Title sounds like a crazy or stupid person, but she got mistakenly implanted with the embryo of another woman. That's a nightmarish level screwup by the fertility clinic, I can't imagine the...
Title sounds like a crazy or stupid person, but she got mistakenly implanted with the embryo of another woman. That's a nightmarish level screwup by the fertility clinic, I can't imagine the mental anguish she has to endure after carrying and delivering a child, and caring for him for five months before having to give him up because there was zero chance she'd be able to retain custody in court for reasons outside her control.
Just... damn. That's the sort of mistake that should honestly end a career. This sort of mental damage can ruin people forever.
The irony is in a different state it doesn't matter about the genetics just the birthing parent. Fuck that sucks for her. And there's trauma for the infant too
The irony is in a different state it doesn't matter about the genetics just the birthing parent.
Fuck that sucks for her. And there's trauma for the infant too
Most things around adoption say "first few months". My five month old niece absolutely knew if it wasn't mom or dad holding her, and cried accordingly. (And that doesn't get into the parental...
Most things around adoption say "first few months". My five month old niece absolutely knew if it wasn't mom or dad holding her, and cried accordingly. (And that doesn't get into the parental trauma being passed down from the situation.)
I would basically never say that there's "zero trauma" around losing/changing a parent. Adoptees have strong feelings though their situations differ from this obviously. Once bonding happens there's at least some emotional disruption. Whether that is lifelong trauma or not depends on so many other things that I don't know.
I can't imagine she will recover fully from this. She knew immediately after birth that it wasn't a baby from her own egg, but she resolved to raise him. It's a complex situation ethically but I...
I can't imagine she will recover fully from this. She knew immediately after birth that it wasn't a baby from her own egg, but she resolved to raise him. It's a complex situation ethically but I could see myself making a similar choice.
I would never get over having my baby taken from me (legally) and there's nothing I can do about it. And given what she went through it's hard not to call him "her" baby. Of course he is also his biological parents' baby.
This is an awful mistake with no recourse that makes up for the damage caused to all parties.
They demanded custody, Murray said, and she gave up the 5-month-old boy to avoid a legal fight she couldn’t win.
Is this true? I don't know a thing about the laws around this kind of stuff but surely there would be some room for debate?
I don't know. What I do know is that court cases take years. Switching custody at 5 months is going to be less traumatic for the child than switching custody at age 3 or 4 or 5.
I don't know. What I do know is that court cases take years. Switching custody at 5 months is going to be less traumatic for the child than switching custody at age 3 or 4 or 5.
Thank you for these words. After reading through the comments and "switching sides" several times, this really resonated with me as the only conclusion that felt firmly defensible to me. All the...
This is an awful mistake with no recourse that makes up for the damage caused to all parties.
Thank you for these words.
After reading through the comments and "switching sides" several times, this really resonated with me as the only conclusion that felt firmly defensible to me. All the rest of it is a minefield of ethical decisions so deeply personal as to be undecideable from the outside. A tragedy for all four of them.
The law was probably made with surrogacy in mind, to ensure that the surrogate wouldn't change their mind after giving birth and cause a drawn-out legal battle. This case is exceptional since it...
The law was probably made with surrogacy in mind, to ensure that the surrogate wouldn't change their mind after giving birth and cause a drawn-out legal battle. This case is exceptional since it wasn't meant to be a surrogacy, but laws have little leeway for exceptions.
I don't think it's so clear cut, we don't know how many embryos the other couple had and the follicle stimulating part of IVF is the part that maximally sucks and people often do not want to go...
I don't think it's so clear cut, we don't know how many embryos the other couple had and the follicle stimulating part of IVF is the part that maximally sucks and people often do not want to go through again. I think giving the child to the genetic parents is fine, and I'd hope they would keep her involved as much as possible because of course the attachment over pregnancy/5 months is significant. We had our daughter that was born via IVF paternity/maternity tested within a month of her birth specifically because as rare as it could be, mistakes happen. In a country where wrong site surgery is a regular occurrence is was important to verify. And I'd be devastated if we lost even one embryo. There's an emotional attachment and drain from IVF that is hard to describe. Either way this is a horror story, and I cant believe the clinic would have such awful controls. I was destroyed when that story of a woman breaking into an IVF clinic and carelessly destroying embryos happened a few years back, that's like murder levels of rage if I was any of the couples affected.
