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: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

Scared of challenging a white couple to get their child back? Come on. What planet do you live on?
Precedent suggests that the white parents would not get their way on this because they are white.
There is likely another reason they are not coming forward. But yeah we do not know what the reason is.

The custody process would take years. Even if the genetic parents win on the merits and the law, the child would be between 3-5 years old and it would be traumatic for the child at that point. Its too bad the gestational parents werent magnanimous and gave the child back to the genetic parents as soon as they found out who they were. That would have been the right thing to do even if not legally required.

I fully agree. How can people not see this? The lawyer for the biological parents said that they want the child but don't think a drawn-out custody battle is in the child's best interest.

There are other cases where the biological parents ultimately won after a lengthy court fight -- and at that point it meant tearing a 3-5 year-old child from the only home they knew.

Let's face it, if the biological parents had in turn given birth to the white couple' baby, the couples would have swapped babies when they were 4 months old. That was the white couple's original intent, as stated in their court filing. (The original assumption was that each woman had been impregnated with the other's embryo in the mix-up.)

When the white couple found out that they did not have their own biological baby out there, they decided to keep baby Shea. I understand how heartbreaking it would be for them to give up the baby! But this situation does not sit well with me.

It seem most people here are sympathetic to the white couple, whose story is being told. The South Asian birth parents are anonymous so people here are speculating that they are underserving parents of their own biological child (They may be 70 years old! They are Indian and don't want a baby girl!).

In addition, many people can relate to the experience of giving birth to a child -- but none of us can relate to the experience of the biological parents, let alone the child who will be growing up in this situation.

But many others here are speculating that they are superior parents who desperately wanted their child but would surely lose. There simply isn't evidence of any of that.

Again: this is what the biological parents' lawyer explained, which has been cited in the press and here numerous times.

It's odd that there's a repeated skepticism here that the South Asian biological parents are somehow unfit or lesser qualified to raise their own biological child, presumably within the culture and religion of their ancestry. It's odd that there is skepticism that the South Asian couple wants a baby, given that they used the services of a fertility clinic.

If there was a photo in the press of a dark-skinned South Asian couple holding up a white blonde baby that the woman birthed in an IVF mix-up, would the common sentiment be that they should keep the baby? Or would there be greater sympathy towards the white biological parents?

There's also some unconscious bias running throughout this thread, which no one will admit.

There is no assumption about the biological parents at all. Multiple people have consistently pointed out that there is no information about them, which you apparently concede. The bio parents apparently put up no fight for the child and settled immediately. They have a personal injury lawyer, not a family attorney, representing them in the custody dispute. The California personal injury attorney appears to be mistaken about Florida custody presumptions, which only apply to married parents (and the birth parents are not married). And, of course, the judge approved the settlement.

From these facts, it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that the families did anything other than actually reach a compromise acceptable to both parties. If we had more information about the bio parents, I'm sure we could reach a different conclusion. But since we have no information about them, much less factors influencing their parental fitness, it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that the parents who voluntarily signed away custody are obviously so superior that it justifies taking a baby from the only mom she's ever known.

You are ignoring what their attorney said: The South Asian couple wanted the child. They are heartbroken. They did not sign away custody "immediately." It was a difficult decision. They did not think a lengthy custody battle would be in the best interest of the child. (The white couple made clear they would fight.) They therefore settled for visitation.

I can't speak to their likelihood of prevailing on the merits in Florida, as you believe you can (and not everyone agrees with you). But again, even if you are correct, it would be a Pyrrhic victory because of the trauma of taking a child (probably 3 - 5 years old) from the only home they knew.

You refuse to acknowledge this and imply that it would've been easy for the SA to win the case but simply didn't want their baby girl. (Again...based on what? Hmmm.)

There is no point in debating this. The bias is clear.

What is an SA?

The biological parents are the South Asian couple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

One more time:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scared of challenging a white couple to get their child back? Come on. What planet do you live on?
Precedent suggests that the white parents would not get their way on this because they are white.
There is likely another reason they are not coming forward. But yeah we do not know what the reason is.

The custody process would take years. Even if the genetic parents win on the merits and the law, the child would be between 3-5 years old and it would be traumatic for the child at that point. Its too bad the gestational parents werent magnanimous and gave the child back to the genetic parents as soon as they found out who they were. That would have been the right thing to do even if not legally required.

