Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

One more time:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You didn’t read the article. The birth parents said that they were looking for the biological parents to return the baby in their legal complaint.

Regardless of where one stands, I think people on this thread are giving too much credit to whatever each side says. Of course they’re gonna say all the right things! Bio parents won’t say “they can keep the girl, we wanted a boy anyway, and they are paying us a hefty sum at that”. The birth parents won’t say “we’d much rather have our own baby but time is running out so we’ll take the one we ended up with”.

I think they are scared of coming forward and challenging a white couple in this country. We have no idea of who these people are and to cast them as sexist because they are south Asian is entirely indecent

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

One more time:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You didn’t read the article. The birth parents said that they were looking for the biological parents to return the baby in their legal complaint.

Regardless of where one stands, I think people on this thread are giving too much credit to whatever each side says. Of course they’re gonna say all the right things! Bio parents won’t say “they can keep the girl, we wanted a boy anyway, and they are paying us a hefty sum at that”. The birth parents won’t say “we’d much rather have our own baby but time is running out so we’ll take the one we ended up with”.

I think they are scared of coming forward and challenging a white couple in this country. We have no idea of who these people are and to cast them as sexist because they are south Asian is entirely indecent

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

One more time:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You didn’t read the article. The birth parents said that they were looking for the biological parents to return the baby in their legal complaint.

Regardless of where one stands, I think people on this thread are giving too much credit to whatever each side says. Of course they’re gonna say all the right things! Bio parents won’t say “they can keep the girl, we wanted a boy anyway, and they are paying us a hefty sum at that”. The birth parents won’t say “we’d much rather have our own baby but time is running out so we’ll take the one we ended up with”.

I think they are scared of coming forward and challenging a white couple in this country. We have no idea of who these people are and to cast them as sexist because they are south Asian is entirely indecent

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

Asian oriented families don’t typically splash about and make big waves in this country. When have you ever known Asian people to do that? Come on. What planet do you live on? But it’s A-ok to accuse them of sexism. 👍.

They are trying to settle this quietly. that child is very likely to be renamed and protected by her biological parents so not to be a spectacle for any longer than absolutely necessary. But don’t worry our slimy media will out them soon enough, to hell with the child’s interests.

It is in no way “splash[ing] about and mak[ing] big waves” to simply have your lawyer assert your legal rights. If the lawyer had done any case law research at all (which he likely did), he would have told the biological parents that they had a good chance of being awarded custody in court. And if they express their desire for custody in a timely fashion, they have a better chance of taking home their baby.

It appears that there is something else going on here for the biological parents to step away so quickly. Maybe they’ll change their mind after reflecting. There’s no way to know why they decided to avoid legally pursuing custody and it is totally their right to keep their true reasons private.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I found out I had a living child out there, I would go and get them, no question. Would kidnap them if needed.

Let’s see how this plays out…..

Oh I know it’s all kinds of crazy. Probably better that I started having kids in my 20s and never did IVF.
But I have had dreams about going to kidnap my babies that were somehow out in the world. I simply could not handle someone else having my babies.

Good luck trying to raise those kids from prison!

Just think you did something wonderful in helping create a family.
And no, you are not and cannot ever be part of that 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:It's an awful situation. But if I had to go with which mom gets custody, I'd choose the birth mom. I'd have a much easier time donating an embryo than being a surrogate (not that I'd choose to do either).

One more time:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You didn’t read the article. The birth parents said that they were looking for the biological parents to return the baby in their legal complaint.

Regardless of where one stands, I think people on this thread are giving too much credit to whatever each side says. Of course they’re gonna say all the right things! Bio parents won’t say “they can keep the girl, we wanted a boy anyway, and they are paying us a hefty sum at that”. The birth parents won’t say “we’d much rather have our own baby but time is running out so we’ll take the one we ended up with”.

I think they are scared of coming forward and challenging a white couple in this country. We have no idea of who these people are and to cast them as sexist because they are south Asian is entirely indecent

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

Asian oriented families don’t typically splash about and make big waves in this country. When have you ever known Asian people to do that? Come on. What planet do you live on? But it’s A-ok to accuse them of sexism. 👍.

They are trying to settle this quietly. that child is very likely to be renamed and protected by her biological parents so not to be a spectacle for any longer than absolutely necessary. But don’t worry our slimy media will out them soon enough, to hell with the child’s interests.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I found out I had a living child out there, I would go and get them, no question. Would kidnap them if needed.

Let’s see how this plays out…..

Oh I know it’s all kinds of crazy. Probably better that I started having kids in my 20s and never did IVF.
But I have had dreams about going to kidnap my babies that were somehow out in the world. I simply could not handle someone else having my babies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I found out I had a living child out there, I would go and get them, no question. Would kidnap them if needed.

