IVF embryo error, custody settlement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It is 100% a black and white issue (and dripping with irony of course since the people who end up with the baby are white). The carrier did not produce or grow the embryo. She has no biological claim to the child. She does have claim to a lawsuit against the fertility clinic for being a forced surrogate without compensation.

The birth parents at no time willingly agreed to give up custody and give the birth mother custody. They realize under Florida law they have no claim to their biological child. So being reasonable and loving people they made the decision that will benefit their child. Stay anonymous and hope they get to meet their biological child. If at anytime they assert wanting their biological child they will lose all access to knowing anything about their child. The gestational carrier is portraying a false narrative and making it seem like the biological parents are fine with all of this.

It really is like the story of King Soloman and the baby in the Bible. I'm not religious but it really does ring true. In the story two women had recently given birth. One woman accidentally smothered her own child in her sleep. She then exchanged her dead baby for the other woman's living child while the other woman was asleep. In the morning, both women claimed the living baby as their own and the dead one as the other’s. With no witnesses, King Solomon ordered a sword to be brought and decreed: Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other.

The True Mother terrified for her baby's life immediately pleaded to not kill the baby and to give the other woman her the living child while the False Mother agreed to the harsh judgment, saying to go ahead and cut him so he won't be anyone's child. Of course, then King Soloman realized who the True Mother was.

[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.

It is 100% a black and white issue (and dripping with irony of course since the people who end up with the baby are white). The carrier did not produce or grow the embryo. She has no biological claim to the child. She does have claim to a lawsuit against the fertility clinic for being a forced surrogate without compensation.

The birth parents at no time willingly agreed to give up custody and give the birth mother custody. They realize under Florida law they have no claim to their biological child. So being reasonable and loving people they made the decision that will benefit their child. Stay anonymous and hope they get to meet their biological child. If at anytime they assert wanting their biological child they will lose all access to knowing anything about their child. The gestational carrier is portraying a false narrative and making it seem like the biological parents are fine with all of this.

It really is like the story of King Soloman and the baby in the Bible. I'm not religious but it really does ring true. In the story two women had recently given birth. One woman accidentally smothered her own child in her sleep. She then exchanged her dead baby for the other woman's living child while the other woman was asleep. In the morning, both women claimed the living baby as their own and the dead one as the other’s. With no witnesses, King Solomon ordered a sword to be brought and decreed: Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other.

The True Mother terrified for her baby's life immediately pleaded to not kill the baby and to give the other woman her the living child while the False Mother agreed to the harsh judgment, saying to go ahead and cut him so he won't be anyone's child. Of course, then King Soloman realized who the True Mother was.

The birth parents never agreed to carry someone else’s embryo or serve as a surrogate either. This is a non consensual situation all around.

Your analogizing to the Judgment of Solomon story is both disgusting and highlights your misunderstanding of the situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Uh, I believe this woman used her own body to birth this child?

Except for, you know, the egg that comprises half of this child’s DNA.

So are you also opposed to sperm and egg donation?

Do we know any details about the black couple? They were also patients seeking to have a baby with help of IVF — or are they merely egg/sperm donors to the clinic? If former, did they have a baby with the clinic’s help and this was extra fertilized egg? Was the kid they had actually theirs?

You know this baby is genetically South Asian, right?

No. I honestly thought I heard the baby was black. So the real parents are Indians? Indians who also sought the services of this black fertility doctor? Did those Indians have a successful child via this clinic and this was an extra fertilized egg?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Money grabbers too. Horrible couple.

They’re not even married? Yikes. They look like a successful middle aged people. Are they really actually broke with no careers? Begging for money… only 12 grand at that…is very weird.

[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.

The white female victim was essentially a surrogate for a child that wasn’t her or her partners. So do you think every surrogate should be able to keep other rich people’s kids they agree to carry? Example gay celebs Anderson Cooper and Andy Cohen have a handful of kids carried by surrogates. So the poor women who carried the child for those gay should be able to “claw back” the child after it’s born?

[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.

The white female victim was essentially a surrogate for a child that wasn’t her or her partners. So do you think every surrogate should be able to keep other rich people’s kids they agree to carry? Example gay celebs Anderson Cooper and Andy Cohen have a handful of kids carried by surrogates. So the poor women who carried the child for those gay should be able to “claw back” the child after it’s born?

I think you understand the difference here. Surrogates enter into a contract up front and carry a baby knowing they’ll give it up in exchange for money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Uh, I believe this woman used her own body to birth this child?

Except for, you know, the egg that comprises half of this child’s DNA.

So are you also opposed to sperm and egg donation?

Do we know any details about the black couple? They were also patients seeking to have a baby with help of IVF — or are they merely egg/sperm donors to the clinic? If former, did they have a baby with the clinic’s help and this was extra fertilized egg? Was the kid they had actually theirs?

You know this baby is genetically South Asian, right?