An IVF clinic made a mistake, the child wasn't hers, zero of her own genes involved, and she was ultimately an unknowing/unwilling surrogate for someone else's very much desired child. If you can...
The law saying that the baby’s genes matter more than the woman who was pregnant gave birth is absolutely idiotic.
An IVF clinic made a mistake, the child wasn't hers, zero of her own genes involved, and she was ultimately an unknowing/unwilling surrogate for someone else's very much desired child. If you can find some laws on the books that effectively say "a surrogate that wants to keep the baby, can do so" I'd be willing to see it.
Not even going to guess how you go from IVF mistake to domestic terrorism attacks.
In states that allow surrogacy and enforce surrogacy agreements, the surrogate signs a contract giving up parental rights prior to the relevant fertility treatments begin. There are plenty of...
In states that allow surrogacy and enforce surrogacy agreements, the surrogate signs a contract giving up parental rights prior to the relevant fertility treatments begin. There are plenty of places where even a willing surrogate could make a claim for the baby and win, as not all US states even recognize surrogacy contracts (and other countries are often even more restrictive on the practice), but the fact that she was forced to give up the child despite having never signed such a contract is pretty galling. You cannot simply say "the child wasn't hers" as though it's something that's obviously true in this scenario -- she gestated and birthed it and wanted to raise it, and in some jurisdictions that would be more than enough. I know that in the US it does matter legally whether the surrogate contributed her own egg or not, so I wonder whether that was a factor in the legal analysis here. I think comparing this to surrogacy legally-speaking reflects extremely poorly on these circumstances, as if you compare it to something like paid surrogacy this woman was more or less used for slave labor.
Such as? She wasn't forced to give it up, she gave up the child to avoid a legal fight she likely wouldn't win, per her lawyer. Without actually fighting it, no one will ever know. I said...
There are plenty of places where even a willing surrogate could make a claim for the baby and win
[...] and in some jurisdictions that would be more than enough.
Such as?
but the fact that she was forced to give up the child despite having never signed such a contract is pretty galling.
She wasn't forced to give it up, she gave up the child to avoid a legal fight she likely wouldn't win, per her lawyer. Without actually fighting it, no one will ever know.
I think comparing this to surrogacy legally-speaking reflects extremely poorly on these circumstances, as if you compare it to something like paid surrogacy this woman was more or less used for slave labor.
I said unknowing/unwilling surrogate, calling it slave labor is a falsehood that isn't even close to any slavery definitions and cheapens the meaning of the word.
Germany, since it makes surrogate contracts illegal and void AFAIK. Also… I’m usually careful in tossing certain words around; and also semantics aren’t the point here, I get that, but sincerely,...
Such as?
Germany, since it makes surrogate contracts illegal and void AFAIK.
Also… I’m usually careful in tossing certain words around; and also semantics aren’t the point here, I get that, but sincerely, what else would you call unwanted “mandatory” work without reward?
Your example contradicts your own stance. Surrogacy being illegal doesn't make the child the surrogate's and while your link does say that would be the case if this child was born in Germany,...
Your example contradicts your own stance. Surrogacy being illegal doesn't make the child the surrogate's and while your link does say that would be the case if this child was born in Germany, which it wasn't, but it also states that a foreign country that does allow surrogacy and deems someone else to be the parents they accept as the legal parents, which is the case here.
It wasn't unwanted and it wasn't mandatory; she wanted a to carry a child, no one forced her to do so. A terrible, irreparable mistake was made, but it wasn't anything close to slavery.
No, she wanted to carry her child, and then she wanted to raise that child. The pregnancy was not the end goal, giving birth and raising a child was. To have to go through the entire pregnancy,...
It wasn't unwanted and it wasn't mandatory; she wanted a to carry a child,
No, she wanted to carry her child, and then she wanted to raise that child. The pregnancy was not the end goal, giving birth and raising a child was.
To have to go through the entire pregnancy, bond with the infant you carried, and then have them taken from you after 5 months is horrendous. People are successfully raised by parents they aren’t genetically related to all the time, it isn’t a problem.
Surrogacy is generally expensive for a reason. At the very least, she should be compensated fairly for that work by either the genetic parents or the clinic, in addition to hefty damages from the clinic. “Whoopsie, we’ll put in some more double checks” is nowhere near an adequate response.
