IVF embryo error, custody settlement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an awful situation. But if I had to go with which mom gets custody, I'd choose the birth mom. I'd have a much easier time donating an embryo than being a surrogate (not that I'd choose to do either).

One more time:

The decision should be made based upon what’s best for the child, not what’s best for the moms.

Aren’t the two connected? There is an existing emotional bond between birth mother and baby that doesn’t exist with the biological mom.

Exactly! And we know this because the gestational mother said in a court filing that she’d really like to swap this baby for her own genetic child (who didn’t exist, it turns out).

Her supposed bond can’t be measured or proven but biological bonds can be.

I think we can infer something about her bond with the child from the fact that she was willing to give this baby up when she believed she would be able to swap it for her own genetic child.

Right? Her first order of business was to find the parents. What mother needs to find her baby's parents?

Where did the parents ever say that. I thought they said they wanted to track down their embryos and their kid’s bio parents? I didn’t see anything about a swap, but maybe I missed it.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-couple-sues-fertility-clinic-allegedly-giving-birth-someone-elses-baby

They intended to reunite this baby with the genetic parents when they still had hope that some other women was pregnant with or had given birth to their genetic child. When they learned that had not happened, they decided to keep this baby.

It says nowhere that they wanted to swap the child. It says they wanted to identify the bio parents because they felt they felt they had a right to know and would want the same. The fundraiser refers to the birth parents as the baby’s parents. They express fear that the baby “could be taken from them at any moment.”

I have no how idea you could so heartless and cruel as to read into this that the birth parents wanted to trade babies.

Did you even read the article?

This is a quote from the complaint that initiated their lawsuit against the fertility clinic: "They would willingly keep her in their care; however, for the sake of both Shea and her genetic parents, they recognize that Shea should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her."

How do we know they’re fit, able, and willing to care for her?

FFS. You're truly a sick person.

Do you have any idea how IVF works? The parents could easily be 70 years old. We have no info about them! They reached a joint agreement with the birth parents.

Age is relevant when income is not?

Poor people provide great homes all the time. Dead people can't provide.

+1 you would think this wouldn’t need to be explained

Who are the dead people in your wild scenario?

The people supporting the gestational mother have resorted to making up bizarre scenarios in which she was not only entitled to keep the baby, but where it was practically the only option. One such scenario that they’ve dreamed up is one in which the genetic parents are so old that they’re on death’s door and are likely to die at any minute, such that they’re likely to leave this baby an orphan.

They’re also claiming that the genetic parents may be child molesters.

No, no one is saying that the biological parents are actually or probably bad. The point is that we don’t have any details about them and they reached a confidential settlement with the birth parents where the birth parents retain custody. There could be MANY reasons why this arrangement is in the best interests of the child. It also might NOT be in the best interests of the child. We can’t know because we have zero information about the biological parents, so the possibilities are endless.

And the child molester comment was responding only to the poster who made the ridiculous point that the fact that the biological parents have visitation must mean they are suitable parents. That’s certainly not what it means given that convicted child molesters frequently get visitation yet obviously are not fit to be 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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an awful situation. But if I had to go with which mom gets custody, I'd choose the birth mom. I'd have a much easier time donating an embryo than being a surrogate (not that I'd choose to do either).

One more time:

The decision should be made based upon what’s best for the child, not what’s best for the moms.

Aren’t the two connected? There is an existing emotional bond between birth mother and baby that doesn’t exist with the biological mom.

Exactly! And we know this because the gestational mother said in a court filing that she’d really like to swap this baby for her own genetic child (who didn’t exist, it turns out).

Her supposed bond can’t be measured or proven but biological bonds can be.

I think we can infer something about her bond with the child from the fact that she was willing to give this baby up when she believed she would be able to swap it for her own genetic child.

Right? Her first order of business was to find the parents. What mother needs to find her baby's parents?

Where did the parents ever say that. I thought they said they wanted to track down their embryos and their kid’s bio parents? I didn’t see anything about a swap, but maybe I missed it.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-couple-sues-fertility-clinic-allegedly-giving-birth-someone-elses-baby

They intended to reunite this baby with the genetic parents when they still had hope that some other women was pregnant with or had given birth to their genetic child. When they learned that had not happened, they decided to keep this baby.

It says nowhere that they wanted to swap the child. It says they wanted to identify the bio parents because they felt they felt they had a right to know and would want the same. The fundraiser refers to the birth parents as the baby’s parents. They express fear that the baby “could be taken from them at any moment.”

I have no how idea you could so heartless and cruel as to read into this that the birth parents wanted to trade babies.

Did you even read the article?

This is a quote from the complaint that initiated their lawsuit against the fertility clinic: "They would willingly keep her in their care; however, for the sake of both Shea and her genetic parents, they recognize that Shea should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her."

How do we know they’re fit, able, and willing to care for her?

FFS. You're truly a sick person.

Do you have any idea how IVF works? The parents could easily be 70 years old. We have no info about them! They reached a joint agreement with the birth parents.