I fully agree. How can people not see this? The lawyer for the biological parents said that they want the child but don't think a drawn-out custody battle is in the child's best interest.

There are other cases where the biological parents ultimately won after a lengthy court fight -- and at that point it meant tearing a 3-5 year-old child from the only home they knew.

Let's face it, if the biological parents had in turn given birth to the white couple' baby, the couples would have swapped babies when they were 4 months old. That was the white couple's original intent, as stated in their court filing. (The original assumption was that each woman had been impregnated with the other's embryo in the mix-up.)

When the white couple found out that they did not have their own biological baby out there, they decided to keep baby Shea. I understand how heartbreaking it would be for them to give up the baby! But this situation does not sit well with me.

It seem most people here are sympathetic to the white couple, whose story is being told. The South Asian birth parents are anonymous so people here are speculating that they are underserving parents of their own biological child (They may be 70 years old! They are Indian and don't want a baby girl!).

In addition, many people can relate to the experience of giving birth to a child -- but none of us can relate to the experience of the biological parents, let alone the child who will be growing up in this situation.

But many others here are speculating that they are superior parents who desperately wanted their child but would surely lose. There simply isn't evidence of any of that.

Again: this is what the biological parents' lawyer explained, which has been cited in the press and here numerous times.

It's odd that there's a repeated skepticism here that the South Asian biological parents are somehow unfit or lesser qualified to raise their own biological child, presumably within the culture and religion of their ancestry. It's odd that there is skepticism that the South Asian couple wants a baby, given that they used the services of a fertility clinic.

If there was a photo in the press of a dark-skinned South Asian couple holding up a white blonde baby that the woman birthed in an IVF mix-up, would the common sentiment be that they should keep the baby? Or would there be greater sympathy towards the white biological parents?

There's also some unconscious bias running throughout this thread, which no one will admit.

There is no assumption about the biological parents at all. Multiple people have consistently pointed out that there is no information about them, which you apparently concede. The bio parents apparently put up no fight for the child and settled immediately. They have a personal injury lawyer, not a family attorney, representing them in the custody dispute. The California personal injury attorney appears to be mistaken about Florida custody presumptions, which only apply to married parents (and the birth parents are not married). And, of course, the judge approved the settlement.

From these facts, it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that the families did anything other than actually reach a compromise acceptable to both parties. If we had more information about the bio parents, I'm sure we could reach a different conclusion. But since we have no information about them, much less factors influencing their parental fitness, it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that the parents who voluntarily signed away custody are obviously so superior that it justifies taking a baby from the only mom she's ever known.

You are ignoring what their attorney said: The South Asian couple wanted the child. They are heartbroken. They did not sign away custody "immediately." It was a difficult decision. They did not think a lengthy custody battle would be in the best interest of the child. (The white couple made clear they would fight.) They therefore settled for visitation.

I can't speak to their likelihood of prevailing on the merits in Florida, as you believe you can (and not everyone agrees with you). But again, even if you are correct, it would be a Pyrrhic victory because of the trauma of taking a child (probably 3 - 5 years old) from the only home they knew.

You refuse to acknowledge this and imply that it would've been easy for the SA to win the case but simply didn't want their baby girl. (Again...based on what? Hmmm.)

There is no point in debating this. The bias is clear.

What is an SA?

Thank you. I had the same question. Like - why is the State Attorney involved lol.

[Anonymous]

Ivf = commoditizing babies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

One more time:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scared of challenging a white couple to get their child back? Come on. What planet do you live on?
Precedent suggests that the white parents would not get their way on this because they are white.
There is likely another reason they are not coming forward. But yeah we do not know what the reason is.

The custody process would take years. Even if the genetic parents win on the merits and the law, the child would be between 3-5 years old and it would be traumatic for the child at that point. Its too bad the gestational parents werent magnanimous and gave the child back to the genetic parents as soon as they found out who they were. That would have been the right thing to do even if not legally required.

I fully agree. How can people not see this? The lawyer for the biological parents said that they want the child but don't think a drawn-out custody battle is in the child's best interest.