She’s not only out the money she paid for treatment, but she’s gone through a pregnancy and birth, and lost valuable years to have her own child. If they haven’t been able to find her embryos, that’s even worse, since egg quality and quantity tends to decline with age and another retrieval is both taxing and not guaranteed to be successful.
I'm not saying there wasn't bonding, trauma, irreparable mistakes made, so on and so forth. She deserves every single reparation under the sun for the IVF clinic's fuckup, but she doesn't get to...
I'm not saying there wasn't bonding, trauma, irreparable mistakes made, so on and so forth. She deserves every single reparation under the sun for the IVF clinic's fuckup, but she doesn't get to keep a child that is not biologically hers in any way because of that fuckup.
She wanted to carry her child, she didn't. This wasn't by choice, but it did happen. There's likely not a single country where IVF is commonplace where a mistake at the IVF clinic is going to result in a white couple getting to keep a black child just because it was carried to term unwittingly in the non-biological mother's body.
Quite a lot of jurisdictions outside the US (at least through my limited research) either ban surrogacy altogether or have very strict limits on the matter. Surrogacy is prohibited by law here in...
Quite a lot of jurisdictions outside the US (at least through my limited research) either ban surrogacy altogether or have very strict limits on the matter. Surrogacy is prohibited by law here in Germany. Under UK law, while surrogacy is legal, the surrogate is the legal mother at birth and changes to legal parentage must apply for a parental order that requires consent of the surrogate (and her partner if she's married) no earlier than 6 weeks after the birth of the baby.
Individual US states have different laws regarding surrogacy and my non-lawyer understanding is that a lot of it is based on legal precedent rather than straight-up legislation on the matter (afaik it's a weird legal patchwork), so I can't say for sure which states would or wouldn't have allowed her to keep this baby under these unfortunate and abnormal circumstances. While the US is pretty surrogacy-friendly on an international level, there's enough internal variation that her legal ability to keep the child almost definitely hinged on which state she was located in (as well as on the competence of her legal counsel and how much she could afford to fight in court, ofc).
I'm kinda frightened by how little you seem to regard the horror of being an unwilling surrogate -- that's an abhorrent thing to have happen to you and you seem pretty blasé about it in your comments.
This whole situation is horrific for all the parties involved. If custody went the other way then the biological parents would be in a situation of being forced embryo donors.
This whole situation is horrific for all the parties involved. If custody went the other way then the biological parents would be in a situation of being forced embryo donors.
Makes one wonder that if some here consider her a slave for unwillingly carrying the child to term and giving the child back, if they'd call her a thief or kidnapper if the story was about the...
Makes one wonder that if some here consider her a slave for unwillingly carrying the child to term and giving the child back, if they'd call her a thief or kidnapper if the story was about the biological parents wanting their child and she refused to do so...
The Germany defense was already debunked above. You stated other places would have allowed her to keep that child, I asked for sources to a claim you apparently cannot provide. I'm not blasé about...
The Germany defense was already debunked above. You stated other places would have allowed her to keep that child, I asked for sources to a claim you apparently cannot provide.
I'm not blasé about it at all, I'm just not letting emotions get in the way of facts or using prosperously inappropriate definitions to support an opinion.
I literally linked to the UK website describing the law that explicitly gives the surrogate legal parenthood unless the surrogate and the surrogate's spouse consent to giving the child up six...
I literally linked to the UK website describing the law that explicitly gives the surrogate legal parenthood unless the surrogate and the surrogate's spouse consent to giving the child up six weeks after the child's birth. Under that law, she absolutely would have been allowed to keep the child. If that doesn't count as providing a source, you did not read my comment.
You're being kind of an asshole here for no particular reason -- I literally am just sharing trivia about surrogacy law (stuff that's pretty easily google-able, as anything more complex requires a lawyer with relevant expertise) and expressing my horror at what is an objectively horrific situation. Why did you post this article if you did not want anyone to feel sympathy for the woman who was forced to carry a baby to term that she was ultimately never going to legally be allowed to keep under the laws in her jurisdiction?
The UK link also disproves your statements. It states quite clearly that while surrogates are considered the parent until a parental order deems otherwise, the parental order is ruled in the best...
The UK link also disproves your statements. It states quite clearly that while surrogates are considered the parent until a parental order deems otherwise, the parental order is ruled in the best interests of the child; AKA to the biological parents.
Now now now, if you're going to resort to name calling because your opinion-stated-as-fact is called into question then it's better to not participate at all.
