intent matter in progressive states like New York, CA, etc. which is why in those states the biological parents would have gotten their child back.

I don’t even think you know what a handmaiden is. Forcing a woman to give birth and hand her baby over to a woman of higher social standing is what handmaidens are forced to do. So if anyone would be a handmaiden, it would be the birth mother forced to give up the baby she carried.

Handmaidens are the BIOLOGICAL mother's of the children and they have no rights to their own BIOLOGICAL children. Just like in the south where a mother no longer has a right to determine what happens to her body and fetus.

This baby absolutely belongs to her biological parents who did not give up their parental rights, did not authorize anyone else to carry their child, and are not getting their parental rights terminated due to not being able to adequately and safely raise their child. Their embryos were STOLEN. Their baby was STOLEN. There is no other word to describe what has happened. In progressive states like New York and CA the baby would legally go back to the biological parents.

And it makes it even worse the couple who stole their child is getting any type of sympathy. Within one month of the birth the gestational carrier filed a lawsuit because they wanted to find their own biological child and in that legal filling the mother argued the baby the she carried "should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her". Once they realized no child was conceived with their embryos they decided to keep the South Asian baby because Florida law is on their side.

The biological parents (known only as Patient 004) have chosen to remain completely anonymous. Because they refuse to do interviews or show their faces, the public is hearing the narrative framed by the birthing couple as this is something the biological parents have willingly agreed to do. Most likely the biological parents are doing this to protect their biological child. They have much more sense than the people who stole the baby, are heavily publicizing this case, and have a GoFund Me.

But you’re completely fine with making a woman hand over the baby she grew and birthed through no fault of her own? Because of a greedy and negligent man?

And you’re saying the birth mother, who again, carried the child for 9 months, had a traumatic delivery, and then nursed the child—all through no fault of her own—has “stolen” the baby even though the law is concededly on her side, and the bio parents agreed to give the birth parents sole custody? I mean come on.

The lack of nuance here is astounding. BOTH women’s reproductive rights are at issue here. It is not a black-and-white issue.

Under these circumstances? Yes. This is a tragedy, but the child belongs with her genetic parents who want her.

The law is only on her side because no one ever contemplated this kind of situation. Don't pretend like this outcome reflects anyone's considered judgment of how to handle a scenario like this.

There is not an easy answer. It’s tragic because every decision results in trauma for multiple parties, and we can only guess at what the best decision is. There is no obvious right or wrong.

I have no idea how the law emerged in Florida on this issue. It was almost certainly judicially made over decades.

I think probably the best decision would be shared custody amongst all four parents, but the law does not allow for that in Florida (I believe it does in California).

I would be very uncomfortable with any law allowing a child to be ripped from the arms of the mom who carried and birthed the child with no knowledge that the embryo wasn’t hers.

I simply disagree that there is no obvious right or wrong answer here.

Weird this is perfectly obvious to many people. The incubators feelings don’t trump biology.

You’re really calling a woman an incubator?