There are other cases where the biological parents ultimately won after a lengthy court fight -- and at that point it meant tearing a 3-5 year-old child from the only home they knew.

Let's face it, if the biological parents had in turn given birth to the white couple' baby, the couples would have swapped babies when they were 4 months old. That was the white couple's original intent, as stated in their court filing. (The original assumption was that each woman had been impregnated with the other's embryo in the mix-up.)

When the white couple found out that they did not have their own biological baby out there, they decided to keep baby Shea. I understand how heartbreaking it would be for them to give up the baby! But this situation does not sit well with me.

It seem most people here are sympathetic to the white couple, whose story is being told. The South Asian birth parents are anonymous so people here are speculating that they are underserving parents of their own biological child (They may be 70 years old! They are Indian and don't want a baby girl!).

In addition, many people can relate to the experience of giving birth to a child -- but none of us can relate to the experience of the biological parents, let alone the child who will be growing up in this situation.

But many others here are speculating that they are superior parents who desperately wanted their child but would surely lose. There simply isn't evidence of any of that.

Again: this is what the biological parents' lawyer explained, which has been cited in the press and here numerous times.

It's odd that there's a repeated skepticism here that the South Asian biological parents are somehow unfit or lesser qualified to raise their own biological child, presumably within the culture and religion of their ancestry. It's odd that there is skepticism that the South Asian couple wants a baby, given that they used the services of a fertility clinic.

If there was a photo in the press of a dark-skinned South Asian couple holding up a white blonde baby that the woman birthed in an IVF mix-up, would the common sentiment be that they should keep the baby? Or would there be greater sympathy towards the white biological parents?

There's also some unconscious bias running throughout this thread, which no one will admit.

There is no assumption about the biological parents at all. Multiple people have consistently pointed out that there is no information about them, which you apparently concede. The bio parents apparently put up no fight for the child and settled immediately. They have a personal injury lawyer, not a family attorney, representing them in the custody dispute. The California personal injury attorney appears to be mistaken about Florida custody presumptions, which only apply to married parents (and the birth parents are not married). And, of course, the judge approved the settlement.

From these facts, it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that the families did anything other than actually reach a compromise acceptable to both parties. If we had more information about the bio parents, I'm sure we could reach a different conclusion. But since we have no information about them, much less factors influencing their parental fitness, it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that the parents who voluntarily signed away custody are obviously so superior that it justifies taking a baby from the only mom she's ever known.

You are ignoring what their attorney said: The South Asian couple wanted the child. They are heartbroken. They did not sign away custody "immediately." It was a difficult decision. They did not think a lengthy custody battle would be in the best interest of the child. (The white couple made clear they would fight.) They therefore settled for visitation.

I can't speak to their likelihood of prevailing on the merits in Florida, as you believe you can (and not everyone agrees with you). But again, even if you are correct, it would be a Pyrrhic victory because of the trauma of taking a child (probably 3 - 5 years old) from the only home they knew.

You refuse to acknowledge this and imply that it would've been easy for the SA to win the case but simply didn't want their baby girl. (Again...based on what? Hmmm.)

There is no point in debating this. The bias is clear.

Have you considered the possibility that your immovable beliefs about what the genetic parents are like might reflect a different set of biases?

Right. We know nothing at all about the genetic parents because they have chosen to be private and not openly share their situation and reasons for the choices they have made. That is obviously their right. There’s no way to know anything about their decisions.

[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: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

Scared of challenging a white couple to get their child back? Come on. What planet do you live on?
Precedent suggests that the white parents would not get their way on this because they are white.
There is likely another reason they are not coming forward. But yeah we do not know what the reason is.

The custody process would take years. Even if the genetic parents win on the merits and the law, the child would be between 3-5 years old and it would be traumatic for the child at that point. Its too bad the gestational parents werent magnanimous and gave the child back to the genetic parents as soon as they found out who they were. That would have been the right thing to do even if not legally required.

This is the truth. Every day that child is with the birth mom is another nail in the coffin of the case for the real parents. They can’t win here and it is awful and selfish of the birth mom. Being a true mother means loving a child more than yourself and putting their well being and happiness before your own.

The case law cited above in this thread shows that there is indeed a very good possibility that they could be awarded custody by the court.

