She wouldn’t stop having babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

100% this woman is mentally unwell.

However, there is exactly ZERO mental health bar for becoming a parent. Lots and lots of mentally ill parents that are parenting today.

In the perfect world these two would wake up and allow the foster parents to adopt while keeping the kids in the siblings lives. But she's still mentally unwell so nothing less than owning the children is acceptable.

In a perfect world the well being of the children (who are now 2 years old and call the foster parents mom and dad) would be the most important consideration. The children have a family already. Ripping them away from the parents they know would be horrible for them. Fraudulently contracting for a surrogate to birth children does not override the consideration of what is best for the children.

Imagine a world where children are ripped from their actual parents and given to whatever people (richest, WHITEST) a judge feels are most "fit." Are you sure YOU would keep your own kids under that system?

Imagine a world where wealthy people can buy children they have no genetic link to (donor egg, donor sperm) and put other women at risk by carrying the children. They are not the "actual parents," they are the least qualified parents - no genetic link, did not carry the children, have not raised them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twins should have stayed with the foster parents so sad

Absolutely not. Children belong with their parents, not the highest bidder.

How are they their parents? No genetic connection and the dad didn’t even want them.

They’re raising their biological siblings. These two children have been deprived of any relationship with their biological siblings for their entire lives because some backwater judge got the ick about an older woman having kids. Think about that for a minute.

I agree that the needs of the biological siblings should be considered and that the foster children should be able to visit with their siblings.

However, the fact that they have been separated from their bio sibs is 100% the fault of this dishonest, depraved, pathologically selfish woman. She is so dishonest that even to this DAY (or till the publication of the article) she didn't even tell the truth to her other children that their youngest siblings were created through donor gametes and are not biologically related.

That is SICK.

Hoover, it is not reason to strip these babies from the only parents they have ever known. I hope the siblings can have a relationship, but not at the loss of their
Parents and being placed in the custody of this pathetically selfish insane woman and her passive, useless husband.

[Anonymous]

This is a fascinating story. Thanks for posting OP. I’m curious to see what happens. If the intended mother’s primary motive was to save the embryos from destruction, she would let go. She has a large family. Life has been given twice more. The twins have formed bonds with the foster parents and it would be traumatizing for them to be separated at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legally speaking, they have no biological connection to the children, documents were forged and there is zero arguing those people are good for them. Other than money exchanged I don't know how legally or morally one could argue the Lewis' should be the parents.

Do you want a world in which children can be taken from their parents and biological siblings and given to whatever strangers a judge feels are "more fit"?

The twins belong with their parents and bio siblings. Any trauma they suffer from leaving the foster family is the result of a judge making a bad decision years ago.

Can you explain why you are identifying those people as “the parents” of the twins? What, specifically, makes them the parents?

They exist only because of this woman. She meticulously selected the egg and sperm donors, as well as the surrogate, at great financial cost. She had every intention of mothering these children until they were stolen from her because of bigotry. They were created to be her children.

All she did was special order human beings. That doesn’t make her the mother any more than me ordering a Ferrari makes me a race car driver.

But legally, it does. The law on IVF and surrogacy is clear. She commit fraud, yes. And she’s facing criminal charges for that.

However, there has been no investigation into whether or not her other minor children should also be taken, so the courts really have no leg to stand on.

She committed fraud with the original transaction that created these two babies which colors everything after that. If you fraudulently acquired a building permit, that doesn’t mean the structure you built gets to stay.

These are HUMAN BEINGS, not a structure.

We don't take children away if their mom lied about being on the pill.

That’s different because the mother IS the mother if she gets pregnant. This woman custom ordered human beings and now yall are upset that they are being talked about like commodities which they are. This is why children shouldn’t be commodities.

You don’t get to commit fraud to create people and then say “oh well, they’re here, the fraud doesn’t matter.” If she were adopting in the traditional sense, that fraud and her age would exclude her from being an adoptive parent. This kind of adoption should have the same safeguards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legally speaking, they have no biological connection to the children, documents were forged and there is zero arguing those people are good for them. Other than money exchanged I don't know how legally or morally one could argue the Lewis' should be the parents.

Do you want a world in which children can be taken from their parents and biological siblings and given to whatever strangers a judge feels are "more fit"?

The twins belong with their parents and bio siblings. Any trauma they suffer from leaving the foster family is the result of a judge making a bad decision years ago.

Can you explain why you are identifying those people as “the parents” of the twins? What, specifically, makes them the parents?

They exist only because of this woman. She meticulously selected the egg and sperm donors, as well as the surrogate, at great financial cost. She had every intention of mothering these children until they were stolen from her because of bigotry. They were created to be her children.

She was not allowed to take custody of the children because she committed fraud in all of the contracts related to the creation of them. She lied to a judge. This is entirely due to her breaking laws, not bigotry.

