IVF embryo error, custody settlement

[Anonymous]

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?

They should’ve hired a PI

[Anonymous]

If this surrogate bond is so strong then surrogacy should be outlawed. It's exploitative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did you see in the gofundme story that they need IVF funds for more rounds and treatments? For some reason they have a baby yet it’s not fulfilling enough that they still desperately want a genetic related baby. And people are downplaying genetic bonds. They clearly want their own baby and disregard the bio parents bonds.

It’s very fashionable in modern day USA to disregard basic laws of nature. Just look at all the discussions about step parenting, adoptive parenting and trans issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

She was not a surrogate. She is the legal mother and gave birth to

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

She was not a surrogate. She is the legal mother and gave birth to

For now...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

She was not a surrogate. She is the legal mother and gave birth to

The vitriol and disregard shown towards a woman who endured an entire pregnancy and birth here is frankly shocking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

She was not a surrogate. She is the legal mother and gave birth to

The vitriol and disregard shown towards a woman who endured an entire pregnancy and birth here is frankly shocking.

Because she's stolen someone's baby by not letting her parents who want her have her. This baby won't have a chance. What started out as an accident ended up as a gross sense of amoral entitlement. That is not her baby.

[Anonymous]

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.

You didn’t read the article. The birth parents said that they were looking for the biological parents to return the baby in their legal complaint.

Regardless of where one stands, I think people on this thread are giving too much credit to whatever each side says. Of course they’re gonna say all the right things! Bio parents won’t say “they can keep the girl, we wanted a boy anyway, and they are paying us a hefty sum at that”. The birth parents won’t say “we’d much rather have our own baby but time is running out so we’ll take the one we ended up with”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

She was not a surrogate. She is the legal mother and gave birth to

The vitriol and disregard shown towards a woman who endured an entire pregnancy and birth here is frankly shocking.

Because she's stolen someone's baby by not letting her parents who want her have her. This baby won't have a chance. What started out as an accident ended up as a gross sense of amoral entitlement. That is not her baby.

You have the right to believe whatever you want but the fact that you're so entrenched on genetics being determinative isn't reflected in either ethical or legal frameworks. Viewing a woman as only an incubator is pretty toxic.

[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.

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.

The genetic parents have decided to keep their privacy, which is obviously their right. By doing that, they have given up the chance to tell their story. It’s possible that if people knew more about their situation, people would be willing to help them with funds for a lawyer who could make their case.

Most people like to help other people. I think they’d find support and people willing to come forward and help them if their story were known.

[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: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.

You didn’t read the article. The birth parents said that they were looking for the biological parents to return the baby in their legal complaint.

Regardless of where one stands, I think people on this thread are giving too much credit to whatever each side says. Of course they’re gonna say all the right things! Bio parents won’t say “they can keep the girl, we wanted a boy anyway, and they are paying us a hefty sum at that”. The birth parents won’t say “we’d much rather have our own baby but time is running out so we’ll take the one we ended up with”.

To add, knowing how PC was drilled into so many Americans they might not even admit those things to themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

She was not a surrogate. She is the legal mother and gave birth to

The vitriol and disregard shown towards a woman who endured an entire pregnancy and birth here is frankly shocking.

Because she's stolen someone's baby by not letting her parents who want her have her. This baby won't have a chance. What started out as an accident ended up as a gross sense of amoral entitlement. That is not her baby.

You have the right to believe whatever you want but the fact that you're so entrenched on genetics being determinative isn't reflected in either ethical or legal frameworks. Viewing a woman as only an incubator is pretty toxic.

Renting a womb is pretty toxic and reduces women to incubators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If this surrogate bond is so strong then surrogacy should be outlawed. It's exploitative.

I think it should be. The kid is knowingly being confused (not to say traumatized) twice, when their bio mom doesn’t carry them and then doesn’t breastfeed them.
I understand it’s not always possible to breastfeed but this is a choice.
I am especially against pretending that men can replace a mother without a trauma to the child (which does happen by necessity but again this time it’s by choice).
Ivf is fine with me (though I am sure it messed up natural selection)

[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: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.

You didn’t read the article. The birth parents said that they were looking for the biological parents to return the baby in their legal complaint.

Regardless of where one stands, I think people on this thread are giving too much credit to whatever each side says. Of course they’re gonna say all the right things! Bio parents won’t say “they can keep the girl, we wanted a boy anyway, and they are paying us a hefty sum at that”. The birth parents won’t say “we’d much rather have our own baby but time is running out so we’ll take the one we ended up with”.

I highly doubt a couple extremely anti-girl would have kept female embryos. So that doesn't hold water.

[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: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.

You didn’t read the article. The birth parents said that they were looking for the biological parents to return the baby in their legal complaint.

Regardless of where one stands, I think people on this thread are giving too much credit to whatever each side says. Of course they’re gonna say all the right things! Bio parents won’t say “they can keep the girl, we wanted a boy anyway, and they are paying us a hefty sum at that”. The birth parents won’t say “we’d much rather have our own baby but time is running out so we’ll take the one we ended up with”.

I highly doubt a couple extremely anti-girl would have kept female embryos. So that doesn't hold water.

Okay I’ll take it.
I assume there’s no way they didn’t know the gender of the embryo?