At no point have I said or expressed that no one shouldn't feel sympathy for anyone involved here. I posted it because I found the story interesting and tragic. I responded to a comment from someone that apparently thinks a mistake at an IVF clinic should be met with terrorism, you elected to respond to that with unfounded opinion, ludicrously incorrect definitions, and now ad hominem.
That website says the parental order requires the birthing parent consent It's part of the order process. The order isn't a court order that overrules the process. In the US it depends on the...
That website says the parental order requires the birthing parent consent
the surrogate, and her partner if they are married or in a civil partnership, must give consent (no earlier than 6 weeks after the birth of the baby)
It's part of the order process. The order isn't a court order that overrules the process.
In the US it depends on the state and the thoroughness of the contract used and even then it can vary - especially if the surrogate provided the egg, which is considered a "traditional" surrogacy. Massachusetts finds the contracts entirely unenforceable but pre/post birth court orders are an option. It depends a lot of what is signed and what is done. A birthing parent without that signed agreement, without pre-birth court orders granted, could keep a child in a number of states.
That's also dependent on it being an actual surrogacy arrangement, this wasn't. There's likely not a single country where IVF is commonplace where a mistake at the IVF clinic is going to result in...
That's also dependent on it being an actual surrogacy arrangement, this wasn't.
There's likely not a single country where IVF is commonplace where a mistake at the IVF clinic is going to result in a white couple getting to keep a black child just because it was carried to term unwittingly in the non-biological mother's body.
We were discussing surrogacy at the moment. And you were incorrect about your assertion here: The lack of the surrogacy agreement legally means that the birthing parent almost certainly does have...
We were discussing surrogacy at the moment. And you were incorrect about your assertion here:
It states quite clearly that while surrogates are considered the parent until a parental order deems otherwise, the parental order is ruled in the best interests of the child; AKA to the biological parents.
The lack of the surrogacy agreement legally means that the birthing parent almost certainly does have full and default parental rights, because that contract being binding and recognized by law is the only reason the birthing parent loses those rights in surrogacy cases. Every state law I can find on the books, and the UK law, would require either a contract or a pre-birth order or usually both. Since neither happened here, I do suspect that the birthing parent was trying to both act in the best interest of the child and not wanting a long protracted fight that she might lose.
Could you reciprocate and provide a source - laws, precedent - that this wouldn't happen, particularly that it wouldn't happen based on race if you think that's a relevant factor? I can't find anything clear cut at all about this situation, only "what loses birthing parents rights in surrogacy situations" none of which applies here.
The first is is mostly about liability to IVF clinics but the latimes article is the same example they used about custody/parent status. It does seem without precedent, the second couple ceded...
The first is is mostly about liability to IVF clinics but the latimes article is the same example they used about custody/parent status. It does seem without precedent, the second couple ceded custody of the other twin. But absolutely fits.
This absolutely fits as well, though it was appealed and a gag order seems to have been placed. I'm interested to see if it was upheld or not. The trauma of removing a toddler from the parents she knows is heartbreaking however.
As far as I can tell the precedents are pretty lean, understandable, so thanks for the sources but I don't feel like 2 examples is quite so clear cut as you're insisting. These things will almost certainly be handled individually as they have been so far as I can't find any laws that address it so far and family court rulings don't often become binding precedent, I think. Not an expert on that.
Would appreciate dialogue rather than just link drops and some of the more aggressive back and forth though, this is just discussion not accusation, debunking, etc.
There's zero legal precedent where the birthing mother has retained the child despite claims to such and all of the linked laws are regarding surrogacy arrangements, not mistaken-IVF. There is...
There's zero legal precedent where the birthing mother has retained the child despite claims to such and all of the linked laws are regarding surrogacy arrangements, not mistaken-IVF.
There is legal precedent of children being returned to biological parents and the woman in this case, and every other case where custody wasn't fought, was advised by her lawyers that she wasn't going to win custody.
There, thankfully, aren't a lot of (known) instances and subsequent legal cases around this to go by, largely because when it does happen the obvious choice is made as advised by the experts in the matter (lawyers): Return the child to the biological parents without going to court.
I think it's run its course. The back and forth is over now as the individual that thinks tragic human error should be responded to with violence/terrorism is banned and the individual that chose to ignore facts and appeal to emotion elected to descend further into logical fallacies because I didn't reiterate the obvious (that this whole ordeal is horrific for all involved) in every one of my responses.
