IVF embryo error, custody settlement

[Anonymous]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_M

The Baby M situation isn’t apples to apples to this one, but the story is interesting.

Since there has been some incorrect information about the Baby M case posted here, I’m linking the Wikipedia. Fascinating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, the woman who gave birth to this baby did NOT agree to have her body used as a surrogate. If the law favors the birth mother, I think that's fair.

Both couples should sue the hell out of the fertility clinic.

+1, however, there was a precedent where this happened and the woman was forced to give up the baby.

I think you may be referring to the Baby M case that took place in the eighties.

Where a woman named MaryBeth entered into a surrogate agreement w/another couple to carry their baby.
(In that case, I am almost positive that the baby was from her fertilized egg ➕ the other couple’s husband’s sperm.)

After birth - - the birth Mother changed her mind & wanted to keep the baby.
She even went so far as to actually kidnap the child and it was all an ugly, public mess.

In the end, the natural Mother had to surrender custody to the couple.

And now that the child is an adult >> the child doesn’t want anything at all to do with her biological Mother.

I remember that case.
The Stern family hired people to kidnap the baby. Mary Beth was given visitation.
This eventually ended when the kid asked to divorce her mother.
It was a messed up case. Marybeth had thought she was helping a couple, but the man’s wife just chose to not have a baby herself.
They had the baby for a few days, but were tired of looking after new born. So when Marybeth arrived at their door asking for the baby they gave it to her

Baby M’s adoptive mother had MS and IVF was very new at the time, which is why they opted to go this route.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't followed it all the way, but I remember being shocked that they located the biological parents and they didn't choose to sue for custody. I get why it's not the birth couple's fault, but I couldn't be so generous.

I went through IVF and I can't imagine being either couple in this scenario.

I think it was a very loving choice by the genetic parents. They didn't want to take a baby from the only family it has known or put parents who had bonded with and carried a baby through the pain of loss.

I agree with this. It's not in the baby's best interest to be taken from the people she knows as her parents.

If I were the biological parents, I would ask the couple if I could be in the baby's life in some way - not custody, but as family friends, more like an aunt. But I would respect their wishes no matter what they chose.

I believe I read that there is an agreement to have the biological parents involved in some way.

They should probably tell her that they wanted her but these people said no. I would not feel goot about keeping someone’s biological baby from them even in a mix up like this. The right thing to do was to let her go.

As the biological parent I also wouldn’t feel right taking a baby that another woman carried and birthed thinking it was her baby and without agreeing to be a surrogate. This is an everyone loses situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic parents realized the law was not on their side and it would likely be a costly and unsuccessful lawsuit to win custody so they agreed to this arrangement to be allowed to stay in the child’s life. It is very sad for the genetic parents.

The birth mother has said the genetic parents are staying a part of their shared child’s life.

I suppose we will ignore epigenetics, because in a very real sense, both mothers are genetic parents.

Well, let’s ignore it then because this baby will grow up forever confused.

It’s not really confusing? Lots of children are conceived with sperm, egg, and embryo donation. The parents can and should explain what happened here.

[Anonymous]

There really is no perfect solution to this horrific mix up. And lessor of evils is a total judgement call.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, the woman who gave birth to this baby did NOT agree to have her body used as a surrogate. If the law favors the birth mother, I think that's fair.

Both couples should sue the hell out of the fertility clinic.

+1, however, there was a precedent where this happened and the woman was forced to give up the baby.

I think you may be referring to the Baby M case that took place in the eighties.

Where a woman named MaryBeth entered into a surrogate agreement w/another couple to carry their baby.
(In that case, I am almost positive that the baby was from her fertilized egg ➕ the other couple’s husband’s sperm.)

After birth - - the birth Mother changed her mind & wanted to keep the baby.
She even went so far as to actually kidnap the child and it was all an ugly, public mess.

In the end, the natural Mother had to surrender custody to the couple.

And now that the child is an adult >> the child doesn’t want anything at all to do with her biological Mother.

I remember that case.
The Stern family hired people to kidnap the baby. Mary Beth was given visitation.
This eventually ended when the kid asked to divorce her mother.
It was a messed up case. Marybeth had thought she was helping a couple, but the man’s wife just chose to not have a baby herself.
They had the baby for a few days, but were tired of looking after new born. So when Marybeth arrived at their door asking for the baby they gave it to her

Baby M’s adoptive mother had MS and IVF was very new at the time, which is why they opted to go this route.

There was no IVF it was an IUI with Mary Beth’s own egg. Not many similarities to the baby in the OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic parents realized the law was not on their side and it would likely be a costly and unsuccessful lawsuit to win custody so they agreed to this arrangement to be allowed to stay in the child’s life. It is very sad for the genetic parents.

The birth mother has said the genetic parents are staying a part of their shared child’s life.

I suppose we will ignore epigenetics, because in a very real sense, both mothers are genetic parents.

Well, let’s ignore it then because this baby will grow up forever confused.

It’s not really confusing? Lots of children are conceived with sperm, egg, and embryo donation. The parents can and should explain what happened here.

