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:

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.

Its likely required as part of the settlement for them not to say anything negative. Its a "choice" to stay private so they can have the child in their life in some way instead of not at all.

Maybe, maybe not. We really have no idea what the story is with the biological parents and there’s no way to know.

It doesn’t make sense that they’d give up on trying to get custody when the US case law indicates a good chance of being awarded their biological child. I can’t find anything on line citing a Florida statute that would go against their case for being awarded custody.

I'm a lawyer, but not a family lawyer (so take with a grain of salt). I did some legal research into Florida laws on this. This is all I found:

42.11 Presumed status of child conceived by means of artificial or in vitro insemination or donated eggs or preembryos.—
(1) Except in the case of gestational surrogacy, any child born within wedlock who has been conceived by the means of artificial or in vitro insemination is irrebuttably presumed to be the child of the husband and wife, provided that both husband and wife have consented in writing to the artificial or in vitro insemination.
(2) Except in the case of gestational surrogacy, any child born within wedlock who has been conceived by means of donated eggs or preembryos shall be irrebuttably presumed to be the child of the recipient gestating woman and her husband, provided that both parties have consented in writing to the use of donated eggs or preembryos.

The weird thing is, the birth mom isn't married, so I don't even think this presumption would apply. And I think there would be a reasonable argument that this could qualify as "gestational surrogacy." Assuming this is what the bio parents are referring to, I would fight if I really wanted the child.

These statutes aren’t as interesting or relevant as they might seem. These just codify the common law martial presumption as applied in the context of IVF and IUI.

Once again, birth mom isn't actually married.

Lots of people in long term relationships today don’t marry. People can be domestic partners without marrying- it’s very common in Europe.

[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:

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.

Its likely required as part of the settlement for them not to say anything negative. Its a "choice" to stay private so they can have the child in their life in some way instead of not at all.

Maybe, maybe not. We really have no idea what the story is with the biological parents and there’s no way to know.

It doesn’t make sense that they’d give up on trying to get custody when the US case law indicates a good chance of being awarded their biological child. I can’t find anything on line citing a Florida statute that would go against their case for being awarded custody.

I'm a lawyer, but not a family lawyer (so take with a grain of salt). I did some legal research into Florida laws on this. This is all I found:

42.11 Presumed status of child conceived by means of artificial or in vitro insemination or donated eggs or preembryos.—
(1) Except in the case of gestational surrogacy, any child born within wedlock who has been conceived by the means of artificial or in vitro insemination is irrebuttably presumed to be the child of the husband and wife, provided that both husband and wife have consented in writing to the artificial or in vitro insemination.
(2) Except in the case of gestational surrogacy, any child born within wedlock who has been conceived by means of donated eggs or preembryos shall be irrebuttably presumed to be the child of the recipient gestating woman and her husband, provided that both parties have consented in writing to the use of donated eggs or preembryos.

The weird thing is, the birth mom isn't married, so I don't even think this presumption would apply. And I think there would be a reasonable argument that this could qualify as "gestational surrogacy." Assuming this is what the bio parents are referring to, I would fight if I really wanted the child.

These statutes aren’t as interesting or relevant as they might seem. These just codify the common law martial presumption as applied in the context of IVF and IUI.

Once again, birth mom isn't actually married.

Lots of people in long term relationships today don’t marry. People can be domestic partners without marrying- it’s very common in Europe.

Right. I don't care at all if she's married. But the law expressly does not apply to unmarried women who birth babies "out of wedlock." So the irrebutable presumption of parentage in Florida doesn't actually apply.

[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:

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.

Its likely required as part of the settlement for them not to say anything negative. Its a "choice" to stay private so they can have the child in their life in some way instead of not at all.

Maybe, maybe not. We really have no idea what the story is with the biological parents and there’s no way to know.

It doesn’t make sense that they’d give up on trying to get custody when the US case law indicates a good chance of being awarded their biological child. I can’t find anything on line citing a Florida statute that would go against their case for being awarded custody.