I am curious what your logic in taking such a hard stance is. There is no information in the article about the diagnosis for either the woman or the bio couple, so we have no idea how difficult...
I am curious what your logic in taking such a hard stance is. There is no information in the article about the diagnosis for either the woman or the bio couple, so we have no idea how difficult that embryo was to make.
When my wife went through each one of our frozen embryo transfers, one of the nurses or doctors (no idea who was who) called out verbally our last name and the number of embryos we were having...
When my wife went through each one of our frozen embryo transfers, one of the nurses or doctors (no idea who was who) called out verbally our last name and the number of embryos we were having implanted, I’m guessing for specifically this reason.
It's a common tactic across the medical industry. Helps to avoid walking into the wrong room with the wrong chart. There's too many ways that charting and logging can be screwed up, so casually...
It's a common tactic across the medical industry. Helps to avoid walking into the wrong room with the wrong chart. There's too many ways that charting and logging can be screwed up, so casually checking with the patient ensures you're at least talking to who you thought you were.
There is a popular level book called Being Wrong Adventures on the Margin of Error that contains a lot of content about risk management in different industries. I found the book fascinating.
There is a popular level book called Being Wrong Adventures on the Margin of Error that contains a lot of content about risk management in different industries. I found the book fascinating.
Well evidently not. Just give her as much money as she wants forever or close down seems reasonable to me. IVF is very personal and people can go a little funny......but I wonder if the couple...
“We are doing everything we can to make things right for those affected by this incident.”
Well evidently not. Just give her as much money as she wants forever or close down seems reasonable to me.
IVF is very personal and people can go a little funny......but I wonder if the couple couldn't have done something a little nicer for her.... What if they sent updates via their lawyers and accepted letters and small gifts? Have an extra aunt for your kid....I understand there could be risks if a person turns kooky but at least make it a pen pal situation.... But it's not wrong of them, just makes me feel especially sad for the lady.
And they don't even know what happened to her actual embryos.....
Says this kind of mistake is rare, but how often would it be caught? If it weren't for obvious differences, it wouldn't have unless the mother went out of her way to make sure the baby is hers.
Says this kind of mistake is rare, but how often would it be caught? If it weren't for obvious differences, it wouldn't have unless the mother went out of her way to make sure the baby is hers.
I mean, there are all types of crazy situations that happen with IVF and fertility treatment generally. Like doctors that used their own sperm instead of donor tissue: U.S. case:...
I mean, there are all types of crazy situations that happen with IVF and fertility treatment generally. Like doctors that used their own sperm instead of donor tissue:
My wife and I were worried an article like this could be written about us. We did IVF and successfully had a healthy baby boy with the same skin color, but he didn't look like either of us....
My wife and I were worried an article like this could be written about us. We did IVF and successfully had a healthy baby boy with the same skin color, but he didn't look like either of us. Friends and family would claim, "he looks like mom!" or "he looks like dad!" without ever really sounding convinced. We very seriously considered the possibility that an embryo mixup occurred, but if it did, we would keep him no matter what because we love him.
After several years, I drunkenly ordered an AncestryDNA testing kid (Black Friday deal!). Without telling my wife (she'd freak out), I had my kid spit in a tube before daycare and shipped the package to the lab to get analyzed. After several weeks, we got the results back. He's definitely ours. My wife thought the situation was hilarious, and relieving.
That this woman got her baby taken away is a tragedy. I know it was the wrong embryo, I know it's not the same DNA, but this woman grew the baby with her body with the intention all along of keeping "her" baby. That Murray (the woman in the article) now has to undergo all the invasive IVF treatments again if she wants another child (without guaranteed success!) is crazy. That the "donor" couple got a free surrogate is wild. Many couples anonymously donate extra embryos all time, and I'm shocked the donor couple claimed the baby.
I am so surprised by your comment. I am doing IVF right now and after 2 retrievals have only made 3 euploids. I have no children, so I haven’t reached the end of this “journey”. If one of my...
I am so surprised by your comment. I am doing IVF right now and after 2 retrievals have only made 3 euploids. I have no children, so I haven’t reached the end of this “journey”. If one of my embryos was transferred to another person and they ended up with a live birth from my embryo I would absolutely want my baby considering no embryo is a guarantee. People donate embryos, but they also act as gestational carriers. Neither should be forced on anyone.