Age is relevant when income is not?

Poor people provide great homes all the time. Dead people can't provide.

+1 you would think this wouldn’t need to be explained

Who are the dead people in your wild scenario?

The people supporting the gestational mother have resorted to making up bizarre scenarios in which she was not only entitled to keep the baby, but where it was practically the only option. One such scenario that they’ve dreamed up is one in which the genetic parents are so old that they’re on death’s door and are likely to die at any minute, such that they’re likely to leave this baby an orphan.

They’re also claiming that the genetic parents may be child molesters.

No, no one is saying that the biological parents are actually or probably bad. The point is that we don’t have any details about them and they reached a confidential settlement with the birth parents where the birth parents retain custody. There could be MANY reasons why this arrangement is in the best interests of the child. It also might NOT be in the best interests of the child. We can’t know because we have zero information about the biological parents, so the possibilities are endless.

And the child molester comment was responding only to the poster who made the ridiculous point that the fact that the biological parents have visitation must mean they are suitable parents. That’s certainly not what it means given that convicted child molesters frequently get visitation yet obviously are not fit to be parents.

The most natural assumption is that the genetic parents are geriatric, unfit child molesters. That makes perfect sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an awful situation. But if I had to go with which mom gets custody, I'd choose the birth mom. I'd have a much easier time donating an embryo than being a surrogate (not that I'd choose to do either).

One more time:

The decision should be made based upon what’s best for the child, not what’s best for the moms.

Aren’t the two connected? There is an existing emotional bond between birth mother and baby that doesn’t exist with the biological mom.

Exactly! And we know this because the gestational mother said in a court filing that she’d really like to swap this baby for her own genetic child (who didn’t exist, it turns out).

Her supposed bond can’t be measured or proven but biological bonds can be.

I think we can infer something about her bond with the child from the fact that she was willing to give this baby up when she believed she would be able to swap it for her own genetic child.

Right? Her first order of business was to find the parents. What mother needs to find her baby's parents?

Where did the parents ever say that. I thought they said they wanted to track down their embryos and their kid’s bio parents? I didn’t see anything about a swap, but maybe I missed it.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-couple-sues-fertility-clinic-allegedly-giving-birth-someone-elses-baby

They intended to reunite this baby with the genetic parents when they still had hope that some other women was pregnant with or had given birth to their genetic child. When they learned that had not happened, they decided to keep this baby.

It says nowhere that they wanted to swap the child. It says they wanted to identify the bio parents because they felt they felt they had a right to know and would want the same. The fundraiser refers to the birth parents as the baby’s parents. They express fear that the baby “could be taken from them at any moment.”

I have no how idea you could so heartless and cruel as to read into this that the birth parents wanted to trade babies.

Did you even read the article?

This is a quote from the complaint that initiated their lawsuit against the fertility clinic: "They would willingly keep her in their care; however, for the sake of both Shea and her genetic parents, they recognize that Shea should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her."

How do we know they’re fit, able, and willing to care for her?

FFS. You're truly a sick person.

Do you have any idea how IVF works? The parents could easily be 70 years old. We have no info about them! They reached a joint agreement with the birth parents.

Age is relevant when income is not?

Poor people provide great homes all the time. Dead people can't provide.

+1 you would think this wouldn’t need to be explained

Who are the dead people in your wild scenario?

The people supporting the gestational mother have resorted to making up bizarre scenarios in which she was not only entitled to keep the baby, but where it was practically the only option. One such scenario that they’ve dreamed up is one in which the genetic parents are so old that they’re on death’s door and are likely to die at any minute, such that they’re likely to leave this baby an orphan.

They’re also claiming that the genetic parents may be child molesters.

No, no one is saying that the biological parents are actually or probably bad. The point is that we don’t have any details about them and they reached a confidential settlement with the birth parents where the birth parents retain custody. There could be MANY reasons why this arrangement is in the best interests of the child. It also might NOT be in the best interests of the child. We can’t know because we have zero information about the biological parents, so the possibilities are endless.

And the child molester comment was responding only to the poster who made the ridiculous point that the fact that the biological parents have visitation must mean they are suitable parents. That’s certainly not what it means given that convicted child molesters frequently get visitation yet obviously are not fit to be parents.

The most natural assumption is that the genetic parents are geriatric, unfit child molesters. That makes perfect sense.[/quote

You don't even have to assume we know the adoptive parents are unmarried, broke, and don't have steady jobs. The woman has a job with inadequate benefits, no leave, and obviously doesn't pay well. This is just sad all around that this baby was born into such chaos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an awful situation. But if I had to go with which mom gets custody, I'd choose the birth mom. I'd have a much easier time donating an embryo than being a surrogate (not that I'd choose to do either).

One more time:

The decision should be made based upon what’s best for the child, not what’s best for the moms.

Aren’t the two connected? There is an existing emotional bond between birth mother and baby that doesn’t exist with the biological mom.