I'm a lawyer, but not a family lawyer (so take with a grain of salt). I did some legal research into Florida laws on this. This is all I found:

42.11 Presumed status of child conceived by means of artificial or in vitro insemination or donated eggs or preembryos.—
(1) Except in the case of gestational surrogacy, any child born within wedlock who has been conceived by the means of artificial or in vitro insemination is irrebuttably presumed to be the child of the husband and wife, provided that both husband and wife have consented in writing to the artificial or in vitro insemination.
(2) Except in the case of gestational surrogacy, any child born within wedlock who has been conceived by means of donated eggs or preembryos shall be irrebuttably presumed to be the child of the recipient gestating woman and her husband, provided that both parties have consented in writing to the use of donated eggs or preembryos.

The weird thing is, the birth mom isn't married, so I don't even think this presumption would apply. And I think there would be a reasonable argument that this could qualify as "gestational surrogacy." Assuming this is what the bio parents are referring to, I would fight if I really wanted the child.

These statutes aren’t as interesting or relevant as they might seem. These just codify the common law martial presumption as applied in the context of IVF and IUI.

Once again, birth mom isn't actually married.

Yes, I understand that. I just don’t think that statute is on point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Genetics is absolutely legally and ethically a determining factor. In most states in this country would have legally given back the baby to the biological parents.

Can you tell us these states and give us a link to the specific laws that would result in this couple legally being required to give the baby to the genetic parents? Thanks!

The article about the lawyer of the biological parents states that this is an extremely rare situation, so it is interesting that there are states that have laws that cover such an unlikely event as accidently being implanted with a different couple’s embryo.

This is from Murphy, Anar, and Michael Collins. 2024. “Legal Case Study of Severe IVF Incidents Worldwide: Causes, Consequences, and High Emotional, Financial, and Reputational Costs to Patients and Providers.” North American Proceedings in Gynecology & Obstetrics 3 (3). https://doi.org/10.54053/001c.118936.
Worldwide they found 25 incidents of embryo mix ups affecting 64 people.

3.3.1. Consequences of frozen reproductive specimen mix-ups
Frozen reproductive specimen mix-ups are the most prevalent type of IVF related incident following catastrophic large-scale storage, tank, and alarm failures (Figure 2). The first widely publicized U.S. case that set a precedent for the following cases on who would get the child(ren)—genetic or birth parents—was Perry-Rogers v. Fasano (2000). In this case, a White couple, Richard and Donna Fasano, had twin sons via ART/IVF treatment, one of whom was an African American child. The newborn boy’s genetic parents, Deborah Perry-Rogers and Robert Rogers sued the Fasanos for the custody of their biological son and won. At 8 months, their son was returned to them. All the following U.S. cases of embryo mix-ups, resulting in a wrong parent carrying the child(ren) who was not biologically related to them, to term, were settled in favor of genetic parents, including Manukyan v. CHA Fertility (2019). In this particularly devastating case, an Asian couple who went to California to seek fertility treatments were expecting to have twin daughters, but instead, the mother gave birth to twin boys, who were not Asian and were not related to each other. The two other parental couples sued and successfully won the custody of their biological children, leaving the birth couple who wanted to raise the children devastated. What happened to the couple’s own two female embryos were never determined, and their case, A.P. et al v. CHA Health Systems, Inc. et al., moved from New York State to California for further litigation (2023).

That is a summary of some court cases, in which they appear to favor the genetic parents. Interesting that they could only find 25 cases like this, worldwide. So how many US cases have there been?

Do any states have any statutory laws that apply in these cases that involve another couple’s embryos being implanted by mistake?

It would be interesting to know the reason the biological parents chose to not assert their rights to the child if the legal precedent indicates they’d be highly likely to win the case. It appears there’s more to the story here, but they are not sharing their story.

I think the bio family wasn't going to be able to afford the legal battle that the birth family was almost certainly going to launch. Birth mom had already transferred 2 embryos in two attempts that didn't take. There is one embryo left that they are transferring to another agency. I don't think the odds look good for her. But a baby in her arms is a sure thing. My sense is they would fight to the end to win.

Doesn't sound right to me. Bio family is going to get a massive insurance settlement. A med mal lawyer will litigate the custody issue on the side for no additional charge.

What

[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:

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.

Its likely required as part of the settlement for them not to say anything negative. Its a "choice" to stay private so they can have the child in their life in some way instead of not at all.

Maybe, maybe not. We really have no idea what the story is with the biological parents and there’s no way to know.

It doesn’t make sense that they’d give up on trying to get custody when the US case law indicates a good chance of being awarded their biological child. I can’t find anything on line citing a Florida statute that would go against their case for being awarded custody.