Title sounds like a crazy or stupid person, but she got mistakenly implanted with the embryo of another woman. That's a nightmarish level screwup by the fertility clinic, I can't imagine the mental anguish she has to endure after carrying and delivering a child, and caring for him for five months before having to give him up because there was zero chance she'd be able to retain custody in court for reasons outside her control.
Just... damn. That's the sort of mistake that should honestly end a career. This sort of mental damage can ruin people forever.
The irony is in a different state it doesn't matter about the genetics just the birthing parent.
Fuck that sucks for her. And there's trauma for the infant too
I think before one year there isn’t too much trauma from the infant changing mothers - is that correct?
Most things around adoption say "first few months". My five month old niece absolutely knew if it wasn't mom or dad holding her, and cried accordingly. (And that doesn't get into the parental trauma being passed down from the situation.)
I would basically never say that there's "zero trauma" around losing/changing a parent. Adoptees have strong feelings though their situations differ from this obviously. Once bonding happens there's at least some emotional disruption. Whether that is lifelong trauma or not depends on so many other things that I don't know.
I can't imagine she will recover fully from this. She knew immediately after birth that it wasn't a baby from her own egg, but she resolved to raise him. It's a complex situation ethically but I could see myself making a similar choice.
I would never get over having my baby taken from me (legally) and there's nothing I can do about it. And given what she went through it's hard not to call him "her" baby. Of course he is also his biological parents' baby.
This is an awful mistake with no recourse that makes up for the damage caused to all parties.
Is this true? I don't know a thing about the laws around this kind of stuff but surely there would be some room for debate?
I don't know. What I do know is that court cases take years. Switching custody at 5 months is going to be less traumatic for the child than switching custody at age 3 or 4 or 5.
Thank you for these words.
After reading through the comments and "switching sides" several times, this really resonated with me as the only conclusion that felt firmly defensible to me. All the rest of it is a minefield of ethical decisions so deeply personal as to be undecideable from the outside. A tragedy for all four of them.
Sometimes there is no ethically correct answer. Someone was going to be deeply wronged either way.
The law was probably made with surrogacy in mind, to ensure that the surrogate wouldn't change their mind after giving birth and cause a drawn-out legal battle. This case is exceptional since it wasn't meant to be a surrogacy, but laws have little leeway for exceptions.
I don't think it's so clear cut, we don't know how many embryos the other couple had and the follicle stimulating part of IVF is the part that maximally sucks and people often do not want to go through again. I think giving the child to the genetic parents is fine, and I'd hope they would keep her involved as much as possible because of course the attachment over pregnancy/5 months is significant. We had our daughter that was born via IVF paternity/maternity tested within a month of her birth specifically because as rare as it could be, mistakes happen. In a country where wrong site surgery is a regular occurrence is was important to verify. And I'd be devastated if we lost even one embryo. There's an emotional attachment and drain from IVF that is hard to describe. Either way this is a horror story, and I cant believe the clinic would have such awful controls. I was destroyed when that story of a woman breaking into an IVF clinic and carelessly destroying embryos happened a few years back, that's like murder levels of rage if I was any of the couples affected.
An IVF clinic made a mistake, the child wasn't hers, zero of her own genes involved, and she was ultimately an unknowing/unwilling surrogate for someone else's very much desired child. If you can find some laws on the books that effectively say "a surrogate that wants to keep the baby, can do so" I'd be willing to see it.
Not even going to guess how you go from IVF mistake to domestic terrorism attacks.
In states that allow surrogacy and enforce surrogacy agreements, the surrogate signs a contract giving up parental rights prior to the relevant fertility treatments begin. There are plenty of places where even a willing surrogate could make a claim for the baby and win, as not all US states even recognize surrogacy contracts (and other countries are often even more restrictive on the practice), but the fact that she was forced to give up the child despite having never signed such a contract is pretty galling. You cannot simply say "the child wasn't hers" as though it's something that's obviously true in this scenario -- she gestated and birthed it and wanted to raise it, and in some jurisdictions that would be more than enough. I know that in the US it does matter legally whether the surrogate contributed her own egg or not, so I wonder whether that was a factor in the legal analysis here. I think comparing this to surrogacy legally-speaking reflects extremely poorly on these circumstances, as if you compare it to something like paid surrogacy this woman was more or less used for slave labor.
Such as?
She wasn't forced to give it up, she gave up the child to avoid a legal fight she likely wouldn't win, per her lawyer. Without actually fighting it, no one will ever know.
