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.

Epigenetics are a real thing, but the subject has been grossly distorted and misrepresented to make infertile women who purchase other women's eggs feel better about it.

I did RIVF, so I carried a baby not related to me but didn't "purchase" anyone's eggs. I feel a strong physical connection to my child despite the lack of genetic relationship.

I have no genetic relationship nor carried my child and there is a very strong bond.

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: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?

If you have embryos on ice there is always the chance of another baby. Nobody asked them for permission to use their embryo in the first place. This isn't a finders keepers situation. Do you have any kids of your own? Your detachment from genetic bonds is very odd.

This situation is a tragedy with no easy answers. Have you never given birth? Can you even imagine someone ripping away a child you always understood to be yours after carrying the child for nine months, having a traumatic delivery, and nursing the baby? The trauma of someone taking that child from me (exactly why I could NEVER be a surrogate).

Suggesting that the “obvious” or “easy” solution is that the birth parents should “give the baby back” is just absurd. Again, it’s a terrible situation with no easy answers.
Someone will be harmed no matter what decision is made.

DP but I think the answer is both obvious and incredibly difficult. The parents who are keeping this baby are doing the easy but unethical thing.

+1 These desperate childless parents wanted a baby by any means possible. They are putting their needs above the child's and that's what is absurd.

She carried a baby in her uterus that she genuinely believed was her own until she gave birth. I cannot believe people are blaming the birth mother for the situation.

I'm the one who said this is obvious but incredibly difficult. I don't blame her for the situation. I do think she's in a terrible situation not of her making, and I still think she's behaving unethically by keeping the child.

+1. I get her desperation, but it’s focused on just this time in the child’s life. The baby years are short. This child will be a teenager and an adult wondering about their genetic family and very likely have negative feelings about not being able to be raised by them.

As others have said, it’s a lose-lose situation, but I think the better choice would have been to give the child to their genetic family, assuming that’s what they wanted.

The genetic parents have visitation rights and will remain in the child’s life.

So you disagree with surrogacy?

No? I do disagree with non consensual, forced surrogacy.

Is forced embryo donation ok?

No! Neither is okay! As explained repeatedly, both sets of parents are real and valid parents with real and valid ties to the child. To act like what’s in the best interest of the child is an easy or obvious decision here is ridiculous.

Doing the right thing is not always easy now they will have an awkward custody situation.

All options are bad. No options are perfect. Keeping both sets of parents in the child’s life in some way is obviously in the child’s best interest.

Yes she should have been with the bio parents with her real family, culture, and community. The gestational parent can have visitation. But the baby wouldn't remember her or care about her later. There will always be a connection with the bio parents and other family. To deny this is ridiculous. It's why adoptees seek out their bio parents.

Have you ever heard of The Primal Wound? Again, all bad options here.

Adoptees seek out bio parents of course. This child will have access to her bio parents per the agreement.

Some do, some don’t. Stop projecting. My kid has full access unrestricted or monitored and chooses limited contact mostly with me doing it.

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.

Epigenetics are a real thing, but the subject has been grossly distorted and misrepresented to make infertile women who purchase other women's eggs feel better about it.

I did RIVF, so I carried a baby not related to me but didn't "purchase" anyone's eggs. I feel a strong physical connection to my child despite the lack of genetic relationship.

I am genuinely shocked by the responses here. I can't believe so many people (or maybe it's just one or two sock puppeting) feel little to no empathy for the birth mom who carried this baby and was stunned to discover their lack of relation upon birth.

Of course genetics matter. But so does carrying the infant and raising it for its first months of life.

I think the birth mom has a stronger connection to the child than bio family, and I'm glad the court system recognizes that.

Anonymous wrote:If the women who carried the child found out that she had a biological child that someone else carried, 100% chance she would switch babies.

There is no way the white woman would want to keep the baby of South Asian descent while her biological child was being raised by the family of South Asian decent.

The baby should go back to her biological parents. They never willingly gave up their child.

The child is going to grow up, realize this, realize how differently she looks from the adopted white family and by her teen years is going to want to live with her family of South Asian decent.

I doubt there would be much support if the family of South Asian descent were the ones who had custody of a white baby. Broad public support tends to favor the white family.