I'm a lawyer, but not a family lawyer (so take with a grain of salt). I did some legal research into Florida laws on this. This is all I found:

42.11 Presumed status of child conceived by means of artificial or in vitro insemination or donated eggs or preembryos.—
(1) Except in the case of gestational surrogacy, any child born within wedlock who has been conceived by the means of artificial or in vitro insemination is irrebuttably presumed to be the child of the husband and wife, provided that both husband and wife have consented in writing to the artificial or in vitro insemination.
(2) Except in the case of gestational surrogacy, any child born within wedlock who has been conceived by means of donated eggs or preembryos shall be irrebuttably presumed to be the child of the recipient gestating woman and her husband, provided that both parties have consented in writing to the use of donated eggs or preembryos.

The weird thing is, the birth mom isn't married, so I don't even think this presumption would apply. And I think there would be a reasonable argument that this could qualify as "gestational surrogacy." Assuming this is what the bio parents are referring to, I would fight if I really wanted the child.

These statutes aren’t as interesting or relevant as they might seem. These just codify the common law martial presumption as applied in the context of IVF and IUI.

Once again, birth mom isn't actually married.

Yes, I understand that. I just don’t think that statute is on point.

It’s not on point because she’s not married. Also because it likely wasn’t contemplated to cover an IVF mixup. Based on the statute, it seems there was a lot of room for the biological parents to make an argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Genetics is absolutely legally and ethically a determining factor. In most states in this country would have legally given back the baby to the biological parents.

Can you tell us these states and give us a link to the specific laws that would result in this couple legally being required to give the baby to the genetic parents? Thanks!

The article about the lawyer of the biological parents states that this is an extremely rare situation, so it is interesting that there are states that have laws that cover such an unlikely event as accidently being implanted with a different couple’s embryo.

This is from Murphy, Anar, and Michael Collins. 2024. “Legal Case Study of Severe IVF Incidents Worldwide: Causes, Consequences, and High Emotional, Financial, and Reputational Costs to Patients and Providers.” North American Proceedings in Gynecology & Obstetrics 3 (3). https://doi.org/10.54053/001c.118936.
Worldwide they found 25 incidents of embryo mix ups affecting 64 people.

3.3.1. Consequences of frozen reproductive specimen mix-ups
Frozen reproductive specimen mix-ups are the most prevalent type of IVF related incident following catastrophic large-scale storage, tank, and alarm failures (Figure 2). The first widely publicized U.S. case that set a precedent for the following cases on who would get the child(ren)—genetic or birth parents—was Perry-Rogers v. Fasano (2000). In this case, a White couple, Richard and Donna Fasano, had twin sons via ART/IVF treatment, one of whom was an African American child. The newborn boy’s genetic parents, Deborah Perry-Rogers and Robert Rogers sued the Fasanos for the custody of their biological son and won. At 8 months, their son was returned to them. All the following U.S. cases of embryo mix-ups, resulting in a wrong parent carrying the child(ren) who was not biologically related to them, to term, were settled in favor of genetic parents, including Manukyan v. CHA Fertility (2019). In this particularly devastating case, an Asian couple who went to California to seek fertility treatments were expecting to have twin daughters, but instead, the mother gave birth to twin boys, who were not Asian and were not related to each other. The two other parental couples sued and successfully won the custody of their biological children, leaving the birth couple who wanted to raise the children devastated. What happened to the couple’s own two female embryos were never determined, and their case, A.P. et al v. CHA Health Systems, Inc. et al., moved from New York State to California for further litigation (2023).

That is a summary of some court cases, in which they appear to favor the genetic parents. Interesting that they could only find 25 cases like this, worldwide. So how many US cases have there been?

Do any states have any statutory laws that apply in these cases that involve another couple’s embryos being implanted by mistake?

It would be interesting to know the reason the biological parents chose to not assert their rights to the child if the legal precedent indicates they’d be highly likely to win the case. It appears there’s more to the story here, but they are not sharing their story.

I think the bio family wasn't going to be able to afford the legal battle that the birth family was almost certainly going to launch. Birth mom had already transferred 2 embryos in two attempts that didn't take. There is one embryo left that they are transferring to another agency. I don't think the odds look good for her. But a baby in her arms is a sure thing. My sense is they would fight to the end to win.