Exactly! And we know this because the gestational mother said in a court filing that she’d really like to swap this baby for her own genetic child (who didn’t exist, it turns out).

Her supposed bond can’t be measured or proven but biological bonds can be.

I think we can infer something about her bond with the child from the fact that she was willing to give this baby up when she believed she would be able to swap it for her own genetic child.

Right? Her first order of business was to find the parents. What mother needs to find her baby's parents?

Where did the parents ever say that. I thought they said they wanted to track down their embryos and their kid’s bio parents? I didn’t see anything about a swap, but maybe I missed it.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-couple-sues-fertility-clinic-allegedly-giving-birth-someone-elses-baby

They intended to reunite this baby with the genetic parents when they still had hope that some other women was pregnant with or had given birth to their genetic child. When they learned that had not happened, they decided to keep this baby.

It says nowhere that they wanted to swap the child. It says they wanted to identify the bio parents because they felt they felt they had a right to know and would want the same. The fundraiser refers to the birth parents as the baby’s parents. They express fear that the baby “could be taken from them at any moment.”

I have no how idea you could so heartless and cruel as to read into this that the birth parents wanted to trade babies.

Did you even read the article?

This is a quote from the complaint that initiated their lawsuit against the fertility clinic: "They would willingly keep her in their care; however, for the sake of both Shea and her genetic parents, they recognize that Shea should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her."

How do we know they’re fit, able, and willing to care for her?

FFS. You're truly a sick person.

Do you have any idea how IVF works? The parents could easily be 70 years old. We have no info about them! They reached a joint agreement with the birth parents.

Age is relevant when income is not?

Poor people provide great homes all the time. Dead people can't provide.

Are you insane? They aren't dead.

If the parents are elderly because the embryo is decades old, they're likely to die during the kid's childhood. The point is here, we literally don't know anything about the bio parents and their fitness one way or another. They might be the greatest, healthiest, most loving people on earth. They could also be all the worst things we've ever imagined. We don't have all the facts (or even most of them) in this very delicate and complicated scenario.

Posters on this thread are wild. The biological parents are not elderly. The Fertility Center of Orlando was only open around 9 years. It opened in 2017. Even assuming they were in their 40s in 2017, they wouldn't be elderly now, less than 10 years later.

Have you ever done IVF? You keep your embryos in storage and often move them around. The clinic was surely storing older embryos.

Surely? Prove it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an awful situation. But if I had to go with which mom gets custody, I'd choose the birth mom. I'd have a much easier time donating an embryo than being a surrogate (not that I'd choose to do either).

One more time:

The decision should be made based upon what’s best for the child, not what’s best for the moms.

Aren’t the two connected? There is an existing emotional bond between birth mother and baby that doesn’t exist with the biological mom.

Exactly! And we know this because the gestational mother said in a court filing that she’d really like to swap this baby for her own genetic child (who didn’t exist, it turns out).

Her supposed bond can’t be measured or proven but biological bonds can be.

I think we can infer something about her bond with the child from the fact that she was willing to give this baby up when she believed she would be able to swap it for her own genetic child.

Right? Her first order of business was to find the parents. What mother needs to find her baby's parents?

Where did the parents ever say that. I thought they said they wanted to track down their embryos and their kid’s bio parents? I didn’t see anything about a swap, but maybe I missed it.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-couple-sues-fertility-clinic-allegedly-giving-birth-someone-elses-baby

They intended to reunite this baby with the genetic parents when they still had hope that some other women was pregnant with or had given birth to their genetic child. When they learned that had not happened, they decided to keep this baby.

It says nowhere that they wanted to swap the child. It says they wanted to identify the bio parents because they felt they felt they had a right to know and would want the same. The fundraiser refers to the birth parents as the baby’s parents. They express fear that the baby “could be taken from them at any moment.”

I have no how idea you could so heartless and cruel as to read into this that the birth parents wanted to trade babies.

Did you even read the article?

This is a quote from the complaint that initiated their lawsuit against the fertility clinic: "They would willingly keep her in their care; however, for the sake of both Shea and her genetic parents, they recognize that Shea should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her."

How do we know they’re fit, able, and willing to care for her?

FFS. You're truly a sick person.

Do you have any idea how IVF works? The parents could easily be 70 years old. We have no info about them! They reached a joint agreement with the birth parents.

Age is relevant when income is not?

Poor people provide great homes all the time. Dead people can't provide.

+1 you would think this wouldn’t need to be explained

Who are the dead people in your wild scenario?

The people supporting the gestational mother have resorted to making up bizarre scenarios in which she was not only entitled to keep the baby, but where it was practically the only option. One such scenario that they’ve dreamed up is one in which the genetic parents are so old that they’re on death’s door and are likely to die at any minute, such that they’re likely to leave this baby an orphan.

They’re also claiming that the genetic parents may be child molesters.

