Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who's a couple weeks off the birth of my second I just can't see divorcing the connection you have with a baby you carry, not unless you're a knowing surrogate going in and are putting that mental distance in already.

I talk to him, notice his patterns, notice his hiccups, etc. We see him in the ultrasounds and my husband watches him kick. To me that's a connection that's separate from DNA. I'm in the thick of it right now but I had the same with my first kid too.

So if this couple had no reason to suspect this baby wasn't their genetic kid, mom would have gone through the same bonding and feelings.

I just can't dismiss that easily.

?

Nobody is suggesting that the woman who carried the baby for 9 months didn’t feel a bond.

Rather, some of us are baffled as to why this woman’s feelings trump doing what’s best for the baby longterm.

If someone could magically swap out this baby with one genetically connected to the white parents, I bet they would agree to the swap.

I don’t understand the assumption above about what’s best for the baby. It sounds as though both sets of parents are equally able to provide good parenting and a loving home for this baby. Since the baby is already bonded with the family she was born into, wouldn’t it be traumatic to take her and give her to a different family now? Even if they are her genetic parents?

We don't know that both sets of parents are "equally able" to provide good parenting for the child. We don't have information about the biological parents, but we do know that birth parent are unmarried, a different race from the child, and begging for money from Go Fund Me.

The birth parents knew immediately upon birth that this was not their genetic child. Within a few months, they located the bio parents. Had the birth parents wanted to minimize trauma for the child (as opposed to themselves), they could've surrendered the baby to the bio parents then.

Instead, the birth parents made clear that they intended to keep the baby. They also sued for money (not that I blame them), ran a Go Fund Me, and took the story public.

They were trying to track down the bio parents because the clinic was no help. I'm not saying the birth parents are fantastic people or anything, but we know nothing about the bio parents whatsoever and have no basis to conclude that they are better or more fit from the information available. People here are just filling in with their own projections.

It's possible the bio parents would have been the best and most loving parents with the most sympathetic circumstances. It's also possible the bio parents are 70 years old, the embryo had been frozen for decades, the bio parents are divorced/impoverished/in bad health/felons/etc. We. Do. Not. Know.

Stop making things up. The baby is now with a couple that isn’t married, need money, with questionable employment. Sounds pretty bad. I doubt they would ever be adoption candidates.

We. Don’t. Know. Anything. About. The. Bio. Parents.

We know about the white couple. Keep up.

Very interesting, DCUM. I have completely changed my mind on my position over the course of reading this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who's a couple weeks off the birth of my second I just can't see divorcing the connection you have with a baby you carry, not unless you're a knowing surrogate going in and are putting that mental distance in already.

I talk to him, notice his patterns, notice his hiccups, etc. We see him in the ultrasounds and my husband watches him kick. To me that's a connection that's separate from DNA. I'm in the thick of it right now but I had the same with my first kid too.

So if this couple had no reason to suspect this baby wasn't their genetic kid, mom would have gone through the same bonding and feelings.

I just can't dismiss that easily.

?

Nobody is suggesting that the woman who carried the baby for 9 months didn’t feel a bond.

Rather, some of us are baffled as to why this woman’s feelings trump doing what’s best for the baby longterm.

If someone could magically swap out this baby with one genetically connected to the white parents, I bet they would agree to the swap.

I don’t understand the assumption above about what’s best for the baby. It sounds as though both sets of parents are equally able to provide good parenting and a loving home for this baby. Since the baby is already bonded with the family she was born into, wouldn’t it be traumatic to take her and give her to a different family now? Even if they are her genetic parents?

We don't know that both sets of parents are "equally able" to provide good parenting for the child. We don't have information about the biological parents, but we do know that birth parent are unmarried, a different race from the child, and begging for money from Go Fund Me.

The birth parents knew immediately upon birth that this was not their genetic child. Within a few months, they located the bio parents. Had the birth parents wanted to minimize trauma for the child (as opposed to themselves), they could've surrendered the baby to the bio parents then.

Instead, the birth parents made clear that they intended to keep the baby. They also sued for money (not that I blame them), ran a Go Fund Me, and took the story public.