They can't have their own baby so they'll just help themselves to this one. There's just no justifying it. It really sucks for them, but this is just not the answer.

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: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?

If you have embryos on ice there is always the chance of another baby. Nobody asked them for permission to use their embryo in the first place. This isn't a finders keepers situation. Do you have any kids of your own? Your detachment from genetic bonds is very odd.

This situation is a tragedy with no easy answers. Have you never given birth? Can you even imagine someone ripping away a child you always understood to be yours after carrying the child for nine months, having a traumatic delivery, and nursing the baby? The trauma of someone taking that child from me (exactly why I could NEVER be a surrogate).

Suggesting that the “obvious” or “easy” solution is that the birth parents should “give the baby back” is just absurd. Again, it’s a terrible situation with no easy answers.
Someone will be harmed no matter what decision is made.

DP but I think the answer is both obvious and incredibly difficult. The parents who are keeping this baby are doing the easy but unethical thing.

+1 These desperate childless parents wanted a baby by any means possible. They are putting their needs above the child's and that's what is absurd.

She carried a baby in her uterus that she genuinely believed was her own until she gave birth. I cannot believe people are blaming the birth mother for the situation.

I'm the one who said this is obvious but incredibly difficult. I don't blame her for the situation. I do think she's in a terrible situation not of her making, and I still think she's behaving unethically by keeping the child.

+1. I get her desperation, but it’s focused on just this time in the child’s life. The baby years are short. This child will be a teenager and an adult wondering about their genetic family and very likely have negative feelings about not being able to be raised by them.

As others have said, it’s a lose-lose situation, but I think the better choice would have been to give the child to their genetic family, assuming that’s what they wanted.

The genetic parents have visitation rights and will remain in the child’s life.

So you disagree with surrogacy?

No? I do disagree with non consensual, forced surrogacy.

Is forced embryo donation ok?

No! Neither is okay! As explained repeatedly, both sets of parents are real and valid parents with real and valid ties to the child. To act like what’s in the best interest of the child is an easy or obvious decision here is ridiculous.

Doing the right thing is not always easy now they will have an awkward custody situation.

All options are bad. No options are perfect. Keeping both sets of parents in the child’s life in some way is obviously in the child’s best interest.

Yes she should have been with the bio parents with her real family, culture, and community. The gestational parent can have visitation. But the baby wouldn't remember her or care about her later. There will always be a connection with the bio parents and other family. To deny this is ridiculous. It's why adoptees seek out their bio parents.

Have you ever heard of The Primal Wound? Again, all bad options here.

Adoptees seek out bio parents of course. This child will have access to her bio parents per the agreement.

How kind to give her parents access. These people are horrendous and selfish. This isn't their baby.

It is tragic this baby is not with her biological parents who desperately wanted a child and never agreed to give away their embryos and have someone else raise their child. It is ridiculous the baby is not returned to her biological parents, but the way Florida laws are written

When Tiffany Score and her partner realized the baby was dark and couldn't be their biological child their primary motivation was NOT to keep the baby. Before the truth was uncovered, their public tone and legal focus heavily conveyed that they were desperately trying to return the baby to her biological parents AND track down their own missing biological child. They thought that their embryo was implanted in another woman and they wanted that child back.

Once they found out they did not have a biological child from a missing embryos there was a massive shift in their argument. It changed to they wanted to keep the baby.

This is from their lawsuit that they filed in January before knowing if they had a biological child that had been born from their own embryos:

"...despite the certain knowledge that Baby Doe is not their genetically matched child, the emotional bond grows stronger every minute of every day that Baby Doe remains in their care. They would willingly keep her in their care; however, for the sake of both Baby Doe and her genetic parents, they recognize that Baby Doe should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her."

And as part of the lawsuit they filed in January is a letter they wrote to the clinic where again they said they wanted the baby to be returned to her biological parents. "The first concern of our clients is for, [name of child]'s interests and the interests of her biological parents with whom she should be united as soon as humanly possible."

And of course the white parents wanted to know if they had children who should be with them. "JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE have an equally cornpelling right to be fully informed of the disposition of their own ernbryos and to be relieved of the ever-increasing mental anguish of not knowing whether a child or children belonging to them are in sorneone else's care."