I said unknowing/unwilling surrogate, calling it slave labor is a falsehood that isn't even close to any slavery definitions and cheapens the meaning of the word.
Germany, since it makes surrogate contracts illegal and void AFAIK.
Also… I’m usually careful in tossing certain words around; and also semantics aren’t the point here, I get that, but sincerely, what else would you call unwanted “mandatory” work without reward?
Your example contradicts your own stance. Surrogacy being illegal doesn't make the child the surrogate's and while your link does say that would be the case if this child was born in Germany, which it wasn't, but it also states that a foreign country that does allow surrogacy and deems someone else to be the parents they accept as the legal parents, which is the case here.
It wasn't unwanted and it wasn't mandatory; she wanted a to carry a child, no one forced her to do so. A terrible, irreparable mistake was made, but it wasn't anything close to slavery.
No, she wanted to carry her child, and then she wanted to raise that child. The pregnancy was not the end goal, giving birth and raising a child was.
To have to go through the entire pregnancy, bond with the infant you carried, and then have them taken from you after 5 months is horrendous. People are successfully raised by parents they aren’t genetically related to all the time, it isn’t a problem.
Surrogacy is generally expensive for a reason. At the very least, she should be compensated fairly for that work by either the genetic parents or the clinic, in addition to hefty damages from the clinic. “Whoopsie, we’ll put in some more double checks” is nowhere near an adequate response.
She’s not only out the money she paid for treatment, but she’s gone through a pregnancy and birth, and lost valuable years to have her own child. If they haven’t been able to find her embryos, that’s even worse, since egg quality and quantity tends to decline with age and another retrieval is both taxing and not guaranteed to be successful.
I'm not saying there wasn't bonding, trauma, irreparable mistakes made, so on and so forth. She deserves every single reparation under the sun for the IVF clinic's fuckup, but she doesn't get to keep a child that is not biologically hers in any way because of that fuckup.
She wanted to carry her child, she didn't. This wasn't by choice, but it did happen. There's likely not a single country where IVF is commonplace where a mistake at the IVF clinic is going to result in a white couple getting to keep a black child just because it was carried to term unwittingly in the non-biological mother's body.
Quite a lot of jurisdictions outside the US (at least through my limited research) either ban surrogacy altogether or have very strict limits on the matter. Surrogacy is prohibited by law here in Germany. Under UK law, while surrogacy is legal, the surrogate is the legal mother at birth and changes to legal parentage must apply for a parental order that requires consent of the surrogate (and her partner if she's married) no earlier than 6 weeks after the birth of the baby.
Individual US states have different laws regarding surrogacy and my non-lawyer understanding is that a lot of it is based on legal precedent rather than straight-up legislation on the matter (afaik it's a weird legal patchwork), so I can't say for sure which states would or wouldn't have allowed her to keep this baby under these unfortunate and abnormal circumstances. While the US is pretty surrogacy-friendly on an international level, there's enough internal variation that her legal ability to keep the child almost definitely hinged on which state she was located in (as well as on the competence of her legal counsel and how much she could afford to fight in court, ofc).
I'm kinda frightened by how little you seem to regard the horror of being an unwilling surrogate -- that's an abhorrent thing to have happen to you and you seem pretty blasé about it in your comments.
This whole situation is horrific for all the parties involved. If custody went the other way then the biological parents would be in a situation of being forced embryo donors.
I think it's horrible both ways, but I think on a bodily autonomy front the horror weighs heavier on the "unwilling surrogate".
Makes one wonder that if some here consider her a slave for unwillingly carrying the child to term and giving the child back, if they'd call her a thief or kidnapper if the story was about the biological parents wanting their child and she refused to do so...
The Germany defense was already debunked above. You stated other places would have allowed her to keep that child, I asked for sources to a claim you apparently cannot provide.
I'm not blasé about it at all, I'm just not letting emotions get in the way of facts or using prosperously inappropriate definitions to support an opinion.
I literally linked to the UK website describing the law that explicitly gives the surrogate legal parenthood unless the surrogate and the surrogate's spouse consent to giving the child up six weeks after the child's birth. Under that law, she absolutely would have been allowed to keep the child. If that doesn't count as providing a source, you did not read my comment.