What does “different race” matter? People adopt children of different races all the time. I have a number of friends with kids of different races, either by adoption or because the other parent was of a different race and it is not a big deal.

Generally speaking, it doesn’t matter in the context of a traditional adoption where the birth parents voluntarily give up their child and typically have a hand in selecting the adoptive parents. And most adoptions are closed.

This situation is unique: a mixup prompted the custodial parents to claim parental rights.

Racial differences always prompt looks and questions (even in 2026). The kid will grow up looking different from her parents. Moreover, she will know exactly who her birth parents are, that they wanted her, and only consented to this ridiculous setup because the law was against them and the people raising her didn’t relinquish rights to the bio parents who look like her.

If you don’t see how this will saddle the child with a lifetime of baggage, then let’s agree to disagree.

PS - I know a woman whose adoption went off the rails and she had to give the baby back a couple weeks after receiving the newborn from a troubled teen mom. Guess what? It was hard, but she quickly got over it once she was able to adopt another baby.

It speaks volumes that people keep calling the non birthing bio parents “birth parents.” You’re telling on yourself that you know giving birth to a child actually does matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who's a couple weeks off the birth of my second I just can't see divorcing the connection you have with a baby you carry, not unless you're a knowing surrogate going in and are putting that mental distance in already.

I talk to him, notice his patterns, notice his hiccups, etc. We see him in the ultrasounds and my husband watches him kick. To me that's a connection that's separate from DNA. I'm in the thick of it right now but I had the same with my first kid too.

So if this couple had no reason to suspect this baby wasn't their genetic kid, mom would have gone through the same bonding and feelings.

I just can't dismiss that easily.

?

Nobody is suggesting that the woman who carried the baby for 9 months didn’t feel a bond.

Rather, some of us are baffled as to why this woman’s feelings trump doing what’s best for the baby longterm.

If someone could magically swap out this baby with one genetically connected to the white parents, I bet they would agree to the swap.

I don’t understand the assumption above about what’s best for the baby. It sounds as though both sets of parents are equally able to provide good parenting and a loving home for this baby. Since the baby is already bonded with the family she was born into, wouldn’t it be traumatic to take her and give her to a different family now? Even if they are her genetic parents?

We don't know that both sets of parents are "equally able" to provide good parenting for the child. We don't have information about the biological parents, but we do know that birth parent are unmarried, a different race from the child, and begging for money from Go Fund Me.

The birth parents knew immediately upon birth that this was not their genetic child. Within a few months, they located the bio parents. Had the birth parents wanted to minimize trauma for the child (as opposed to themselves), they could've surrendered the baby to the bio parents then.

Instead, the birth parents made clear that they intended to keep the baby. They also sued for money (not that I blame them), ran a Go Fund Me, and took the story public.

They were trying to track down the bio parents because the clinic was no help. I'm not saying the birth parents are fantastic people or anything, but we know nothing about the bio parents whatsoever and have no basis to conclude that they are better or more fit from the information available. People here are just filling in with their own projections.

It's possible the bio parents would have been the best and most loving parents with the most sympathetic circumstances. It's also possible the bio parents are 70 years old, the embryo had been frozen for decades, the bio parents are divorced/impoverished/in bad health/felons/etc. We. Do. Not. Know.

Stop making things up. The baby is now with a couple that isn’t married, need money, with questionable employment. Sounds pretty bad. I doubt they would ever be adoption candidates.

We. Don’t. Know. Anything. About. The. Bio. Parents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who's a couple weeks off the birth of my second I just can't see divorcing the connection you have with a baby you carry, not unless you're a knowing surrogate going in and are putting that mental distance in already.

I talk to him, notice his patterns, notice his hiccups, etc. We see him in the ultrasounds and my husband watches him kick. To me that's a connection that's separate from DNA. I'm in the thick of it right now but I had the same with my first kid too.

So if this couple had no reason to suspect this baby wasn't their genetic kid, mom would have gone through the same bonding and feelings.

I just can't dismiss that easily.

?