The reason they can keep the baby is that they realized Florida law is in their favor. Under Florida Statute Chapter 742 (which governs determination of parentage), the woman who gives birth to a child is legally recognized as the natural mother from the moment of birth.The Exception: This status only changes if there is a pre-signed, legally binding Gestational Surrogacy Agreement.

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.

Epigenetics are a real thing, but the subject has been grossly distorted and misrepresented to make infertile women who purchase other women's eggs feel better about it.

Anonymous wrote:The black baby should be with its parents. And the doctor should be in prison.

The baby isn’t black. And the baby has two sets of parents. The genetic parents and the birth parents.

The black baby should be with its parents. And the doctor should be in prison.

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: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?

The genetic parents' lawyer said they were devastated to learn the law would not be on their side if they fought for custody.

The birth parents didn’t create “the law.” The law is what it is. And their lawyer was right. That doesn’t mean the birth family strong armed anyone.

Nobody said they created the law. Stop tilting at windmills. You asked if "anyone even [knew] if the genetic parents wanted another baby" and I told you how we know that they wanted THIS baby, which is their baby. The birthing parents made it clear they would fight for custody, the lawyers made it clear to the genetic parents that they would lose that fight, and trying to have any access to the child through a personal agreement to stay in its life was the only path forward. They were strongarmed.

Both families wanted the baby. The law said the birth mom gets the baby. Not strong arming. Just what the law is.

What a neat pivot from claiming they probably didn't even want the baby to "suck it up genetic parents, you lose."

You’re the one pivoting. The dispute is whether the birth family “strong armed” the genetic family.

Obviously they did. The law doesn't force them to keep her.

“Not giving the kid away” = “strong-arming”? Got it.

Her bio parents never gave her away either. But that's ok to you? They should just not have a chance?

None of it is “okay.” This was a horrible, negligent tragedy. Both sets of parents have equal and valid ties to the child.

But they aren't equal. The people raising her have no genetic ties whatsoever it's purely emotional.

Right she just grew in the birth mom’s womb for nine months and then the birth mom nursed and raised her. Screw that made up connection!

Also learn about epigentics.

Yes well screw it? They knew the second she was born.

It literally does not matter that she immediately knew at birth that there was mix up. She still carried and birthed the baby. And she had to raise the baby legally until she could track down the genetic parents, which took months.

That is not their baby and they know damn well.

I agree. I could not keep someone’s child if they wanted it.

It's typical entitled privileged white behavior they have been stealing brown babies for centuries. And the agreement means absolutely nothing

How entitled to *checks notes* fight for a baby you literally birthed out of your own body!

Anonymous wrote:If the women who carried the child found out that she had a biological child that someone else carried, 100% chance she would switch babies.

There is no way the white woman would want to keep the baby of South Asian descent while her biological child was being raised by the family of South Asian decent.

The baby should go back to her biological parents. They never willingly gave up their child.

The child is going to grow up, realize this, realize how differently she looks from the adopted white family and by her teen years is going to want to live with her family of South Asian decent.

I doubt there would be much support if the family of South Asian descent were the ones who had custody of a white baby. Broad public support tends to favor the white family.

You’re making a ton of assumptions, including racist ones.

Lots of white people have children of color who are wanted and loved.

While I’m “blessed” to not ever be in either of these families’ situations, I can tell you with certainty that I would not willingly give up any child I ever birthed and would love any baby I carried and birthed regardless of race or genetics. I would, however, donate embryos (and I have contract saying as much for my existing embryos).

You have absolutely no idea if the family even wanted another child or if they are capable of caring for a child. As others mentioned, the embryo could have been frozen for decades, and the bio parents could be in their 60s or 70s.

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: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?

The genetic parents' lawyer said they were devastated to learn the law would not be on their side if they fought for custody.

The birth parents didn’t create “the law.” The law is what it is. And their lawyer was right. That doesn’t mean the birth family strong armed anyone.

Nobody said they created the law. Stop tilting at windmills. You asked if "anyone even [knew] if the genetic parents wanted another baby" and I told you how we know that they wanted THIS baby, which is their baby. The birthing parents made it clear they would fight for custody, the lawyers made it clear to the genetic parents that they would lose that fight, and trying to have any access to the child through a personal agreement to stay in its life was the only path forward. They were strongarmed.

