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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That might work, but odds are it won’t.

The kid will grow up not looking like the people she lives with, will likely endure unkind questions and comments throughout childhood because of it, and recognize her actual bio parents who love her and always wanted her are a stone’s throw away living happily with her full siblings…who look like her.

Let’s not ignore the elephant in the room, because the kid certainly won’t.

We might see a lawsuit down the road if the kid wants to live with her bio family and the custodial parents take steps to minimize contact.

The selfless act should have come from the birth parents; her bio parents should raise her…that’s the only logical solution that places what’s best for the child above all else. Surely the child will figure that out eventually.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an IVF parent I am so freaking glad we were not able to create excess embryos. Reading how many posters on this thread would feel fully entitled to someone else's genetic child based on a failure of practices by the clinic is shocking.

I’d feel equally entitled to my genetic child as to a child a birthed because of an embryo mixup. That’s why this situation is so hard. Both families have a deep and undisputed connection to the child. And neither family sis anything wrong.

I’m shocked how many families are willing to rip a baby away from the woman who birthed, nursed, and raised her.

Because everyone, even her knew the baby wasn't hers.

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.

Having given birth I can't imagine not raising my own biological child. Obviously. The pull is too great.

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."

Anonymous wrote:For me, it would depend. If I had other children and hadn’t planned any others, I would probably not try to claim primary custody and would sue the hell out of the company. If, however, I was still in the process of trying for a baby and had not had any successful pregnancies, that kid is coming home with me.

+1 Im taking my kid. The other family can sue the clinic and get a surrogate for the embryo they still apparently have

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.

Anonymous wrote:As an IVF parent I am so freaking glad we were not able to create excess embryos. Reading how many posters on this thread would feel fully entitled to someone else's genetic child based on a failure of practices by the clinic is shocking.

I’d feel equally entitled to my genetic child as to a child a birthed because of an embryo mixup. That’s why this situation is so hard. Both families have a deep and undisputed connection to the child. And neither family sis anything wrong.

I’m shocked how many families are willing to rip a baby away from the woman who birthed, nursed, and raised her.

As an IVF parent I am so freaking glad we were not able to create excess embryos. Reading how many posters on this thread would feel fully entitled to someone else's genetic child based on a failure of practices by the clinic is shocking.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

After the child’s birth, the family immediately went to national and international media trying to identify the baby’s genetic parents because they said the genetic parents deserved to know?

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.

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.