Nobody is suggesting that the woman who carried the baby for 9 months didn’t feel a bond.

Rather, some of us are baffled as to why this woman’s feelings trump doing what’s best for the baby longterm.

If someone could magically swap out this baby with one genetically connected to the white parents, I bet they would agree to the swap.

I don’t understand the assumption above about what’s best for the baby. It sounds as though both sets of parents are equally able to provide good parenting and a loving home for this baby. Since the baby is already bonded with the family she was born into, wouldn’t it be traumatic to take her and give her to a different family now? Even if they are her genetic parents?

We don't know that both sets of parents are "equally able" to provide good parenting for the child. We don't have information about the biological parents, but we do know that birth parent are unmarried, a different race from the child, and begging for money from Go Fund Me.

The birth parents knew immediately upon birth that this was not their genetic child. Within a few months, they located the bio parents. Had the birth parents wanted to minimize trauma for the child (as opposed to themselves), they could've surrendered the baby to the bio parents then.

Instead, the birth parents made clear that they intended to keep the baby. They also sued for money (not that I blame them), ran a Go Fund Me, and took the story public.

What does “different race” matter? People adopt children of different races all the time. I have a number of friends with kids of different races, either by adoption or because the other parent was of a different race and it is not a big deal.

Generally speaking, it doesn’t matter in the context of a traditional adoption where the birth parents voluntarily give up their child and typically have a hand in selecting the adoptive parents. And most adoptions are closed.

This situation is unique: a mixup prompted the custodial parents to claim parental rights.

Racial differences always prompt looks and questions (even in 2026). The kid will grow up looking different from her parents. Moreover, she will know exactly who her birth parents are, that they wanted her, and only consented to this ridiculous setup because the law was against them and the people raising her didn’t relinquish rights to the bio parents who look like her.

If you don’t see how this will saddle the child with a lifetime of baggage, then let’s agree to disagree.

PS - I know a woman whose adoption went off the rails and she had to give the baby back a couple weeks after receiving the newborn from a troubled teen mom. Guess what? It was hard, but she quickly got over it once she was able to adopt another baby.

She didn’t gestate, birth, or nurse the baby like the mom did here. She was aware of the rescission period for adoption and consented to it. I also highly doubt she “got over it.”

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: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.

Sure. I'm not saying otherwise. But as you acknowledged, the child has no genetic connection to you. I'm not diminishing your love for your kid, but the people who push the epigenetics myth assert that by carrying the child, you create a genetic relationship to the child.

We have a physical and genetic connection. I am also not a bio parent.

I have no idea what your specific circumstances are, but if your child was created from the egg of someone who is not you or is not genetically related to you, you have no genetic connection to your child. That doesn't diminish your love and emotional connection at all, but the fact remains.

I'm not infertile or delusional. We're not genetically related, and I am not the biological parent. But my carrying my child had a permanent physical impact on my child's genetic expression. That is beyond dispute.

Were you in a custody dispute with the bio parents?

That was never the question and has no bearing on the birth mother's physical connection to the child.

Why did the parents bother at all with genetic testing? What difference does it make?

You don't know how the IVF screwed up.

That’s not what someone is arguing here. The person who gave birth is the mother. Period. Right? So why check?

You don't know where the mixup was on the part of the IVF facility. It's entirely possible that child had a genetic relationship to one of couple raising the child.

No, the birth parents have no genetic relationship to the child.

We know that because the birth parents tested. A poster asked, why did they test. Try to keep up.

Yes bc according to some biological bonds are meaningless and worthless babies are interchangeable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who's a couple weeks off the birth of my second I just can't see divorcing the connection you have with a baby you carry, not unless you're a knowing surrogate going in and are putting that mental distance in already.

I talk to him, notice his patterns, notice his hiccups, etc. We see him in the ultrasounds and my husband watches him kick. To me that's a connection that's separate from DNA. I'm in the thick of it right now but I had the same with my first kid too.

So if this couple had no reason to suspect this baby wasn't their genetic kid, mom would have gone through the same bonding and feelings.

I just can't dismiss that easily.