Let’s see how this plays out…..

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

One more time:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You didn’t read the article. The birth parents said that they were looking for the biological parents to return the baby in their legal complaint.

Regardless of where one stands, I think people on this thread are giving too much credit to whatever each side says. Of course they’re gonna say all the right things! Bio parents won’t say “they can keep the girl, we wanted a boy anyway, and they are paying us a hefty sum at that”. The birth parents won’t say “we’d much rather have our own baby but time is running out so we’ll take the one we ended up with”.

I think they are scared of coming forward and challenging a white couple in this country. We have no idea of who these people are and to cast them as sexist because they are south Asian is entirely indecent

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

Anonymous wrote:If I found out I had a living child out there, I would go and get them, no question. Would kidnap them if needed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

One more time:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You didn’t read the article. The birth parents said that they were looking for the biological parents to return the baby in their legal complaint.

Regardless of where one stands, I think people on this thread are giving too much credit to whatever each side says. Of course they’re gonna say all the right things! Bio parents won’t say “they can keep the girl, we wanted a boy anyway, and they are paying us a hefty sum at that”. The birth parents won’t say “we’d much rather have our own baby but time is running out so we’ll take the one we ended up with”.

I think they are scared of coming forward and challenging a white couple in this country. We have no idea of who these people are and to cast them as sexist because they are south Asian is entirely indecent

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

One more time:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You didn’t read the article. The birth parents said that they were looking for the biological parents to return the baby in their legal complaint.

Regardless of where one stands, I think people on this thread are giving too much credit to whatever each side says. Of course they’re gonna say all the right things! Bio parents won’t say “they can keep the girl, we wanted a boy anyway, and they are paying us a hefty sum at that”. The birth parents won’t say “we’d much rather have our own baby but time is running out so we’ll take the one we ended up with”.

I think they are scared of coming forward and challenging a white couple in this country. We have no idea of who these people are and to cast them as sexist because they are south Asian is entirely indecent

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

One more time:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you even read the article?

This is a quote from the complaint that initiated their lawsuit against the fertility clinic: "They would willingly keep her in their care; however, for the sake of both Shea and her genetic parents, they recognize that Shea should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her."

How do we know they’re fit, able, and willing to care for her?

FFS. You're truly a sick person.

Do you have any idea how IVF works? The parents could easily be 70 years old. We have no info about them! They reached a joint agreement with the birth parents.

Age is relevant when income is not?

Poor people provide great homes all the time. Dead people can't provide.

+1 you would think this wouldn’t need to be explained

Who are the dead people in your wild scenario?

The people supporting the gestational mother have resorted to making up bizarre scenarios in which she was not only entitled to keep the baby, but where it was practically the only option. One such scenario that they’ve dreamed up is one in which the genetic parents are so old that they’re on death’s door and are likely to die at any minute, such that they’re likely to leave this baby an orphan.

They’re also claiming that the genetic parents may be child molesters.

No, no one is saying that the biological parents are actually or probably bad. The point is that we don’t have any details about them and they reached a confidential settlement with the birth parents where the birth parents retain custody. There could be MANY reasons why this arrangement is in the best interests of the child. It also might NOT be in the best interests of the child. We can’t know because we have zero information about the biological parents, so the possibilities are endless.

And the child molester comment was responding only to the poster who made the ridiculous point that the fact that the biological parents have visitation must mean they are suitable parents. That’s certainly not what it means given that convicted child molesters frequently get visitation yet obviously are not fit to be parents.

But you *do* have details. The genetic parents' lawyer has spoken up and said they were devastated but told it would be difficult to win. The genetic parents want the child.

The genetic parents have decided to keep their privacy, which is obviously their right. By doing that, they have given up the chance to tell their story. It’s possible that if people knew more about their situation, people would be willing to help them with funds for a lawyer who could make their case.

Most people like to help other people. I think they’d find support and people willing to come forward and help them if their story were known.

Its likely required as part of the settlement for them not to say anything negative. Its a "choice" to stay private so they can have the child in their life in some way instead of not at all.

Maybe, maybe not. We really have no idea what the story is with the biological parents and there’s no way to know.

It doesn’t make sense that they’d give up on trying to get custody when the US case law indicates a good chance of being awarded their biological child. I can’t find anything on line citing a Florida statute that would go against their case for being awarded custody.

I'm a lawyer, but not a family lawyer (so take with a grain of salt). I did some legal research into Florida laws on this. This is all I found:

42.11 Presumed status of child conceived by means of artificial or in vitro insemination or donated eggs or preembryos.—
(1) Except in the case of gestational surrogacy, any child born within wedlock who has been conceived by the means of artificial or in vitro insemination is irrebuttably presumed to be the child of the husband and wife, provided that both husband and wife have consented in writing to the artificial or in vitro insemination.
(2) Except in the case of gestational surrogacy, any child born within wedlock who has been conceived by means of donated eggs or preembryos shall be irrebuttably presumed to be the child of the recipient gestating woman and her husband, provided that both parties have consented in writing to the use of donated eggs or preembryos.