Both families wanted the baby. The law said the birth mom gets the baby. Not strong arming. Just what the law is.

What a neat pivot from claiming they probably didn't even want the baby to "suck it up genetic parents, you lose."

You’re the one pivoting. The dispute is whether the birth family “strong armed” the genetic family.

Obviously they did. The law doesn't force them to keep her.

“Not giving the kid away” = “strong-arming”? Got it.

Her bio parents never gave her away either. But that's ok to you? They should just not have a chance?

None of it is “okay.” This was a horrible, negligent tragedy. Both sets of parents have equal and valid ties to the child.

But they aren't equal. The people raising her have no genetic ties whatsoever it's purely emotional.

Right she just grew in the birth mom’s womb for nine months and then the birth mom nursed and raised her. Screw that made up connection!

Also learn about epigentics.

Yes well screw it? They knew the second she was born.

It literally does not matter that she immediately knew at birth that there was mix up. She still carried and birthed the baby. And she had to raise the baby legally until she could track down the genetic parents, which took months.

That is not their baby and they know damn well.

I agree. I could not keep someone’s child if they wanted it.

It's typical entitled privileged white behavior they have been stealing brown babies for centuries. And the agreement means absolutely nothing

If the women who carried the child found out that she had a biological child that someone else carried, 100% chance she would switch babies.

There is no way the white woman would want to keep the baby of South Asian descent while her biological child was being raised by the family of South Asian decent.

The baby should go back to her biological parents. They never willingly gave up their child.

The child is going to grow up, realize this, realize how differently she looks from the adopted white family and by her teen years is going to want to live with her family of South Asian decent.

I doubt there would be much support if the family of South Asian descent were the ones who had custody of a white baby. Broad public support tends to favor the white family.

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: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?

If you have embryos on ice there is always the chance of another baby. Nobody asked them for permission to use their embryo in the first place. This isn't a finders keepers situation. Do you have any kids of your own? Your detachment from genetic bonds is very odd.

This situation is a tragedy with no easy answers. Have you never given birth? Can you even imagine someone ripping away a child you always understood to be yours after carrying the child for nine months, having a traumatic delivery, and nursing the baby? The trauma of someone taking that child from me (exactly why I could NEVER be a surrogate).

Suggesting that the “obvious” or “easy” solution is that the birth parents should “give the baby back” is just absurd. Again, it’s a terrible situation with no easy answers.
Someone will be harmed no matter what decision is made.

DP but I think the answer is both obvious and incredibly difficult. The parents who are keeping this baby are doing the easy but unethical thing.

+1 These desperate childless parents wanted a baby by any means possible. They are putting their needs above the child's and that's what is absurd.

She carried a baby in her uterus that she genuinely believed was her own until she gave birth. I cannot believe people are blaming the birth mother for the situation.

I'm the one who said this is obvious but incredibly difficult. I don't blame her for the situation. I do think she's in a terrible situation not of her making, and I still think she's behaving unethically by keeping the child.

+1. I get her desperation, but it’s focused on just this time in the child’s life. The baby years are short. This child will be a teenager and an adult wondering about their genetic family and very likely have negative feelings about not being able to be raised by them.

As others have said, it’s a lose-lose situation, but I think the better choice would have been to give the child to their genetic family, assuming that’s what they wanted.

The genetic parents have visitation rights and will remain in the child’s life.

So you disagree with surrogacy?

No? I do disagree with non consensual, forced surrogacy.

Is forced embryo donation ok?

No! Neither is okay! As explained repeatedly, both sets of parents are real and valid parents with real and valid ties to the child. To act like what’s in the best interest of the child is an easy or obvious decision here is ridiculous.

Doing the right thing is not always easy now they will have an awkward custody situation.

All options are bad. No options are perfect. Keeping both sets of parents in the child’s life in some way is obviously in the child’s best interest.

Yes she should have been with the bio parents with her real family, culture, and community. The gestational parent can have visitation. But the baby wouldn't remember her or care about her later. There will always be a connection with the bio parents and other family. To deny this is ridiculous. It's why adoptees seek out their bio parents.

Have you ever heard of The Primal Wound? Again, all bad options here.

Adoptees seek out bio parents of course. This child will have access to her bio parents per the agreement.