We don’t know the reason the biological parents decided not to ask for custody even though there is ample evidence in case law that they could win. They’re not coming forward and sharing, which is totally their right.

Their lawyer advised them that it would be an uphill battle and as I said,every day that passes adds to the trauma to the baby.

[Anonymous]

The laws around IVF need to be updated for situations like this where an embryo is accidentally or negligently implanted in the wrong body. Embryos should legally belong to the genetic owners unless they willingly consent to giving up custody. People should not be doubly punished by the negligence of medical professionals and its clear from this case that couples dealing with infertility can have "baby colored glasses" that blind them to the ethics and morality of not taking another person's embryo even if it was an accident that was not their fault. A protracted legal battle leads to a de facto loss for the genetic parents in this case even if they technically "win." Custody of IVF embryos before and after birth should be de facto the property of the genetic parents unless they willingly and knowingly give up custody.

Otherwise there will definitely be an increase in these kinds of "accidents" after allowing the outcome in this case. Modern law needs to catch up quick.

[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: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

Scared of challenging a white couple to get their child back? Come on. What planet do you live on?
Precedent suggests that the white parents would not get their way on this because they are white.
There is likely another reason they are not coming forward. But yeah we do not know what the reason is.

The custody process would take years. Even if the genetic parents win on the merits and the law, the child would be between 3-5 years old and it would be traumatic for the child at that point. Its too bad the gestational parents werent magnanimous and gave the child back to the genetic parents as soon as they found out who they were. That would have been the right thing to do even if not legally required.

This is the truth. Every day that child is with the birth mom is another nail in the coffin of the case for the real parents. They can’t win here and it is awful and selfish of the birth mom. Being a true mother means loving a child more than yourself and putting their well being and happiness before your own.

The case law cited above in this thread shows that there is indeed a very good possibility that they could be awarded custody by the court.

We don’t know the reason the biological parents decided not to ask for custody even though there is ample evidence in case law that they could win. They’re not coming forward and sharing, which is totally their right.

Their lawyer advised them that it would be an uphill battle and as I said,every day that passes adds to the trauma to the baby.

The advice stated to be from the lawyer doesn’t make sense when you consider the US case law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The laws around IVF need to be updated for situations like this where an embryo is accidentally or negligently implanted in the wrong body. Embryos should legally belong to the genetic owners unless they willingly consent to giving up custody. People should not be doubly punished by the negligence of medical professionals and its clear from this case that couples dealing with infertility can have "baby colored glasses" that blind them to the ethics and morality of not taking another person's embryo even if it was an accident that was not their fault. A protracted legal battle leads to a de facto loss for the genetic parents in this case even if they technically "win." Custody of IVF embryos before and after birth should be de facto the property of the genetic parents unless they willingly and knowingly give up custody.

Otherwise there will definitely be an increase in these kinds of "accidents" after allowing the outcome in this case. Modern law needs to catch up quick.

US case law appears to give custody to the genetic parents in the very rare and unusual situations where someone receives another couple’s embryo. It does seem that the genetic parents here had a good chance of being awarded custody had they chosen to pursue that path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The laws around IVF need to be updated for situations like this where an embryo is accidentally or negligently implanted in the wrong body. Embryos should legally belong to the genetic owners unless they willingly consent to giving up custody. People should not be doubly punished by the negligence of medical professionals and its clear from this case that couples dealing with infertility can have "baby colored glasses" that blind them to the ethics and morality of not taking another person's embryo even if it was an accident that was not their fault. A protracted legal battle leads to a de facto loss for the genetic parents in this case even if they technically "win." Custody of IVF embryos before and after birth should be de facto the property of the genetic parents unless they willingly and knowingly give up custody.

Otherwise there will definitely be an increase in these kinds of "accidents" after allowing the outcome in this case. Modern law needs to catch up quick.

US case law appears to give custody to the genetic parents in the very rare and unusual situations where someone receives another couple’s embryo. It does seem that the genetic parents here had a good chance of being awarded custody had they chosen to pursue that path.

Are you a lawyer? If not, I don’t think you understand this isn’t a case of “US law.” It’s a case of state law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

One more time:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scared of challenging a white couple to get their child back? Come on. What planet do you live on?
Precedent suggests that the white parents would not get their way on this because they are white.
There is likely another reason they are not coming forward. But yeah we do not know what the reason is.