Doesn't sound right to me. Bio family is going to get a massive insurance settlement. A med mal lawyer will litigate the custody issue on the side for no additional charge.

What

The doctor and the facility have medmal policies. This was an egregious error in medical malpractice. Any medmal lawyer is going to fight to take this case and take it on contingency (i.e., family pays nothing up front and will pay 30ish% of any settlement). Any decent attorney fighting to rep the client would agree to take the custody issues too for no additional charge. And, indeed, it appears that's what happened. Rob Marceau is the biological family's lawyer and does medmal yet is representing the family in their custody issue.

https://www.themlgteam.com/about-us/rob-marcereau/

[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 think they are scared of coming forward and challenging a white couple in this country. We have no idea of who these people are and to cast them as sexist because they are south Asian is entirely indecent

[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 think they are scared of coming forward and challenging a white couple in this country. We have no idea of who these people are and to cast them as sexist because they are south Asian is entirely indecent

You *checks notes* have absolutely no idea what the family is doing what they're doing. The possibilities are endless.

[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:

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.

It's more likely that the genetic parents were required by the birth parents to keep their privacy. The birth parents have all the legal power in Florida and if the genetic parents want any chance at knowing their child, they have to do whatever the birth parents insist.

They are in a precarious situation. If the genetic parents decide to tell their story and get public support and donations for legal help, that will anger the birth parents and probably violate the visitation schedule they offered to the genetic parents. So if they ended up losing in court, they would have no contact ever again with the baby.

Do you take the small chance that you might win and risk never seeing your child again? Or do you take the offer to have visitation and stay private?

The unfortunate thing is, if down the road the child shows any attachment to the genetic parents, these birth parents (well, birth mother since they aren't even married) will do anything to snatch the child back legally and make further visitation very difficult.

The birth mother has shown her cards by initially saying she wanted to find the genetic parents when she assumed they had her genetic baby in a switch-up. It sounds like she would have handed over the baby in exchange for her own genetic baby. But once she found out she had no genetic baby of her own, she then changed her mind and probably saw this baby as maybe her only chance at being a mom. What a selfish mother who isn't doing the very thing she would have wanted another mom to do had that mom gotten her genetic baby. She has shown her true nature and it's very self centered and not thinking at all about what is best for the child.

+1 and we don’t know what the biological parents have planned with their custody rights. They could be waiting on one little mistake by Tiffany or get their baby back……

[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: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 think they are scared of coming forward and challenging a white couple in this country. We have no idea of who these people are and to cast them as sexist because they are south Asian is entirely indecent

You *checks notes* have absolutely no idea what the family is doing what they're doing. The possibilities are endless.

+1

[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:

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.

Its likely required as part of the settlement for them not to say anything negative. Its a "choice" to stay private so they can have the child in their life in some way instead of not at all.

Maybe, maybe not. We really have no idea what the story is with the biological parents and there’s no way to know.

It doesn’t make sense that they’d give up on trying to get custody when the US case law indicates a good chance of being awarded their biological child. I can’t find anything on line citing a Florida statute that would go against their case for being awarded custody.

I'm a lawyer, but not a family lawyer (so take with a grain of salt). I did some legal research into Florida laws on this. This is all I found:

42.11 Presumed status of child conceived by means of artificial or in vitro insemination or donated eggs or preembryos.—
(1) Except in the case of gestational surrogacy, any child born within wedlock who has been conceived by the means of artificial or in vitro insemination is irrebuttably presumed to be the child of the husband and wife, provided that both husband and wife have consented in writing to the artificial or in vitro insemination.
(2) Except in the case of gestational surrogacy, any child born within wedlock who has been conceived by means of donated eggs or preembryos shall be irrebuttably presumed to be the child of the recipient gestating woman and her husband, provided that both parties have consented in writing to the use of donated eggs or preembryos.

The weird thing is, the birth mom isn't married, so I don't even think this presumption would apply. And I think there would be a reasonable argument that this could qualify as "gestational surrogacy." Assuming this is what the bio parents are referring to, I would fight if I really wanted the child.

These statutes aren’t as interesting or relevant as they might seem. These just codify the common law martial presumption as applied in the context of IVF and IUI.

Once again, birth mom isn't actually married.

Yes, I understand that. I just don’t think that statute is on point.