?

Nobody is suggesting that the woman who carried the baby for 9 months didn’t feel a bond.

Rather, some of us are baffled as to why this woman’s feelings trump doing what’s best for the baby longterm.

If someone could magically swap out this baby with one genetically connected to the white parents, I bet they would agree to the swap.

I don’t understand the assumption above about what’s best for the baby. It sounds as though both sets of parents are equally able to provide good parenting and a loving home for this baby. Since the baby is already bonded with the family she was born into, wouldn’t it be traumatic to take her and give her to a different family now? Even if they are her genetic parents?

We don't know that both sets of parents are "equally able" to provide good parenting for the child. We don't have information about the biological parents, but we do know that birth parent are unmarried, a different race from the child, and begging for money from Go Fund Me.

The birth parents knew immediately upon birth that this was not their genetic child. Within a few months, they located the bio parents. Had the birth parents wanted to minimize trauma for the child (as opposed to themselves), they could've surrendered the baby to the bio parents then.

Instead, the birth parents made clear that they intended to keep the baby. They also sued for money (not that I blame them), ran a Go Fund Me, and took the story public.

They were trying to track down the bio parents because the clinic was no help. I'm not saying the birth parents are fantastic people or anything, but we know nothing about the bio parents whatsoever and have no basis to conclude that they are better or more fit from the information available. People here are just filling in with their own projections.

It's possible the bio parents would have been the best and most loving parents with the most sympathetic circumstances. It's also possible the bio parents are 70 years old, the embryo had been frozen for decades, the bio parents are divorced/impoverished/in bad health/felons/etc. We. Do. Not. Know.

Stop making things up. The baby is now with a couple that isn’t married, need money, with questionable employment. Sounds pretty bad. I doubt they would ever be adoption candidates.

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: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.

Sure. I'm not saying otherwise. But as you acknowledged, the child has no genetic connection to you. I'm not diminishing your love for your kid, but the people who push the epigenetics myth assert that by carrying the child, you create a genetic relationship to the child.

We have a physical and genetic connection. I am also not a bio parent.

I have no idea what your specific circumstances are, but if your child was created from the egg of someone who is not you or is not genetically related to you, you have no genetic connection to your child. That doesn't diminish your love and emotional connection at all, but the fact remains.

I'm not infertile or delusional. We're not genetically related, and I am not the biological parent. But my carrying my child had a permanent physical impact on my child's genetic expression. That is beyond dispute.

Were you in a custody dispute with the bio parents?

That was never the question and has no bearing on the birth mother's physical connection to the child.

Why did the parents bother at all with genetic testing? What difference does it make?

You don't know how the IVF screwed up.

That’s not what someone is arguing here. The person who gave birth is the mother. Period. Right? So why check?

You don't know where the mixup was on the part of the IVF facility. It's entirely possible that child had a genetic relationship to one of couple raising the child.

No, the birth parents have no genetic relationship to the child.

We know that because the birth parents tested. A poster asked, why did they test. Try to keep up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who's a couple weeks off the birth of my second I just can't see divorcing the connection you have with a baby you carry, not unless you're a knowing surrogate going in and are putting that mental distance in already.

I talk to him, notice his patterns, notice his hiccups, etc. We see him in the ultrasounds and my husband watches him kick. To me that's a connection that's separate from DNA. I'm in the thick of it right now but I had the same with my first kid too.

So if this couple had no reason to suspect this baby wasn't their genetic kid, mom would have gone through the same bonding and feelings.

I just can't dismiss that easily.

?

Nobody is suggesting that the woman who carried the baby for 9 months didn’t feel a bond.

Rather, some of us are baffled as to why this woman’s feelings trump doing what’s best for the baby longterm.

If someone could magically swap out this baby with one genetically connected to the white parents, I bet they would agree to the swap.

I don’t understand the assumption above about what’s best for the baby. It sounds as though both sets of parents are equally able to provide good parenting and a loving home for this baby. Since the baby is already bonded with the family she was born into, wouldn’t it be traumatic to take her and give her to a different family now? Even if they are her genetic parents?