No, no one is saying that the biological parents are actually or probably bad. The point is that we don’t have any details about them and they reached a confidential settlement with the birth parents where the birth parents retain custody. There could be MANY reasons why this arrangement is in the best interests of the child. It also might NOT be in the best interests of the child. We can’t know because we have zero information about the biological parents, so the possibilities are endless.

And the child molester comment was responding only to the poster who made the ridiculous point that the fact that the biological parents have visitation must mean they are suitable parents. That’s certainly not what it means given that convicted child molesters frequently get visitation yet obviously are not fit to be parents.

The most natural assumption is that the genetic parents are geriatric, unfit child molesters. That makes perfect sense.

The most natural assumption here is none given that they’re anonymous.

We know nothing about them and therefore can’t make a remotely informed judgment on their fitness to be 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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an awful situation. But if I had to go with which mom gets custody, I'd choose the birth mom. I'd have a much easier time donating an embryo than being a surrogate (not that I'd choose to do either).

One more time:

The decision should be made based upon what’s best for the child, not what’s best for the moms.

Aren’t the two connected? There is an existing emotional bond between birth mother and baby that doesn’t exist with the biological mom.

Exactly! And we know this because the gestational mother said in a court filing that she’d really like to swap this baby for her own genetic child (who didn’t exist, it turns out).

Her supposed bond can’t be measured or proven but biological bonds can be.

I think we can infer something about her bond with the child from the fact that she was willing to give this baby up when she believed she would be able to swap it for her own genetic child.

Right? Her first order of business was to find the parents. What mother needs to find her baby's parents?

Where did the parents ever say that. I thought they said they wanted to track down their embryos and their kid’s bio parents? I didn’t see anything about a swap, but maybe I missed it.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-couple-sues-fertility-clinic-allegedly-giving-birth-someone-elses-baby

They intended to reunite this baby with the genetic parents when they still had hope that some other women was pregnant with or had given birth to their genetic child. When they learned that had not happened, they decided to keep this baby.

It says nowhere that they wanted to swap the child. It says they wanted to identify the bio parents because they felt they felt they had a right to know and would want the same. The fundraiser refers to the birth parents as the baby’s parents. They express fear that the baby “could be taken from them at any moment.”

I have no how idea you could so heartless and cruel as to read into this that the birth parents wanted to trade babies.

Did you even read the article?

This is a quote from the complaint that initiated their lawsuit against the fertility clinic: "They would willingly keep her in their care; however, for the sake of both Shea and her genetic parents, they recognize that Shea should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her."

How do we know they’re fit, able, and willing to care for her?

FFS. You're truly a sick person.

Do you have any idea how IVF works? The parents could easily be 70 years old. We have no info about them! They reached a joint agreement with the birth parents.

Age is relevant when income is not?

Poor people provide great homes all the time. Dead people can't provide.

+1 you would think this wouldn’t need to be explained

Who are the dead people in your wild scenario?

The people supporting the gestational mother have resorted to making up bizarre scenarios in which she was not only entitled to keep the baby, but where it was practically the only option. One such scenario that they’ve dreamed up is one in which the genetic parents are so old that they’re on death’s door and are likely to die at any minute, such that they’re likely to leave this baby an orphan.

They’re also claiming that the genetic parents may be child molesters.

No, no one is saying that the biological parents are actually or probably bad. The point is that we don’t have any details about them and they reached a confidential settlement with the birth parents where the birth parents retain custody. There could be MANY reasons why this arrangement is in the best interests of the child. It also might NOT be in the best interests of the child. We can’t know because we have zero information about the biological parents, so the possibilities are endless.

And the child molester comment was responding only to the poster who made the ridiculous point that the fact that the biological parents have visitation must mean they are suitable parents. That’s certainly not what it means given that convicted child molesters frequently get visitation yet obviously are not fit to be parents.

Who is fit to be a parent? What are the qualifications? Obviously you don't care about marital status, funds, shared cultural identity, biological relation or steady jobs. What's left? A pulse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an awful situation. But if I had to go with which mom gets custody, I'd choose the birth mom. I'd have a much easier time donating an embryo than being a surrogate (not that I'd choose to do either).

One more time:

The decision should be made based upon what’s best for the child, not what’s best for the moms.

Aren’t the two connected? There is an existing emotional bond between birth mother and baby that doesn’t exist with the biological mom.

Exactly! And we know this because the gestational mother said in a court filing that she’d really like to swap this baby for her own genetic child (who didn’t exist, it turns out).

Her supposed bond can’t be measured or proven but biological bonds can be.

I think we can infer something about her bond with the child from the fact that she was willing to give this baby up when she believed she would be able to swap it for her own genetic child.

Right? Her first order of business was to find the parents. What mother needs to find her baby's parents?

Where did the parents ever say that. I thought they said they wanted to track down their embryos and their kid’s bio parents? I didn’t see anything about a swap, but maybe I missed it.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-couple-sues-fertility-clinic-allegedly-giving-birth-someone-elses-baby

They intended to reunite this baby with the genetic parents when they still had hope that some other women was pregnant with or had given birth to their genetic child. When they learned that had not happened, they decided to keep this baby.