It’s not on point because she’s not married. Also because it likely wasn’t contemplated to cover an IVF mixup. Based on the statute, it seems there was a lot of room for the biological parents to make an argument.

It wouldn’t apply even if they were married.

[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:

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.

Its likely required as part of the settlement for them not to say anything negative. Its a "choice" to stay private so they can have the child in their life in some way instead of not at all.

Maybe, maybe not. We really have no idea what the story is with the biological parents and there’s no way to know.

It doesn’t make sense that they’d give up on trying to get custody when the US case law indicates a good chance of being awarded their biological child. I can’t find anything on line citing a Florida statute that would go against their case for being awarded custody.

I'm a lawyer, but not a family lawyer (so take with a grain of salt). I did some legal research into Florida laws on this. This is all I found:

42.11 Presumed status of child conceived by means of artificial or in vitro insemination or donated eggs or preembryos.—
(1) Except in the case of gestational surrogacy, any child born within wedlock who has been conceived by the means of artificial or in vitro insemination is irrebuttably presumed to be the child of the husband and wife, provided that both husband and wife have consented in writing to the artificial or in vitro insemination.
(2) Except in the case of gestational surrogacy, any child born within wedlock who has been conceived by means of donated eggs or preembryos shall be irrebuttably presumed to be the child of the recipient gestating woman and her husband, provided that both parties have consented in writing to the use of donated eggs or preembryos.

The weird thing is, the birth mom isn't married, so I don't even think this presumption would apply. And I think there would be a reasonable argument that this could qualify as "gestational surrogacy." Assuming this is what the bio parents are referring to, I would fight if I really wanted the child.

These statutes aren’t as interesting or relevant as they might seem. These just codify the common law martial presumption as applied in the context of IVF and IUI.

Once again, birth mom isn't actually married.

Yes, I understand that. I just don’t think that statute is on point.

It’s not on point because she’s not married. Also because it likely wasn’t contemplated to cover an IVF mixup. Based on the statute, it seems there was a lot of room for the biological parents to make an argument.

It wouldn’t apply even if they were married.

What do you mean? I think there's room for debate, but it at least arguably would apply if they were married. The child was conceived via IVF. And both parents consented to IVF. Therefore, the child is presumed to be the child of the birthmother and her husband.

[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:

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.

Its likely required as part of the settlement for them not to say anything negative. Its a "choice" to stay private so they can have the child in their life in some way instead of not at all.

Maybe, maybe not. We really have no idea what the story is with the biological parents and there’s no way to know.

It doesn’t make sense that they’d give up on trying to get custody when the US case law indicates a good chance of being awarded their biological child. I can’t find anything on line citing a Florida statute that would go against their case for being awarded custody.

I'm a lawyer, but not a family lawyer (so take with a grain of salt). I did some legal research into Florida laws on this. This is all I found:

42.11 Presumed status of child conceived by means of artificial or in vitro insemination or donated eggs or preembryos.—
(1) Except in the case of gestational surrogacy, any child born within wedlock who has been conceived by the means of artificial or in vitro insemination is irrebuttably presumed to be the child of the husband and wife, provided that both husband and wife have consented in writing to the artificial or in vitro insemination.
(2) Except in the case of gestational surrogacy, any child born within wedlock who has been conceived by means of donated eggs or preembryos shall be irrebuttably presumed to be the child of the recipient gestating woman and her husband, provided that both parties have consented in writing to the use of donated eggs or preembryos.

The weird thing is, the birth mom isn't married, so I don't even think this presumption would apply. And I think there would be a reasonable argument that this could qualify as "gestational surrogacy." Assuming this is what the bio parents are referring to, I would fight if I really wanted the child.

These statutes aren’t as interesting or relevant as they might seem. These just codify the common law martial presumption as applied in the context of IVF and IUI.

Once again, birth mom isn't actually married.

Yes, I understand that. I just don’t think that statute is on point.

It’s not on point because she’s not married. Also because it likely wasn’t contemplated to cover an IVF mixup. Based on the statute, it seems there was a lot of room for the biological parents to make an argument.

It wouldn’t apply even if they were married.

What do you mean? I think there's room for debate, but it at least arguably would apply if they were married. The child was conceived via IVF. And both parents consented to IVF. Therefore, the child is presumed to be the child of the birthmother and her husband.

Yet the parents questioned 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:

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.