No. I honestly thought I heard the baby was black. So the real parents are Indians? Indians who also sought the services of this black fertility doctor? Did those Indians have a successful child via this clinic and this was an extra fertilized egg?

Is this really shocking to you!?

[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.

It is 100% a black and white issue (and dripping with irony of course since the people who end up with the baby are white). The carrier did not produce or grow the embryo. She has no biological claim to the child. She does have claim to a lawsuit against the fertility clinic for being a forced surrogate without compensation.

The birth parents at no time willingly agreed to give up custody and give the birth mother custody. They realize under Florida law they have no claim to their biological child. So being reasonable and loving people they made the decision that will benefit their child. Stay anonymous and hope they get to meet their biological child. If at anytime they assert wanting their biological child they will lose all access to knowing anything about their child. The gestational carrier is portraying a false narrative and making it seem like the biological parents are fine with all of this.

It really is like the story of King Soloman and the baby in the Bible. I'm not religious but it really does ring true. In the story two women had recently given birth. One woman accidentally smothered her own child in her sleep. She then exchanged her dead baby for the other woman's living child while the other woman was asleep. In the morning, both women claimed the living baby as their own and the dead one as the other’s. With no witnesses, King Solomon ordered a sword to be brought and decreed: Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other.

The True Mother terrified for her baby's life immediately pleaded to not kill the baby and to give the other woman her the living child while the False Mother agreed to the harsh judgment, saying to go ahead and cut him so he won't be anyone's child. Of course, then King Soloman realized who the True Mother was.

The birth parents never agreed to carry someone else’s embryo or serve as a surrogate either. This is a non consensual situation all around.

Your analogizing to the Judgment of Solomon story is both disgusting and highlights your misunderstanding of the situation.

And the genetic parents never agreed to be sperm and egg donors. They never agreed to donate their embryo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Uh, I believe this woman used her own body to birth this child?

Except for, you know, the egg that comprises half of this child’s DNA.

So are you also opposed to sperm and egg donation?

Do we know any details about the black couple? They were also patients seeking to have a baby with help of IVF — or are they merely egg/sperm donors to the clinic? If former, did they have a baby with the clinic’s help and this was extra fertilized egg? Was the kid they had actually theirs?

You know this baby is genetically South Asian, right?

No. I honestly thought I heard the baby was black. So the real parents are Indians? Indians who also sought the services of this black fertility doctor? Did those Indians have a successful child via this clinic and this was an extra fertilized egg?

What does the existence of another living child have to do with anything? If anything, that’s more reason the child should return to the genetic 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: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.

It is 100% a black and white issue (and dripping with irony of course since the people who end up with the baby are white). The carrier did not produce or grow the embryo. She has no biological claim to the child. She does have claim to a lawsuit against the fertility clinic for being a forced surrogate without compensation.

The birth parents at no time willingly agreed to give up custody and give the birth mother custody. They realize under Florida law they have no claim to their biological child. So being reasonable and loving people they made the decision that will benefit their child. Stay anonymous and hope they get to meet their biological child. If at anytime they assert wanting their biological child they will lose all access to knowing anything about their child. The gestational carrier is portraying a false narrative and making it seem like the biological parents are fine with all of this.

It really is like the story of King Soloman and the baby in the Bible. I'm not religious but it really does ring true. In the story two women had recently given birth. One woman accidentally smothered her own child in her sleep. She then exchanged her dead baby for the other woman's living child while the other woman was asleep. In the morning, both women claimed the living baby as their own and the dead one as the other’s. With no witnesses, King Solomon ordered a sword to be brought and decreed: Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other.

The True Mother terrified for her baby's life immediately pleaded to not kill the baby and to give the other woman her the living child while the False Mother agreed to the harsh judgment, saying to go ahead and cut him so he won't be anyone's child. Of course, then King Soloman realized who the True Mother was.

The birth parents never agreed to carry someone else’s embryo or serve as a surrogate either. This is a non consensual situation all around.

Your analogizing to the Judgment of Solomon story is both disgusting and highlights your misunderstanding of the situation.

And the genetic parents never agreed to be sperm and egg donors. They never agreed to donate their embryo.

Correct. Hence this being a complicated, not easy resolution. Both sets of parents’ rights were violated all through no fault of their own. They all have a legitimate claim to the child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Uh, I believe this woman used her own body to birth this child?

Except for, you know, the egg that comprises half of this child’s DNA.

So are you also opposed to sperm and egg donation?

Do we know any details about the black couple? They were also patients seeking to have a baby with help of IVF — or are they merely egg/sperm donors to the clinic? If former, did they have a baby with the clinic’s help and this was extra fertilized egg? Was the kid they had actually theirs?

You know this baby is genetically South Asian, right?

No. I honestly thought I heard the baby was black. So the real parents are Indians? Indians who also sought the services of this black fertility doctor? Did those Indians have a successful child via this clinic and this was an extra fertilized egg?

Is this really shocking to you!?