It says nowhere that they wanted to swap the child. It says they wanted to identify the bio parents because they felt they felt they had a right to know and would want the same. The fundraiser refers to the birth parents as the baby’s parents. They express fear that the baby “could be taken from them at any moment.”

I have no how idea you could so heartless and cruel as to read into this that the birth parents wanted to trade babies.

Did you even read the article?

This is a quote from the complaint that initiated their lawsuit against the fertility clinic: "They would willingly keep her in their care; however, for the sake of both Shea and her genetic parents, they recognize that Shea should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her."

How do we know they’re fit, able, and willing to care for her?

FFS. You're truly a sick person.

Do you have any idea how IVF works? The parents could easily be 70 years old. We have no info about them! They reached a joint agreement with the birth parents.

Age is relevant when income is not?

Poor people provide great homes all the time. Dead people can't provide.

+1 you would think this wouldn’t need to be explained

Who are the dead people in your wild scenario?

The people supporting the gestational mother have resorted to making up bizarre scenarios in which she was not only entitled to keep the baby, but where it was practically the only option. One such scenario that they’ve dreamed up is one in which the genetic parents are so old that they’re on death’s door and are likely to die at any minute, such that they’re likely to leave this baby an orphan.

They’re also claiming that the genetic parents may be child molesters.

No, no one is saying that the biological parents are actually or probably bad. The point is that we don’t have any details about them and they reached a confidential settlement with the birth parents where the birth parents retain custody. There could be MANY reasons why this arrangement is in the best interests of the child. It also might NOT be in the best interests of the child. We can’t know because we have zero information about the biological parents, so the possibilities are endless.

And the child molester comment was responding only to the poster who made the ridiculous point that the fact that the biological parents have visitation must mean they are suitable parents. That’s certainly not what it means given that convicted child molesters frequently get visitation yet obviously are not fit to be parents.

Who is fit to be a parent? What are the qualifications? Obviously you don't care about marital status, funds, shared cultural identity, biological relation or steady jobs. What's left? A pulse?

You have no information on one set of parents and so therefore have no basis to conclude that they’re superior. Hence providing hypotheticals as to what is possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an awful situation. But if I had to go with which mom gets custody, I'd choose the birth mom. I'd have a much easier time donating an embryo than being a surrogate (not that I'd choose to do either).

One more time:

The decision should be made based upon what’s best for the child, not what’s best for the moms.

Aren’t the two connected? There is an existing emotional bond between birth mother and baby that doesn’t exist with the biological mom.

Exactly! And we know this because the gestational mother said in a court filing that she’d really like to swap this baby for her own genetic child (who didn’t exist, it turns out).

Her supposed bond can’t be measured or proven but biological bonds can be.

I think we can infer something about her bond with the child from the fact that she was willing to give this baby up when she believed she would be able to swap it for her own genetic child.

Right? Her first order of business was to find the parents. What mother needs to find her baby's parents?

Where did the parents ever say that. I thought they said they wanted to track down their embryos and their kid’s bio parents? I didn’t see anything about a swap, but maybe I missed it.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-couple-sues-fertility-clinic-allegedly-giving-birth-someone-elses-baby

They intended to reunite this baby with the genetic parents when they still had hope that some other women was pregnant with or had given birth to their genetic child. When they learned that had not happened, they decided to keep this baby.

It says nowhere that they wanted to swap the child. It says they wanted to identify the bio parents because they felt they felt they had a right to know and would want the same. The fundraiser refers to the birth parents as the baby’s parents. They express fear that the baby “could be taken from them at any moment.”

I have no how idea you could so heartless and cruel as to read into this that the birth parents wanted to trade babies.

Did you even read the article?

This is a quote from the complaint that initiated their lawsuit against the fertility clinic: "They would willingly keep her in their care; however, for the sake of both Shea and her genetic parents, they recognize that Shea should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her."

How do we know they’re fit, able, and willing to care for her?

FFS. You're truly a sick person.

Do you have any idea how IVF works? The parents could easily be 70 years old. We have no info about them! They reached a joint agreement with the birth parents.

Age is relevant when income is not?

Poor people provide great homes all the time. Dead people can't provide.

Are you insane? They aren't dead.

If the parents are elderly because the embryo is decades old, they're likely to die during the kid's childhood. The point is here, we literally don't know anything about the bio parents and their fitness one way or another. They might be the greatest, healthiest, most loving people on earth. They could also be all the worst things we've ever imagined. We don't have all the facts (or even most of them) in this very delicate and complicated scenario.

Posters on this thread are wild. The biological parents are not elderly. The Fertility Center of Orlando was only open around 9 years. It opened in 2017. Even assuming they were in their 40s in 2017, they wouldn't be elderly now, less than 10 years later.

Have you ever done IVF? You keep your embryos in storage and often move them around. The clinic was surely storing older embryos.

Surely? Prove it.