The weird thing is, the birth mom isn't married, so I don't even think this presumption would apply. And I think there would be a reasonable argument that this could qualify as "gestational surrogacy." Assuming this is what the bio parents are referring to, I would fight if I really wanted the child.

These statutes aren’t as interesting or relevant as they might seem. These just codify the common law martial presumption as applied in the context of IVF and IUI.

Once again, birth mom isn't actually married.

Yes, I understand that. I just don’t think that statute is on point.

It’s not on point because she’s not married. Also because it likely wasn’t contemplated to cover an IVF mixup. Based on the statute, it seems there was a lot of room for the biological parents to make an argument.

It wouldn’t apply even if they were married.

What do you mean? I think there's room for debate, but it at least arguably would apply if they were married. The child was conceived via IVF. And both parents consented to IVF. Therefore, the child is presumed to be the child of the birthmother and her husband.

These laws are about a presumption of paternity when children are born to married parents; they aren’t applicable here, regardless of marital status.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

One more time:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you even read the article?

This is a quote from the complaint that initiated their lawsuit against the fertility clinic: "They would willingly keep her in their care; however, for the sake of both Shea and her genetic parents, they recognize that Shea should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her."

How do we know they’re fit, able, and willing to care for her?

FFS. You're truly a sick person.

Do you have any idea how IVF works? The parents could easily be 70 years old. We have no info about them! They reached a joint agreement with the birth parents.

Age is relevant when income is not?

Poor people provide great homes all the time. Dead people can't provide.

+1 you would think this wouldn’t need to be explained

Who are the dead people in your wild scenario?

The people supporting the gestational mother have resorted to making up bizarre scenarios in which she was not only entitled to keep the baby, but where it was practically the only option. One such scenario that they’ve dreamed up is one in which the genetic parents are so old that they’re on death’s door and are likely to die at any minute, such that they’re likely to leave this baby an orphan.

They’re also claiming that the genetic parents may be child molesters.

No, no one is saying that the biological parents are actually or probably bad. The point is that we don’t have any details about them and they reached a confidential settlement with the birth parents where the birth parents retain custody. There could be MANY reasons why this arrangement is in the best interests of the child. It also might NOT be in the best interests of the child. We can’t know because we have zero information about the biological parents, so the possibilities are endless.

And the child molester comment was responding only to the poster who made the ridiculous point that the fact that the biological parents have visitation must mean they are suitable parents. That’s certainly not what it means given that convicted child molesters frequently get visitation yet obviously are not fit to be parents.

But you *do* have details. The genetic parents' lawyer has spoken up and said they were devastated but told it would be difficult to win. The genetic parents want the child.

The genetic parents have decided to keep their privacy, which is obviously their right. By doing that, they have given up the chance to tell their story. It’s possible that if people knew more about their situation, people would be willing to help them with funds for a lawyer who could make their case.

Most people like to help other people. I think they’d find support and people willing to come forward and help them if their story were known.

Its likely required as part of the settlement for them not to say anything negative. Its a "choice" to stay private so they can have the child in their life in some way instead of not at all.

Maybe, maybe not. We really have no idea what the story is with the biological parents and there’s no way to know.

It doesn’t make sense that they’d give up on trying to get custody when the US case law indicates a good chance of being awarded their biological child. I can’t find anything on line citing a Florida statute that would go against their case for being awarded custody.

I'm a lawyer, but not a family lawyer (so take with a grain of salt). I did some legal research into Florida laws on this. This is all I found:

42.11 Presumed status of child conceived by means of artificial or in vitro insemination or donated eggs or preembryos.—
(1) Except in the case of gestational surrogacy, any child born within wedlock who has been conceived by the means of artificial or in vitro insemination is irrebuttably presumed to be the child of the husband and wife, provided that both husband and wife have consented in writing to the artificial or in vitro insemination.
(2) Except in the case of gestational surrogacy, any child born within wedlock who has been conceived by means of donated eggs or preembryos shall be irrebuttably presumed to be the child of the recipient gestating woman and her husband, provided that both parties have consented in writing to the use of donated eggs or preembryos.

The weird thing is, the birth mom isn't married, so I don't even think this presumption would apply. And I think there would be a reasonable argument that this could qualify as "gestational surrogacy." Assuming this is what the bio parents are referring to, I would fight if I really wanted the child.

These statutes aren’t as interesting or relevant as they might seem. These just codify the common law martial presumption as applied in the context of IVF and IUI.

Once again, birth mom isn't actually married.