Yeah, hey kid your real parents really wanted you but we decided to selfishly keep you ourselves instead of making a hard choice for an unfortunate situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic parents realized the law was not on their side and it would likely be a costly and unsuccessful lawsuit to win custody so they agreed to this arrangement to be allowed to stay in the child’s life. It is very sad for the genetic parents.

The birth mother has said the genetic parents are staying a part of their shared child’s life.

I suppose we will ignore epigenetics, because in a very real sense, both mothers are genetic parents.

Well, let’s ignore it then because this baby will grow up forever confused.

It’s not really confusing? Lots of children are conceived with sperm, egg, and embryo donation. The parents can and should explain what happened here.

Think about how the child will feel when they learn the facts.

1. Mixup at the clinic

2. But we found your bio parents

3. And then strong-armed them into not fighting us for you since we lawyered up and they would likely lose

4. But they desperately wanted you and we agreed to some controlled interactions so you can see your bio parents (and siblings?) who look like you and love you and desperately wanted you but we were too selfish to do what was best for you (being with the bio parents who love you and wanted you and were just as screwed by the negligence of the clinic)

There’s no chance this baby grows up thinking her custodial parents did the right thing unless her bio parents are an obvious train wreck

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic parents realized the law was not on their side and it would likely be a costly and unsuccessful lawsuit to win custody so they agreed to this arrangement to be allowed to stay in the child’s life. It is very sad for the genetic parents.

The birth mother has said the genetic parents are staying a part of their shared child’s life.

I suppose we will ignore epigenetics, because in a very real sense, both mothers are genetic parents.

Well, let’s ignore it then because this baby will grow up forever confused.

It’s not really confusing? Lots of children are conceived with sperm, egg, and embryo donation. The parents can and should explain what happened here.

Think about how the child will feel when they learn the facts.

1. Mixup at the clinic

2. But we found your bio parents

3. And then strong-armed them into not fighting us for you since we lawyered up and they would likely lose

4. But they desperately wanted you and we agreed to some controlled interactions so you can see your bio parents (and siblings?) who look like you and love you and desperately wanted you but we were too selfish to do what was best for you (being with the bio parents who love you and wanted you and were just as screwed by the negligence of the clinic)

There’s no chance this baby grows up thinking her custodial parents did the right thing unless her bio parents are an obvious train wreck

All of this. What happened to the best interest of the child? This is purely in the best interest of the now adoptive parents over the interest of the child. Denying her the opportunity to be with her biological parents and siblings (if there are any) is cruel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, the woman who gave birth to this baby did NOT agree to have her body used as a surrogate. If the law favors the birth mother, I think that's fair.

Both couples should sue the hell out of the fertility clinic.

+1, however, there was a precedent where this happened and the woman was forced to give up the baby.

I think you may be referring to the Baby M case that took place in the eighties.

Where a woman named MaryBeth entered into a surrogate agreement w/another couple to carry their baby.
(In that case, I am almost positive that the baby was from her fertilized egg ➕ the other couple’s husband’s sperm.)

After birth - - the birth Mother changed her mind & wanted to keep the baby.
She even went so far as to actually kidnap the child and it was all an ugly, public mess.

In the end, the natural Mother had to surrender custody to the couple.

And now that the child is an adult >> the child doesn’t want anything at all to do with her biological Mother.

I remember that case.
The Stern family hired people to kidnap the baby. Mary Beth was given visitation.
This eventually ended when the kid asked to divorce her mother.
It was a messed up case. Marybeth had thought she was helping a couple, but the man’s wife just chose to not have a baby herself.
They had the baby for a few days, but were tired of looking after new born. So when Marybeth arrived at their door asking for the baby they gave it to her

Baby M’s adoptive mother had MS and IVF was very new at the time, which is why they opted to go this route.

There was no IVF it was an IUI with Mary Beth’s own egg. Not many similarities to the baby in the OP.

Wrong.

IVF existed in the 1980s.

The first IVF baby (Louise) was in 1978 in the UK.

The technology was still new, which is why they opted for the IUI approach (plus, Mrs. Stern had MS).

All of this is easy to confirm online.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, the woman who gave birth to this baby did NOT agree to have her body used as a surrogate. If the law favors the birth mother, I think that's fair.

Both couples should sue the hell out of the fertility clinic.

+1, however, there was a precedent where this happened and the woman was forced to give up the baby.

I think you may be referring to the Baby M case that took place in the eighties.

Where a woman named MaryBeth entered into a surrogate agreement w/another couple to carry their baby.
(In that case, I am almost positive that the baby was from her fertilized egg ➕ the other couple’s husband’s sperm.)

After birth - - the birth Mother changed her mind & wanted to keep the baby.
She even went so far as to actually kidnap the child and it was all an ugly, public mess.

In the end, the natural Mother had to surrender custody to the couple.

And now that the child is an adult >> the child doesn’t want anything at all to do with her biological Mother.