The custody process would take years. Even if the genetic parents win on the merits and the law, the child would be between 3-5 years old and it would be traumatic for the child at that point. Its too bad the gestational parents werent magnanimous and gave the child back to the genetic parents as soon as they found out who they were. That would have been the right thing to do even if not legally required.

I fully agree. How can people not see this? The lawyer for the biological parents said that they want the child but don't think a drawn-out custody battle is in the child's best interest.

There are other cases where the biological parents ultimately won after a lengthy court fight -- and at that point it meant tearing a 3-5 year-old child from the only home they knew.

Let's face it, if the biological parents had in turn given birth to the white couple' baby, the couples would have swapped babies when they were 4 months old. That was the white couple's original intent, as stated in their court filing. (The original assumption was that each woman had been impregnated with the other's embryo in the mix-up.)

When the white couple found out that they did not have their own biological baby out there, they decided to keep baby Shea. I understand how heartbreaking it would be for them to give up the baby! But this situation does not sit well with me.

It seem most people here are sympathetic to the white couple, whose story is being told. The South Asian birth parents are anonymous so people here are speculating that they are underserving parents of their own biological child (They may be 70 years old! They are Indian and don't want a baby girl!).

In addition, many people can relate to the experience of giving birth to a child -- but none of us can relate to the experience of the biological parents, let alone the child who will be growing up in this situation.

But many others here are speculating that they are superior parents who desperately wanted their child but would surely lose. There simply isn't evidence of any of that.

Again: this is what the biological parents' lawyer explained, which has been cited in the press and here numerous times.

It's odd that there's a repeated skepticism here that the South Asian biological parents are somehow unfit or lesser qualified to raise their own biological child, presumably within the culture and religion of their ancestry. It's odd that there is skepticism that the South Asian couple wants a baby, given that they used the services of a fertility clinic.

If there was a photo in the press of a dark-skinned South Asian couple holding up a white blonde baby that the woman birthed in an IVF mix-up, would the common sentiment be that they should keep the baby? Or would there be greater sympathy towards the white biological parents?

There's also some unconscious bias running throughout this thread, which no one will admit.

There is no assumption about the biological parents at all. Multiple people have consistently pointed out that there is no information about them, which you apparently concede. The bio parents apparently put up no fight for the child and settled immediately. They have a personal injury lawyer, not a family attorney, representing them in the custody dispute. The California personal injury attorney appears to be mistaken about Florida custody presumptions, which only apply to married parents (and the birth parents are not married). And, of course, the judge approved the settlement.

From these facts, it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that the families did anything other than actually reach a compromise acceptable to both parties. If we had more information about the bio parents, I'm sure we could reach a different conclusion. But since we have no information about them, much less factors influencing their parental fitness, it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that the parents who voluntarily signed away custody are obviously so superior that it justifies taking a baby from the only mom she's ever known.

You are ignoring what their attorney said: The South Asian couple wanted the child. They are heartbroken. They did not sign away custody "immediately." It was a difficult decision. They did not think a lengthy custody battle would be in the best interest of the child. (The white couple made clear they would fight.) They therefore settled for visitation.

I can't speak to their likelihood of prevailing on the merits in Florida, as you believe you can (and not everyone agrees with you). But again, even if you are correct, it would be a Pyrrhic victory because of the trauma of taking a child (probably 3 - 5 years old) from the only home they knew.

You refuse to acknowledge this and imply that it would've been easy for the SA to win the case but simply didn't want their baby girl. (Again...based on what? Hmmm.)

There is no point in debating this. The bias is clear.

Have you considered the possibility that your immovable beliefs about what the genetic parents are like might reflect a different set of biases?

Right. We know nothing at all about the genetic parents because they have chosen to be private and not openly share their situation and reasons for the choices they have made. That is obviously their right. There’s no way to know anything about their decisions.

We don't know much about the genetic parents but we do know the reason for their decision. Their lawyer explained it, and it's been stated here repeatedly.

[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.

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

Scared of challenging a white couple to get their child back? Come on. What planet do you live on?
Precedent suggests that the white parents would not get their way on this because they are white.
There is likely another reason they are not coming forward. But yeah we do not know what the reason is.