They offered cryopreservation as a standalone service…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an awful situation. But if I had to go with which mom gets custody, I'd choose the birth mom. I'd have a much easier time donating an embryo than being a surrogate (not that I'd choose to do either).

One more time:

The decision should be made based upon what’s best for the child, not what’s best for the moms.

Aren’t the two connected? There is an existing emotional bond between birth mother and baby that doesn’t exist with the biological mom.

Exactly! And we know this because the gestational mother said in a court filing that she’d really like to swap this baby for her own genetic child (who didn’t exist, it turns out).

Her supposed bond can’t be measured or proven but biological bonds can be.

I think we can infer something about her bond with the child from the fact that she was willing to give this baby up when she believed she would be able to swap it for her own genetic child.

Right? Her first order of business was to find the parents. What mother needs to find her baby's parents?

Where did the parents ever say that. I thought they said they wanted to track down their embryos and their kid’s bio parents? I didn’t see anything about a swap, but maybe I missed it.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-couple-sues-fertility-clinic-allegedly-giving-birth-someone-elses-baby

They intended to reunite this baby with the genetic parents when they still had hope that some other women was pregnant with or had given birth to their genetic child. When they learned that had not happened, they decided to keep this baby.

It says nowhere that they wanted to swap the child. It says they wanted to identify the bio parents because they felt they felt they had a right to know and would want the same. The fundraiser refers to the birth parents as the baby’s parents. They express fear that the baby “could be taken from them at any moment.”

I have no how idea you could so heartless and cruel as to read into this that the birth parents wanted to trade babies.

Did you even read the article?

This is a quote from the complaint that initiated their lawsuit against the fertility clinic: "They would willingly keep her in their care; however, for the sake of both Shea and her genetic parents, they recognize that Shea should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her."

How do we know they’re fit, able, and willing to care for her?

FFS. You're truly a sick person.

Do you have any idea how IVF works? The parents could easily be 70 years old. We have no info about them! They reached a joint agreement with the birth parents.

Age is relevant when income is not?

Poor people provide great homes all the time. Dead people can't provide.

+1 you would think this wouldn’t need to be explained

Who are the dead people in your wild scenario?

The people supporting the gestational mother have resorted to making up bizarre scenarios in which she was not only entitled to keep the baby, but where it was practically the only option. One such scenario that they’ve dreamed up is one in which the genetic parents are so old that they’re on death’s door and are likely to die at any minute, such that they’re likely to leave this baby an orphan.

They’re also claiming that the genetic parents may be child molesters.

No, no one is saying that the biological parents are actually or probably bad. The point is that we don’t have any details about them and they reached a confidential settlement with the birth parents where the birth parents retain custody. There could be MANY reasons why this arrangement is in the best interests of the child. It also might NOT be in the best interests of the child. We can’t know because we have zero information about the biological parents, so the possibilities are endless.

And the child molester comment was responding only to the poster who made the ridiculous point that the fact that the biological parents have visitation must mean they are suitable parents. That’s certainly not what it means given that convicted child molesters frequently get visitation yet obviously are not fit to be parents.

Who is fit to be a parent? What are the qualifications? Obviously you don't care about marital status, funds, shared cultural identity, biological relation or steady jobs. What's left? A pulse?

Isn’t this where the hypos come in? The other parents could be geriatric child molesters for all we know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an awful situation. But if I had to go with which mom gets custody, I'd choose the birth mom. I'd have a much easier time donating an embryo than being a surrogate (not that I'd choose to do either).

One more time:

The decision should be made based upon what’s best for the child, not what’s best for the moms.

Aren’t the two connected? There is an existing emotional bond between birth mother and baby that doesn’t exist with the biological mom.

Exactly! And we know this because the gestational mother said in a court filing that she’d really like to swap this baby for her own genetic child (who didn’t exist, it turns out).

Her supposed bond can’t be measured or proven but biological bonds can be.

I think we can infer something about her bond with the child from the fact that she was willing to give this baby up when she believed she would be able to swap it for her own genetic child.

Right? Her first order of business was to find the parents. What mother needs to find her baby's parents?

Where did the parents ever say that. I thought they said they wanted to track down their embryos and their kid’s bio parents? I didn’t see anything about a swap, but maybe I missed it.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-couple-sues-fertility-clinic-allegedly-giving-birth-someone-elses-baby

They intended to reunite this baby with the genetic parents when they still had hope that some other women was pregnant with or had given birth to their genetic child. When they learned that had not happened, they decided to keep this baby.

It says nowhere that they wanted to swap the child. It says they wanted to identify the bio parents because they felt they felt they had a right to know and would want the same. The fundraiser refers to the birth parents as the baby’s parents. They express fear that the baby “could be taken from them at any moment.”

I have no how idea you could so heartless and cruel as to read into this that the birth parents wanted to trade babies.

Did you even read the article?

This is a quote from the complaint that initiated their lawsuit against the fertility clinic: "They would willingly keep her in their care; however, for the sake of both Shea and her genetic parents, they recognize that Shea should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her."