We don't know that both sets of parents are "equally able" to provide good parenting for the child. We don't have information about the biological parents, but we do know that birth parent are unmarried, a different race from the child, and begging for money from Go Fund Me.

The birth parents knew immediately upon birth that this was not their genetic child. Within a few months, they located the bio parents. Had the birth parents wanted to minimize trauma for the child (as opposed to themselves), they could've surrendered the baby to the bio parents then.

Instead, the birth parents made clear that they intended to keep the baby. They also sued for money (not that I blame them), ran a Go Fund Me, and took the story public.

What does “different race” matter? People adopt children of different races all the time. I have a number of friends with kids of different races, either by adoption or because the other parent was of a different race and it is not a big deal.

Generally speaking, it doesn’t matter in the context of a traditional adoption where the birth parents voluntarily give up their child and typically have a hand in selecting the adoptive parents. And most adoptions are closed.

This situation is unique: a mixup prompted the custodial parents to claim parental rights.

Racial differences always prompt looks and questions (even in 2026). The kid will grow up looking different from her parents. Moreover, she will know exactly who her birth parents are, that they wanted her, and only consented to this ridiculous setup because the law was against them and the people raising her didn’t relinquish rights to the bio parents who look like her.

If you don’t see how this will saddle the child with a lifetime of baggage, then let’s agree to disagree.

PS - I know a woman whose adoption went off the rails and she had to give the baby back a couple weeks after receiving the newborn from a troubled teen mom. Guess what? It was hard, but she quickly got over it once she was able to adopt another baby.

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: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.

Sure. I'm not saying otherwise. But as you acknowledged, the child has no genetic connection to you. I'm not diminishing your love for your kid, but the people who push the epigenetics myth assert that by carrying the child, you create a genetic relationship to the child.

We have a physical and genetic connection. I am also not a bio parent.

I have no idea what your specific circumstances are, but if your child was created from the egg of someone who is not you or is not genetically related to you, you have no genetic connection to your child. That doesn't diminish your love and emotional connection at all, but the fact remains.

I'm not infertile or delusional. We're not genetically related, and I am not the biological parent. But my carrying my child had a permanent physical impact on my child's genetic expression. That is beyond dispute.

Were you in a custody dispute with the bio parents?

That was never the question and has no bearing on the birth mother's physical connection to the child.

Why did the parents bother at all with genetic testing? What difference does it make?

You don't know how the IVF screwed up.

That’s not what someone is arguing here. The person who gave birth is the mother. Period. Right? So why check?

You don't know where the mixup was on the part of the IVF facility. It's entirely possible that child had a genetic relationship to one of couple raising the child.

No, the birth parents have no genetic relationship to the child.

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: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.

Sure. I'm not saying otherwise. But as you acknowledged, the child has no genetic connection to you. I'm not diminishing your love for your kid, but the people who push the epigenetics myth assert that by carrying the child, you create a genetic relationship to the child.

We have a physical and genetic connection. I am also not a bio parent.

I have no idea what your specific circumstances are, but if your child was created from the egg of someone who is not you or is not genetically related to you, you have no genetic connection to your child. That doesn't diminish your love and emotional connection at all, but the fact remains.

I'm not infertile or delusional. We're not genetically related, and I am not the biological parent. But my carrying my child had a permanent physical impact on my child's genetic expression. That is beyond dispute.

Were you in a custody dispute with the bio parents?

That was never the question and has no bearing on the birth mother's physical connection to the child.

Why did the parents bother at all with genetic testing? What difference does it make?

You don't know how the IVF screwed up.

That’s not what someone is arguing here. The person who gave birth is the mother. Period. Right? So why check?

You don't know where the mixup was on the part of the IVF facility. It's entirely possible that child had a genetic relationship to one of couple raising the child.

Anonymous wrote:It’s bizarre how so many posters think a few months with a baby is “raising a child” that outweighs the rights of the biological parents. If this happened in a modern state, the baby would go back to its biological parents but since it happened in a backwater Southern state, the real parents are left out.