[Anonymous]

And all this happened in New York, one of the few states that makes any effort to regulate surrogacy.

[Anonymous]

Family law isn't black and white. The primary concern should ALWAYS be what's in the best interest of the children, not what's in the best interest of the adults. As it stands she and people here are advocating for two toddlers to be ripped from the people who took them home from the hospital and raised them from birth and be placed with a woman in her 60s with 13 other children who has no biological link to them.

You would have to be insane to think that is what's in the best interest of the children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Family law isn't black and white. The primary concern should ALWAYS be what's in the best interest of the children, not what's in the best interest of the adults. As it stands she and people here are advocating for two toddlers to be ripped from the people who took them home from the hospital and raised them from birth and be placed with a woman in her 60s with 13 other children who has no biological link to them.

You would have to be insane to think that is what's in the best interest of the children.

She is their MOTHER.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Family law isn't black and white. The primary concern should ALWAYS be what's in the best interest of the children, not what's in the best interest of the adults. As it stands she and people here are advocating for two toddlers to be ripped from the people who took them home from the hospital and raised them from birth and be placed with a woman in her 60s with 13 other children who has no biological link to them.

You would have to be insane to think that is what's in the best interest of the children.

She is their MOTHER.

By what definition? She has never met the children. She didn't carry them. She is not biologically related to them. I have as much of a claim on these kids are this woman does. The court decided they were wards of the state because she broke the law and forfeited her legal rights to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Family law isn't black and white. The primary concern should ALWAYS be what's in the best interest of the children, not what's in the best interest of the adults. As it stands she and people here are advocating for two toddlers to be ripped from the people who took them home from the hospital and raised them from birth and be placed with a woman in her 60s with 13 other children who has no biological link to them.

You would have to be insane to think that is what's in the best interest of the children.

She is their MOTHER.

By what definition? She has never met the children. She didn't carry them. She is not biologically related to them. I have as much of a claim on these kids are this woman does. The court decided they were wards of the state because she broke the law and forfeited her legal rights to them.

And then that ruling was reversed when a judge without an obvious bias took over the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Family law isn't black and white. The primary concern should ALWAYS be what's in the best interest of the children, not what's in the best interest of the adults. As it stands she and people here are advocating for two toddlers to be ripped from the people who took them home from the hospital and raised them from birth and be placed with a woman in her 60s with 13 other children who has no biological link to them.

You would have to be insane to think that is what's in the best interest of the children.

She is their MOTHER.

By what definition? She has never met the children. She didn't carry them. She is not biologically related to them. I have as much of a claim on these kids are this woman does. The court decided they were wards of the state because she broke the law and forfeited her legal rights to them.

And then that ruling was reversed when a judge without an obvious bias took over the case.

To be clear, I wouldn't have had an issue with the twins going home with her on day one. But too much time has passed and the only thing that matters is what is best for their development. Ripping them from their parents at this stage is not what is best for them. I would actually have the same opinion IF she were their biological mother. It really doesn't matter at this point. Parents mess up and lose custody every single day in America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Family law isn't black and white. The primary concern should ALWAYS be what's in the best interest of the children, not what's in the best interest of the adults. As it stands she and people here are advocating for two toddlers to be ripped from the people who took them home from the hospital and raised them from birth and be placed with a woman in her 60s with 13 other children who has no biological link to them.

You would have to be insane to think that is what's in the best interest of the children.

She is their MOTHER.

By what definition? She has never met the children. She didn't carry them. She is not biologically related to them. I have as much of a claim on these kids are this woman does. The court decided they were wards of the state because she broke the law and forfeited her legal rights to them.

Actually, per the article, NY law would recognize the surrogate as the legal mother. Lewis only has rights if the judge grants her a parnting order. This is what's at stake, it hasn't been granted due to the fraud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Family law isn't black and white. The primary concern should ALWAYS be what's in the best interest of the children, not what's in the best interest of the adults. As it stands she and people here are advocating for two toddlers to be ripped from the people who took them home from the hospital and raised them from birth and be placed with a woman in her 60s with 13 other children who has no biological link to them.

You would have to be insane to think that is what's in the best interest of the children.

She is their MOTHER.

In what way? She has no genetic link to them. She did not carry them. The only thing she did is pay her way through the process while lying and misrepresenting herself.

[Anonymous]

Her husband must be equally cuckoo to still stay with her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Family law isn't black and white. The primary concern should ALWAYS be what's in the best interest of the children, not what's in the best interest of the adults. As it stands she and people here are advocating for two toddlers to be ripped from the people who took them home from the hospital and raised them from birth and be placed with a woman in her 60s with 13 other children who has no biological link to them.

You would have to be insane to think that is what's in the best interest of the children.

She is their MOTHER.

In what way? She has no genetic link to them. She did not carry them. The only thing she did is pay her way through the process while lying and misrepresenting herself.

+1