Yes, I understand that. I just don’t think that statute is on point.

It’s not on point because she’s not married. Also because it likely wasn’t contemplated to cover an IVF mixup. Based on the statute, it seems there was a lot of room for the biological parents to make an argument.

It wouldn’t apply even if they were married.

What do you mean? I think there's room for debate, but it at least arguably would apply if they were married. The child was conceived via IVF. And both parents consented to IVF. Therefore, the child is presumed to be the child of the birthmother and her husband.

These laws are about a presumption of paternity when children are born to married parents; they aren’t applicable here, regardless of marital status.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

One more time:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you even read the article?

This is a quote from the complaint that initiated their lawsuit against the fertility clinic: "They would willingly keep her in their care; however, for the sake of both Shea and her genetic parents, they recognize that Shea should legally and morally be united with her genetic parents so long as they are fit, able and willing to take her."

How do we know they’re fit, able, and willing to care for her?

FFS. You're truly a sick person.

Do you have any idea how IVF works? The parents could easily be 70 years old. We have no info about them! They reached a joint agreement with the birth parents.

Age is relevant when income is not?

Poor people provide great homes all the time. Dead people can't provide.

+1 you would think this wouldn’t need to be explained

Who are the dead people in your wild scenario?

The people supporting the gestational mother have resorted to making up bizarre scenarios in which she was not only entitled to keep the baby, but where it was practically the only option. One such scenario that they’ve dreamed up is one in which the genetic parents are so old that they’re on death’s door and are likely to die at any minute, such that they’re likely to leave this baby an orphan.

They’re also claiming that the genetic parents may be child molesters.

No, no one is saying that the biological parents are actually or probably bad. The point is that we don’t have any details about them and they reached a confidential settlement with the birth parents where the birth parents retain custody. There could be MANY reasons why this arrangement is in the best interests of the child. It also might NOT be in the best interests of the child. We can’t know because we have zero information about the biological parents, so the possibilities are endless.

And the child molester comment was responding only to the poster who made the ridiculous point that the fact that the biological parents have visitation must mean they are suitable parents. That’s certainly not what it means given that convicted child molesters frequently get visitation yet obviously are not fit to be parents.

But you *do* have details. The genetic parents' lawyer has spoken up and said they were devastated but told it would be difficult to win. The genetic parents want the child.

The genetic parents have decided to keep their privacy, which is obviously their right. By doing that, they have given up the chance to tell their story. It’s possible that if people knew more about their situation, people would be willing to help them with funds for a lawyer who could make their case.

Most people like to help other people. I think they’d find support and people willing to come forward and help them if their story were known.

Its likely required as part of the settlement for them not to say anything negative. Its a "choice" to stay private so they can have the child in their life in some way instead of not at all.

Maybe, maybe not. We really have no idea what the story is with the biological parents and there’s no way to know.

It doesn’t make sense that they’d give up on trying to get custody when the US case law indicates a good chance of being awarded their biological child. I can’t find anything on line citing a Florida statute that would go against their case for being awarded custody.

I'm a lawyer, but not a family lawyer (so take with a grain of salt). I did some legal research into Florida laws on this. This is all I found:

42.11 Presumed status of child conceived by means of artificial or in vitro insemination or donated eggs or preembryos.—
(1) Except in the case of gestational surrogacy, any child born within wedlock who has been conceived by the means of artificial or in vitro insemination is irrebuttably presumed to be the child of the husband and wife, provided that both husband and wife have consented in writing to the artificial or in vitro insemination.
(2) Except in the case of gestational surrogacy, any child born within wedlock who has been conceived by means of donated eggs or preembryos shall be irrebuttably presumed to be the child of the recipient gestating woman and her husband, provided that both parties have consented in writing to the use of donated eggs or preembryos.

The weird thing is, the birth mom isn't married, so I don't even think this presumption would apply. And I think there would be a reasonable argument that this could qualify as "gestational surrogacy." Assuming this is what the bio parents are referring to, I would fight if I really wanted the child.

These statutes aren’t as interesting or relevant as they might seem. These just codify the common law martial presumption as applied in the context of IVF and IUI.

Once again, birth mom isn't actually married.

Yes, I understand that. I just don’t think that statute is on point.

It’s not on point because she’s not married. Also because it likely wasn’t contemplated to cover an IVF mixup. Based on the statute, it seems there was a lot of room for the biological parents to make an argument.

It wouldn’t apply even if they were married.

What do you mean? I think there's room for debate, but it at least arguably would apply if they were married. The child was conceived via IVF. And both parents consented to IVF. Therefore, the child is presumed to be the child of the birthmother and her husband.

But read part 2. The child was conceived with someone else's embryo and presumably the gestating parent and her partner didn't consent in writing to that arrangement ahead of time.