The custody process would take years. Even if the genetic parents win on the merits and the law, the child would be between 3-5 years old and it would be traumatic for the child at that point. Its too bad the gestational parents werent magnanimous and gave the child back to the genetic parents as soon as they found out who they were. That would have been the right thing to do even if not legally required.

I fully agree. How can people not see this? The lawyer for the biological parents said that they want the child but don't think a drawn-out custody battle is in the child's best interest.

There are other cases where the biological parents ultimately won after a lengthy court fight -- and at that point it meant tearing a 3-5 year-old child from the only home they knew.

Let's face it, if the biological parents had in turn given birth to the white couple' baby, the couples would have swapped babies when they were 4 months old. That was the white couple's original intent, as stated in their court filing. (The original assumption was that each woman had been impregnated with the other's embryo in the mix-up.)

When the white couple found out that they did not have their own biological baby out there, they decided to keep baby Shea. I understand how heartbreaking it would be for them to give up the baby! But this situation does not sit well with me.

It seem most people here are sympathetic to the white couple, whose story is being told. The South Asian birth parents are anonymous so people here are speculating that they are underserving parents of their own biological child (They may be 70 years old! They are Indian and don't want a baby girl!).

In addition, many people can relate to the experience of giving birth to a child -- but none of us can relate to the experience of the biological parents, let alone the child who will be growing up in this situation.

But many others here are speculating that they are superior parents who desperately wanted their child but would surely lose. There simply isn't evidence of any of that.

Again: this is what the biological parents' lawyer explained, which has been cited in the press and here numerous times.

It's odd that there's a repeated skepticism here that the South Asian biological parents are somehow unfit or lesser qualified to raise their own biological child, presumably within the culture and religion of their ancestry. It's odd that there is skepticism that the South Asian couple wants a baby, given that they used the services of a fertility clinic.

If there was a photo in the press of a dark-skinned South Asian couple holding up a white blonde baby that the woman birthed in an IVF mix-up, would the common sentiment be that they should keep the baby? Or would there be greater sympathy towards the white biological parents?

There's also some unconscious bias running throughout this thread, which no one will admit.

There is no assumption about the biological parents at all. Multiple people have consistently pointed out that there is no information about them, which you apparently concede. The bio parents apparently put up no fight for the child and settled immediately. They have a personal injury lawyer, not a family attorney, representing them in the custody dispute. The California personal injury attorney appears to be mistaken about Florida custody presumptions, which only apply to married parents (and the birth parents are not married). And, of course, the judge approved the settlement.

From these facts, it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that the families did anything other than actually reach a compromise acceptable to both parties. If we had more information about the bio parents, I'm sure we could reach a different conclusion. But since we have no information about them, much less factors influencing their parental fitness, it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that the parents who voluntarily signed away custody are obviously so superior that it justifies taking a baby from the only mom she's ever known.

You are ignoring what their attorney said: The South Asian couple wanted the child. They are heartbroken. They did not sign away custody "immediately." It was a difficult decision. They did not think a lengthy custody battle would be in the best interest of the child. (The white couple made clear they would fight.) They therefore settled for visitation.

I can't speak to their likelihood of prevailing on the merits in Florida, as you believe you can (and not everyone agrees with you). But again, even if you are correct, it would be a Pyrrhic victory because of the trauma of taking a child (probably 3 - 5 years old) from the only home they knew.

You refuse to acknowledge this and imply that it would've been easy for the SA to win the case but simply didn't want their baby girl. (Again...based on what? Hmmm.)

There is no point in debating this. The bias is clear.

Have you considered the possibility that your immovable beliefs about what the genetic parents are like might reflect a different set of biases?

Right. We know nothing at all about the genetic parents because they have chosen to be private and not openly share their situation and reasons for the choices they have made. That is obviously their right. There’s no way to know anything about their decisions.

We don't know much about the genetic parents but we do know the reason for their decision. Their lawyer explained it, and it's been stated here repeatedly.