I remember that case.
The Stern family hired people to kidnap the baby. Mary Beth was given visitation.
This eventually ended when the kid asked to divorce her mother.
It was a messed up case. Marybeth had thought she was helping a couple, but the man’s wife just chose to not have a baby herself.
They had the baby for a few days, but were tired of looking after new born. So when Marybeth arrived at their door asking for the baby they gave it to her

Baby M’s adoptive mother had MS and IVF was very new at the time, which is why they opted to go this route.

There was no IVF it was an IUI with Mary Beth’s own egg. Not many similarities to the baby in the OP.

Wrong.

IVF existed in the 1980s.

The first IVF baby (Louise) was in 1978 in the UK.

The technology was still new, which is why they opted for the IUI approach (plus, Mrs. Stern had MS).

All of this is easy to confirm online.

There was no IVF in that case, pedant. It was IUI. IUI had nothing to do with Baby M.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, the woman who gave birth to this baby did NOT agree to have her body used as a surrogate. If the law favors the birth mother, I think that's fair.

Both couples should sue the hell out of the fertility clinic.

+1, however, there was a precedent where this happened and the woman was forced to give up the baby.

I think you may be referring to the Baby M case that took place in the eighties.

Where a woman named MaryBeth entered into a surrogate agreement w/another couple to carry their baby.
(In that case, I am almost positive that the baby was from her fertilized egg ➕ the other couple’s husband’s sperm.)

After birth - - the birth Mother changed her mind & wanted to keep the baby.
She even went so far as to actually kidnap the child and it was all an ugly, public mess.

In the end, the natural Mother had to surrender custody to the couple.

And now that the child is an adult >> the child doesn’t want anything at all to do with her biological Mother.

I remember that case.
The Stern family hired people to kidnap the baby. Mary Beth was given visitation.
This eventually ended when the kid asked to divorce her mother.
It was a messed up case. Marybeth had thought she was helping a couple, but the man’s wife just chose to not have a baby herself.
They had the baby for a few days, but were tired of looking after new born. So when Marybeth arrived at their door asking for the baby they gave it to her

Baby M’s adoptive mother had MS and IVF was very new at the time, which is why they opted to go this route.

There was no IVF it was an IUI with Mary Beth’s own egg. Not many similarities to the baby in the OP.

Wrong.

IVF existed in the 1980s.

The first IVF baby (Louise) was in 1978 in the UK.

The technology was still new, which is why they opted for the IUI approach (plus, Mrs. Stern had MS).

All of this is easy to confirm online.

There was no IVF in that case, pedant. It was IUI. IVF had nothing to do with Baby M.

IVF had nothing to do with Baby M. Oops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic parents realized the law was not on their side and it would likely be a costly and unsuccessful lawsuit to win custody so they agreed to this arrangement to be allowed to stay in the child’s life. It is very sad for the genetic parents.

The birth mother has said the genetic parents are staying a part of their shared child’s life.

I suppose we will ignore epigenetics, because in a very real sense, both mothers are genetic parents.

Well, let’s ignore it then because this baby will grow up forever confused.

It’s not really confusing? Lots of children are conceived with sperm, egg, and embryo donation. The parents can and should explain what happened here.

Yeah, hey kid your real parents really wanted you but we decided to selfishly keep you ourselves instead of making a hard choice for an unfortunate situation.

Or the actual story. “Hey, kid, when you were born, we realized the doctor mixed something up. We realized that someone else made the embryo you grew from. When we found out, we looked everywhere—all over the world— for the people who made your embryo so we could make sure they knew about you and how much we loved you. We both love you so much, and so that’s why we’re all involved and part of your life. Your embryo parents thought it would be really hard and scary to take you away from us, when we’re the only people to have raised you from when you were a baby. So they made a selfless decision and agreed that we would raise you, but we would all be part of your life and love you.]

[Anonymous]

Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic parents realized the law was not on their side and it would likely be a costly and unsuccessful lawsuit to win custody so they agreed to this arrangement to be allowed to stay in the child’s life. It is very sad for the genetic parents.

The birth mother has said the genetic parents are staying a part of their shared child’s life.

I suppose we will ignore epigenetics, because in a very real sense, both mothers are genetic parents.

Well, let’s ignore it then because this baby will grow up forever confused.

It’s not really confusing? Lots of children are conceived with sperm, egg, and embryo donation. The parents can and should explain what happened here.

Yeah, hey kid your real parents really wanted you but we decided to selfishly keep you ourselves instead of making a hard choice for an unfortunate situation.

Or the actual story. “Hey, kid, when you were born, we realized the doctor mixed something up. We realized that someone else made the embryo you grew from. When we found out, we looked everywhere—all over the world— for the people who made your embryo so we could make sure they knew about you and how much we loved you. We both love you so much, and so that’s why we’re all involved and part of your life. Your embryo parents thought it would be really hard and scary to take you away from us, when we’re the only people to have raised you from when you were a baby. So they made a selfless decision and agreed that we would raise you, but we would all be part of your life and love you.]

So you would just spew a bunch of lies? Searching all over the world, what? They were all patients at the same clinic and the bio parents are heartbroken that the law will be an uphill battle for them to get her back. The baby will learn the truth someday and know that she was very much wanted by the bio parents and denied the chance to grow up with them by the selfish couple who can't have their own kids.