How do we know they’re fit, able, and willing to care for her?

FFS. You're truly a sick person.

Do you have any idea how IVF works? The parents could easily be 70 years old. We have no info about them! They reached a joint agreement with the birth parents.

Age is relevant when income is not?

Poor people provide great homes all the time. Dead people can't provide.

+1 you would think this wouldn’t need to be explained

Who are the dead people in your wild scenario?

The people supporting the gestational mother have resorted to making up bizarre scenarios in which she was not only entitled to keep the baby, but where it was practically the only option. One such scenario that they’ve dreamed up is one in which the genetic parents are so old that they’re on death’s door and are likely to die at any minute, such that they’re likely to leave this baby an orphan.

They’re also claiming that the genetic parents may be child molesters.

No, no one is saying that the biological parents are actually or probably bad. The point is that we don’t have any details about them and they reached a confidential settlement with the birth parents where the birth parents retain custody. There could be MANY reasons why this arrangement is in the best interests of the child. It also might NOT be in the best interests of the child. We can’t know because we have zero information about the biological parents, so the possibilities are endless.

And the child molester comment was responding only to the poster who made the ridiculous point that the fact that the biological parents have visitation must mean they are suitable parents. That’s certainly not what it means given that convicted child molesters frequently get visitation yet obviously are not fit to be parents.

Who is fit to be a parent? What are the qualifications? Obviously you don't care about marital status, funds, shared cultural identity, biological relation or steady jobs. What's left? A pulse?

Isn’t this where the hypos come in? The other parents could be geriatric child molesters for all we know.

They probably are!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an awful situation. But if I had to go with which mom gets custody, I'd choose the birth mom. I'd have a much easier time donating an embryo than being a surrogate (not that I'd choose to do either).

One more time:

The decision should be made based upon what’s best for the child, not what’s best for the moms.

Aren’t the two connected? There is an existing emotional bond between birth mother and baby that doesn’t exist with the biological mom.

Exactly! And we know this because the gestational mother said in a court filing that she’d really like to swap this baby for her own genetic child (who didn’t exist, it turns out).

Her supposed bond can’t be measured or proven but biological bonds can be.

I think we can infer something about her bond with the child from the fact that she was willing to give this baby up when she believed she would be able to swap it for her own genetic child.

Right? Her first order of business was to find the parents. What mother needs to find her baby's parents?

Where did the parents ever say that. I thought they said they wanted to track down their embryos and their kid’s bio parents? I didn’t see anything about a swap, but maybe I missed it.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-couple-sues-fertility-clinic-allegedly-giving-birth-someone-elses-baby

They intended to reunite this baby with the genetic parents when they still had hope that some other women was pregnant with or had given birth to their genetic child. When they learned that had not happened, they decided to keep this baby.

It says nowhere that they wanted to swap the child. It says they wanted to identify the bio parents because they felt they felt they had a right to know and would want the same. The fundraiser refers to the birth parents as the baby’s parents. They express fear that the baby “could be taken from them at any moment.”

I have no how idea you could so heartless and cruel as to read into this that the birth parents wanted to trade babies.

Did you even read the article?

This is a quote from the complaint that initiated their lawsuit against the fertility clinic: "They would willingly keep her in their care; however, for the sake of both Shea and her genetic parents, they recognize that Shea should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her."

How do we know they’re fit, able, and willing to care for her?

FFS. You're truly a sick person.

Do you have any idea how IVF works? The parents could easily be 70 years old. We have no info about them! They reached a joint agreement with the birth parents.

Age is relevant when income is not?

Poor people provide great homes all the time. Dead people can't provide.

+1 you would think this wouldn’t need to be explained

Who are the dead people in your wild scenario?

The people supporting the gestational mother have resorted to making up bizarre scenarios in which she was not only entitled to keep the baby, but where it was practically the only option. One such scenario that they’ve dreamed up is one in which the genetic parents are so old that they’re on death’s door and are likely to die at any minute, such that they’re likely to leave this baby an orphan.

They’re also claiming that the genetic parents may be child molesters.

No, no one is saying that the biological parents are actually or probably bad. The point is that we don’t have any details about them and they reached a confidential settlement with the birth parents where the birth parents retain custody. There could be MANY reasons why this arrangement is in the best interests of the child. It also might NOT be in the best interests of the child. We can’t know because we have zero information about the biological parents, so the possibilities are endless.

And the child molester comment was responding only to the poster who made the ridiculous point that the fact that the biological parents have visitation must mean they are suitable parents. That’s certainly not what it means given that convicted child molesters frequently get visitation yet obviously are not fit to be parents.

But you *do* have details. The genetic parents' lawyer has spoken up and said they were devastated but told it would be difficult to win. The genetic parents want the child.

[Anonymous]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/biological-parents-baby-embryo-mix-made-heartbreaking-decision-not-fig-rcna350637

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an awful situation. But if I had to go with which mom gets custody, I'd choose the birth mom. I'd have a much easier time donating an embryo than being a surrogate (not that I'd choose to do either).