DCUM subscribes to the stereotype about Indians and their fecundity. We aren't racist!

[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.

It is 100% a black and white issue (and dripping with irony of course since the people who end up with the baby are white). The carrier did not produce or grow the embryo. She has no biological claim to the child. She does have claim to a lawsuit against the fertility clinic for being a forced surrogate without compensation.

The birth parents at no time willingly agreed to give up custody and give the birth mother custody. They realize under Florida law they have no claim to their biological child. So being reasonable and loving people they made the decision that will benefit their child. Stay anonymous and hope they get to meet their biological child. If at anytime they assert wanting their biological child they will lose all access to knowing anything about their child. The gestational carrier is portraying a false narrative and making it seem like the biological parents are fine with all of this.

It really is like the story of King Soloman and the baby in the Bible. I'm not religious but it really does ring true. In the story two women had recently given birth. One woman accidentally smothered her own child in her sleep. She then exchanged her dead baby for the other woman's living child while the other woman was asleep. In the morning, both women claimed the living baby as their own and the dead one as the other’s. With no witnesses, King Solomon ordered a sword to be brought and decreed: Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other.

The True Mother terrified for her baby's life immediately pleaded to not kill the baby and to give the other woman her the living child while the False Mother agreed to the harsh judgment, saying to go ahead and cut him so he won't be anyone's child. Of course, then King Soloman realized who the True Mother was.

The birth parents never agreed to carry someone else’s embryo or serve as a surrogate either. This is a non consensual situation all around.

Your analogizing to the Judgment of Solomon story is both disgusting and highlights your misunderstanding of the situation.

And the genetic parents never agreed to be sperm and egg donors. They never agreed to donate their embryo.

Correct. Hence this being a complicated, not easy resolution. Both sets of parents’ rights were violated all through no fault of their own. They all have a legitimate claim to the child.

No, not all legitimate. A baby isn't a consolation prize for infertility and a lab mix up. That's not in an infant's best interest when the bio parents want it.

[Anonymous]

TMZ spoke to the attorney for the biological parents. According to the article:

"[The attorney] said that the biological parents would have faced an 'incredibly uphill legal battle' if they wanted to seek custody of their daughter, because the laws in Florida and the U.S. favor the parents who actually give birth to the child...

"...the biological parents didn't feel a protracted legal battle would be in Shea's best interests ... and he said the custody agreement still allows them to be in the kid's life.

"The lawyer says the decision wasn't easy ...

" 'They are heartbroken over what has happened, and they also understand that the birth couple are also suffering. They had to make the heartbreaking decision to not fight for custody.' "

[Anonymous]

To sum up: the interests of the birth parents trumped those of the baby or the biological parents. It's very sad.

I don't blame the birth parents for not *wanting* to give up the baby -- it's a heartbreaking situation they didn't ask for. But the only selfless people in this situation are the biological parents for putting the child first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It is 100% a black and white issue (and dripping with irony of course since the people who end up with the baby are white). The carrier did not produce or grow the embryo. She has no biological claim to the child. She does have claim to a lawsuit against the fertility clinic for being a forced surrogate without compensation.

The birth parents at no time willingly agreed to give up custody and give the birth mother custody. They realize under Florida law they have no claim to their biological child. So being reasonable and loving people they made the decision that will benefit their child. Stay anonymous and hope they get to meet their biological child. If at anytime they assert wanting their biological child they will lose all access to knowing anything about their child. The gestational carrier is portraying a false narrative and making it seem like the biological parents are fine with all of this.

It really is like the story of King Soloman and the baby in the Bible. I'm not religious but it really does ring true. In the story two women had recently given birth. One woman accidentally smothered her own child in her sleep. She then exchanged her dead baby for the other woman's living child while the other woman was asleep. In the morning, both women claimed the living baby as their own and the dead one as the other’s. With no witnesses, King Solomon ordered a sword to be brought and decreed: Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other.

The True Mother terrified for her baby's life immediately pleaded to not kill the baby and to give the other woman her the living child while the False Mother agreed to the harsh judgment, saying to go ahead and cut him so he won't be anyone's child. Of course, then King Soloman realized who the True Mother was.

The birth parents never agreed to carry someone else’s embryo or serve as a surrogate either. This is a non consensual situation all around.

Your analogizing to the Judgment of Solomon story is both disgusting and highlights your misunderstanding of the situation.

And the genetic parents never agreed to be sperm and egg donors. They never agreed to donate their embryo.

Correct. Hence this being a complicated, not easy resolution. Both sets of parents’ rights were violated all through no fault of their own. They all have a legitimate claim to the child.

No, not all legitimate. A baby isn't a consolation prize for infertility and a lab mix up. That's not in an infant's best interest when the bio parents want it.

Children have real bonds with the people who birthed them. Severing the bond inflicts trauma. There is trauma no matter the decision.

And in no circumstance is anyone here considering the baby a consolation prize for infertility.