We know the reason their lawyer gave to the press.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The laws around IVF need to be updated for situations like this where an embryo is accidentally or negligently implanted in the wrong body. Embryos should legally belong to the genetic owners unless they willingly consent to giving up custody. People should not be doubly punished by the negligence of medical professionals and its clear from this case that couples dealing with infertility can have "baby colored glasses" that blind them to the ethics and morality of not taking another person's embryo even if it was an accident that was not their fault. A protracted legal battle leads to a de facto loss for the genetic parents in this case even if they technically "win." Custody of IVF embryos before and after birth should be de facto the property of the genetic parents unless they willingly and knowingly give up custody.

Otherwise there will definitely be an increase in these kinds of "accidents" after allowing the outcome in this case. Modern law needs to catch up quick.

US case law appears to give custody to the genetic parents in the very rare and unusual situations where someone receives another couple’s embryo. It does seem that the genetic parents here had a good chance of being awarded custody had they chosen to pursue that path.

Every state will not grant custody to genetic parents. This is not a case of a mistaken identity at hospital and both sets of parents going home with the wrong baby. You cannot just switch embryos.

What happens if the egg and sperm was switched instead of the whole embryo?

Could genetic parents sue for wrongful death if the gestational mom finds out early enough and chooses to terminate?

Or genetic parents suing because the gestational mom was drinking and baby has fas?

How will the genetic parents pursue custody if the gestational parents move to another state frequently enough and change addresses. Or even move abroad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The laws around IVF need to be updated for situations like this where an embryo is accidentally or negligently implanted in the wrong body. Embryos should legally belong to the genetic owners unless they willingly consent to giving up custody. People should not be doubly punished by the negligence of medical professionals and its clear from this case that couples dealing with infertility can have "baby colored glasses" that blind them to the ethics and morality of not taking another person's embryo even if it was an accident that was not their fault. A protracted legal battle leads to a de facto loss for the genetic parents in this case even if they technically "win." Custody of IVF embryos before and after birth should be de facto the property of the genetic parents unless they willingly and knowingly give up custody.

Otherwise there will definitely be an increase in these kinds of "accidents" after allowing the outcome in this case. Modern law needs to catch up quick.

US case law appears to give custody to the genetic parents in the very rare and unusual situations where someone receives another couple’s embryo. It does seem that the genetic parents here had a good chance of being awarded custody had they chosen to pursue that path.

Are you a lawyer? If not, I don’t think you understand this isn’t a case of “US law.” It’s a case of state law.

We are referring to cases that have been decided in the US. Cases that have been decided in the US would be more likely to be considered in a case being adjudicated in, say, Florida than cases decided in other countries. There are very, very few cases like this so cases decided in another US state would be pertinent.

[Anonymous]

Won’t the baby grow up and resent the birth parents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The laws around IVF need to be updated for situations like this where an embryo is accidentally or negligently implanted in the wrong body. Embryos should legally belong to the genetic owners unless they willingly consent to giving up custody. People should not be doubly punished by the negligence of medical professionals and its clear from this case that couples dealing with infertility can have "baby colored glasses" that blind them to the ethics and morality of not taking another person's embryo even if it was an accident that was not their fault. A protracted legal battle leads to a de facto loss for the genetic parents in this case even if they technically "win." Custody of IVF embryos before and after birth should be de facto the property of the genetic parents unless they willingly and knowingly give up custody.

Otherwise there will definitely be an increase in these kinds of "accidents" after allowing the outcome in this case. Modern law needs to catch up quick.

US case law appears to give custody to the genetic parents in the very rare and unusual situations where someone receives another couple’s embryo. It does seem that the genetic parents here had a good chance of being awarded custody had they chosen to pursue that path.

Every state will not grant custody to genetic parents. This is not a case of a mistaken identity at hospital and both sets of parents going home with the wrong baby. You cannot just switch embryos.

What happens if the egg and sperm was switched instead of the whole embryo?

Could genetic parents sue for wrongful death if the gestational mom finds out early enough and chooses to terminate?

Or genetic parents suing because the gestational mom was drinking and baby has fas?

How will the genetic parents pursue custody if the gestational parents move to another state frequently enough and change addresses. Or even move abroad?

Can you cite case law in a US state where the genetic parents were not awarded custody in a case of a different set of parents’ embryo being implanted? The cases cited in the article linked earlier in this thread resulted in the babies being returned to the genetic parents.