One more time:

The decision should be made based upon what’s best for the child, not what’s best for the moms.

Aren’t the two connected? There is an existing emotional bond between birth mother and baby that doesn’t exist with the biological mom.

Exactly! And we know this because the gestational mother said in a court filing that she’d really like to swap this baby for her own genetic child (who didn’t exist, it turns out).

Her supposed bond can’t be measured or proven but biological bonds can be.

I think we can infer something about her bond with the child from the fact that she was willing to give this baby up when she believed she would be able to swap it for her own genetic child.

Right? Her first order of business was to find the parents. What mother needs to find her baby's parents?

Where did the parents ever say that. I thought they said they wanted to track down their embryos and their kid’s bio parents? I didn’t see anything about a swap, but maybe I missed it.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-couple-sues-fertility-clinic-allegedly-giving-birth-someone-elses-baby

They intended to reunite this baby with the genetic parents when they still had hope that some other women was pregnant with or had given birth to their genetic child. When they learned that had not happened, they decided to keep this baby.

It says nowhere that they wanted to swap the child. It says they wanted to identify the bio parents because they felt they felt they had a right to know and would want the same. The fundraiser refers to the birth parents as the baby’s parents. They express fear that the baby “could be taken from them at any moment.”

I have no how idea you could so heartless and cruel as to read into this that the birth parents wanted to trade babies.

Did you even read the article?

This is a quote from the complaint that initiated their lawsuit against the fertility clinic: "They would willingly keep her in their care; however, for the sake of both Shea and her genetic parents, they recognize that Shea should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her."

How do we know they’re fit, able, and willing to care for her?

FFS. You're truly a sick person.

Do you have any idea how IVF works? The parents could easily be 70 years old. We have no info about them! They reached a joint agreement with the birth parents.

Age is relevant when income is not?

Poor people provide great homes all the time. Dead people can't provide.

+1 you would think this wouldn’t need to be explained

Who are the dead people in your wild scenario?

The people supporting the gestational mother have resorted to making up bizarre scenarios in which she was not only entitled to keep the baby, but where it was practically the only option. One such scenario that they’ve dreamed up is one in which the genetic parents are so old that they’re on death’s door and are likely to die at any minute, such that they’re likely to leave this baby an orphan.

They’re also claiming that the genetic parents may be child molesters.

No, no one is saying that the biological parents are actually or probably bad. The point is that we don’t have any details about them and they reached a confidential settlement with the birth parents where the birth parents retain custody. There could be MANY reasons why this arrangement is in the best interests of the child. It also might NOT be in the best interests of the child. We can’t know because we have zero information about the biological parents, so the possibilities are endless.

And the child molester comment was responding only to the poster who made the ridiculous point that the fact that the biological parents have visitation must mean they are suitable parents. That’s certainly not what it means given that convicted child molesters frequently get visitation yet obviously are not fit to be parents.

Who is fit to be a parent? What are the qualifications? Obviously you don't care about marital status, funds, shared cultural identity, biological relation or steady jobs. What's left? A pulse?

You have no information on one set of parents and so therefore have no basis to conclude that they’re superior. Hence providing hypotheticals as to what is possible.

The facts alone about the birth parents say enough. These people aren't fit to raise a pet. Would probably start a go fund me for an adoption fee.

[Anonymous]

It doesn’t matter if the biological parents are elderly, would be awful parents, are poor, are criminals. The fact is no court terminated their parental rights due to concerns about neglect or abuse. Biological parents who use surrogates are not asked to prove anything about their ability to parent.

At least 100,000 children have been born through surrogacy in the past 40 years. There is nothing so special about carrying a baby or some bond that is considered more special than genetics or the wishes of the intended parents who created or paid for the embryo.

This situation of an unintended surrogate getting to keep someone else’s biological child is insane. Most state courts treat embryos as the distinct genetic property of the intended parents. If a clinic accidentally implants that embryo into the wrong person, courts view it as a theft or conversion of genetic material.

And this is what Tiffany Score argued for in Jan. She wanted her biological child back and to return this baby to her biological parents. It was only after she found out her biological embryo that was implanted in another woman did not result in a child that she decided to steal this baby.

The reason the baby can legally be stolen is only because the baby was born in Florida where a woman’s right to chose what happens to her body and unborn fetus isn’t respected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an awful situation. But if I had to go with which mom gets custody, I'd choose the birth mom. I'd have a much easier time donating an embryo than being a surrogate (not that I'd choose to do either).

One more time:

The decision should be made based upon what’s best for the child, not what’s best for the moms.

Aren’t the two connected? There is an existing emotional bond between birth mother and baby that doesn’t exist with the biological mom.

Exactly! And we know this because the gestational mother said in a court filing that she’d really like to swap this baby for her own genetic child (who didn’t exist, it turns out).

It’s not because of the bond, it’s because she wants the same race baby. But she settled for what they had