Just shows how different people’s values and feelings are concerning genetics, pregnancy, birth, etc. Your values and feelings aren’t the only ones.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who's a couple weeks off the birth of my second I just can't see divorcing the connection you have with a baby you carry, not unless you're a knowing surrogate going in and are putting that mental distance in already.

I talk to him, notice his patterns, notice his hiccups, etc. We see him in the ultrasounds and my husband watches him kick. To me that's a connection that's separate from DNA. I'm in the thick of it right now but I had the same with my first kid too.

So if this couple had no reason to suspect this baby wasn't their genetic kid, mom would have gone through the same bonding and feelings.

I just can't dismiss that easily.

?

Nobody is suggesting that the woman who carried the baby for 9 months didn’t feel a bond.

Rather, some of us are baffled as to why this woman’s feelings trump doing what’s best for the baby longterm.

If someone could magically swap out this baby with one genetically connected to the white parents, I bet they would agree to the swap.

I don’t understand the assumption above about what’s best for the baby. It sounds as though both sets of parents are equally able to provide good parenting and a loving home for this baby. Since the baby is already bonded with the family she was born into, wouldn’t it be traumatic to take her and give her to a different family now? Even if they are her genetic parents?

We don't know that both sets of parents are "equally able" to provide good parenting for the child. We don't have information about the biological parents, but we do know that birth parent are unmarried, a different race from the child, and begging for money from Go Fund Me.

The birth parents knew immediately upon birth that this was not their genetic child. Within a few months, they located the bio parents. Had the birth parents wanted to minimize trauma for the child (as opposed to themselves), they could've surrendered the baby to the bio parents then.

Instead, the birth parents made clear that they intended to keep the baby. They also sued for money (not that I blame them), ran a Go Fund Me, and took the story public.

What does “different race” matter? People adopt children of different races all the time. I have a number of friends with kids of different races, either by adoption or because the other parent was of a different race and it is not a big deal.

Sigh. I'll be you "don't see color" either.

The one bright spot is that the child will have some sort of relationship with their biological parents so will presumably have exposure to their culture.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who's a couple weeks off the birth of my second I just can't see divorcing the connection you have with a baby you carry, not unless you're a knowing surrogate going in and are putting that mental distance in already.

I talk to him, notice his patterns, notice his hiccups, etc. We see him in the ultrasounds and my husband watches him kick. To me that's a connection that's separate from DNA. I'm in the thick of it right now but I had the same with my first kid too.

So if this couple had no reason to suspect this baby wasn't their genetic kid, mom would have gone through the same bonding and feelings.

I just can't dismiss that easily.

?

Nobody is suggesting that the woman who carried the baby for 9 months didn’t feel a bond.

Rather, some of us are baffled as to why this woman’s feelings trump doing what’s best for the baby longterm.

If someone could magically swap out this baby with one genetically connected to the white parents, I bet they would agree to the swap.

I don’t understand the assumption above about what’s best for the baby. It sounds as though both sets of parents are equally able to provide good parenting and a loving home for this baby. Since the baby is already bonded with the family she was born into, wouldn’t it be traumatic to take her and give her to a different family now? Even if they are her genetic parents?

We don't know that both sets of parents are "equally able" to provide good parenting for the child. We don't have information about the biological parents, but we do know that birth parent are unmarried, a different race from the child, and begging for money from Go Fund Me.

The birth parents knew immediately upon birth that this was not their genetic child. Within a few months, they located the bio parents. Had the birth parents wanted to minimize trauma for the child (as opposed to themselves), they could've surrendered the baby to the bio parents then.

Instead, the birth parents made clear that they intended to keep the baby. They also sued for money (not that I blame them), ran a Go Fund Me, and took the story public.

What does “different race” matter? People adopt children of different races all the time. I have a number of friends with kids of different races, either by adoption or because the other parent was of a different race and it is not a big deal.

It’s bizarre how so many posters think a few months with a baby is “raising a child” that outweighs the rights of the biological parents. If this happened in a modern state, the baby would go back to its biological parents but since it happened in a backwater Southern state, the real parents are left out.