Its likely required as part of the settlement for them not to say anything negative. Its a "choice" to stay private so they can have the child in their life in some way instead of not at all.

Maybe, maybe not. We really have no idea what the story is with the biological parents and there’s no way to know.

It doesn’t make sense that they’d give up on trying to get custody when the US case law indicates a good chance of being awarded their biological child. I can’t find anything on line citing a Florida statute that would go against their case for being awarded custody.

I'm a lawyer, but not a family lawyer (so take with a grain of salt). I did some legal research into Florida laws on this. This is all I found:

42.11 Presumed status of child conceived by means of artificial or in vitro insemination or donated eggs or preembryos.—
(1) Except in the case of gestational surrogacy, any child born within wedlock who has been conceived by the means of artificial or in vitro insemination is irrebuttably presumed to be the child of the husband and wife, provided that both husband and wife have consented in writing to the artificial or in vitro insemination.
(2) Except in the case of gestational surrogacy, any child born within wedlock who has been conceived by means of donated eggs or preembryos shall be irrebuttably presumed to be the child of the recipient gestating woman and her husband, provided that both parties have consented in writing to the use of donated eggs or preembryos.

The weird thing is, the birth mom isn't married, so I don't even think this presumption would apply. And I think there would be a reasonable argument that this could qualify as "gestational surrogacy." Assuming this is what the bio parents are referring to, I would fight if I really wanted the child.

These statutes aren’t as interesting or relevant as they might seem. These just codify the common law martial presumption as applied in the context of IVF and IUI.

Once again, birth mom isn't actually married.

Yes, I understand that. I just don’t think that statute is on point.

It’s not on point because she’s not married. Also because it likely wasn’t contemplated to cover an IVF mixup. Based on the statute, it seems there was a lot of room for the biological parents to make an argument.

It wouldn’t apply even if they were married.

What do you mean? I think there's room for debate, but it at least arguably would apply if they were married. The child was conceived via IVF. And both parents consented to IVF. Therefore, the child is presumed to be the child of the birthmother and her husband.

These laws are about a presumption of paternity when children are born to married parents; they aren’t applicable here, regardless of marital status.

[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:

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.

Its likely required as part of the settlement for them not to say anything negative. Its a "choice" to stay private so they can have the child in their life in some way instead of not at all.

Maybe, maybe not. We really have no idea what the story is with the biological parents and there’s no way to know.

It doesn’t make sense that they’d give up on trying to get custody when the US case law indicates a good chance of being awarded their biological child. I can’t find anything on line citing a Florida statute that would go against their case for being awarded custody.

I'm a lawyer, but not a family lawyer (so take with a grain of salt). I did some legal research into Florida laws on this. This is all I found:

42.11 Presumed status of child conceived by means of artificial or in vitro insemination or donated eggs or preembryos.—
(1) Except in the case of gestational surrogacy, any child born within wedlock who has been conceived by the means of artificial or in vitro insemination is irrebuttably presumed to be the child of the husband and wife, provided that both husband and wife have consented in writing to the artificial or in vitro insemination.
(2) Except in the case of gestational surrogacy, any child born within wedlock who has been conceived by means of donated eggs or preembryos shall be irrebuttably presumed to be the child of the recipient gestating woman and her husband, provided that both parties have consented in writing to the use of donated eggs or preembryos.

The weird thing is, the birth mom isn't married, so I don't even think this presumption would apply. And I think there would be a reasonable argument that this could qualify as "gestational surrogacy." Assuming this is what the bio parents are referring to, I would fight if I really wanted the child.

These statutes aren’t as interesting or relevant as they might seem. These just codify the common law martial presumption as applied in the context of IVF and IUI.

Once again, birth mom isn't actually married.

Yes, I understand that. I just don’t think that statute is on point.

It’s not on point because she’s not married. Also because it likely wasn’t contemplated to cover an IVF mixup. Based on the statute, it seems there was a lot of room for the biological parents to make an argument.

It wouldn’t apply even if they were married.

What do you mean? I think there's room for debate, but it at least arguably would apply if they were married. The child was conceived via IVF. And both parents consented to IVF. Therefore, the child is presumed to be the child of the birthmother and her husband.

But read part 2. The child was conceived with someone else's embryo and presumably the gestating parent and her partner didn't consent in writing to that arrangement ahead of time.