You're being kind of an asshole here for no particular reason -- I literally am just sharing trivia about surrogacy law (stuff that's pretty easily google-able, as anything more complex requires a lawyer with relevant expertise) and expressing my horror at what is an objectively horrific situation. Why did you post this article if you did not want anyone to feel sympathy for the woman who was forced to carry a baby to term that she was ultimately never going to legally be allowed to keep under the laws in her jurisdiction?
The UK link also disproves your statements. It states quite clearly that while surrogates are considered the parent until a parental order deems otherwise, the parental order is ruled in the best interests of the child; AKA to the biological parents.
Now now now, if you're going to resort to name calling because your opinion-stated-as-fact is called into question then it's better to not participate at all.
At no point have I said or expressed that no one shouldn't feel sympathy for anyone involved here. I posted it because I found the story interesting and tragic. I responded to a comment from someone that apparently thinks a mistake at an IVF clinic should be met with terrorism, you elected to respond to that with unfounded opinion, ludicrously incorrect definitions, and now ad hominem.
That website says the parental order requires the birthing parent consent
It's part of the order process. The order isn't a court order that overrules the process.
In the US it depends on the state and the thoroughness of the contract used and even then it can vary - especially if the surrogate provided the egg, which is considered a "traditional" surrogacy. Massachusetts finds the contracts entirely unenforceable but pre/post birth court orders are an option. It depends a lot of what is signed and what is done. A birthing parent without that signed agreement, without pre-birth court orders granted, could keep a child in a number of states.
That's also dependent on it being an actual surrogacy arrangement, this wasn't.
There's likely not a single country where IVF is commonplace where a mistake at the IVF clinic is going to result in a white couple getting to keep a black child just because it was carried to term unwittingly in the non-biological mother's body.
We were discussing surrogacy at the moment. And you were incorrect about your assertion here:
The lack of the surrogacy agreement legally means that the birthing parent almost certainly does have full and default parental rights, because that contract being binding and recognized by law is the only reason the birthing parent loses those rights in surrogacy cases. Every state law I can find on the books, and the UK law, would require either a contract or a pre-birth order or usually both. Since neither happened here, I do suspect that the birthing parent was trying to both act in the best interest of the child and not wanting a long protracted fight that she might lose.
Could you reciprocate and provide a source - laws, precedent - that this wouldn't happen, particularly that it wouldn't happen based on race if you think that's a relevant factor? I can't find anything clear cut at all about this situation, only "what loses birthing parents rights in surrogacy situations" none of which applies here.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8190234/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59216104
https://www.latimes.com/la-me-glendale-fertility-clinic-lawsuit-20190710-story.html
https://www.timesofisrael.com/court-says-birth-parents-of-girl-born-in-ivf-mix-up-must-give-her-to-genetic-parents/
The first is is mostly about liability to IVF clinics but the latimes article is the same example they used about custody/parent status. It does seem without precedent, the second couple ceded custody of the other twin. But absolutely fits.
In this situation the babies were swapped voluntarily so there's no court case here. Unless I'm missing something?
This absolutely fits as well, though it was appealed and a gag order seems to have been placed. I'm interested to see if it was upheld or not. The trauma of removing a toddler from the parents she knows is heartbreaking however.
As far as I can tell the precedents are pretty lean, understandable, so thanks for the sources but I don't feel like 2 examples is quite so clear cut as you're insisting. These things will almost certainly be handled individually as they have been so far as I can't find any laws that address it so far and family court rulings don't often become binding precedent, I think. Not an expert on that.
Would appreciate dialogue rather than just link drops and some of the more aggressive back and forth though, this is just discussion not accusation, debunking, etc.
There's zero legal precedent where the birthing mother has retained the child despite claims to such and all of the linked laws are regarding surrogacy arrangements, not mistaken-IVF.
There is legal precedent of children being returned to biological parents and the woman in this case, and every other case where custody wasn't fought, was advised by her lawyers that she wasn't going to win custody.
There, thankfully, aren't a lot of (known) instances and subsequent legal cases around this to go by, largely because when it does happen the obvious choice is made as advised by the experts in the matter (lawyers): Return the child to the biological parents without going to court.
I think it's run its course. The back and forth is over now as the individual that thinks tragic human error should be responded to with violence/terrorism is banned and the individual that chose to ignore facts and appeal to emotion elected to descend further into logical fallacies because I didn't reiterate the obvious (that this whole ordeal is horrific for all involved) in every one of my responses.
I don't actually feel like we had a dialogue at all, so yeah run it's course I guess.
I am curious what your logic in taking such a hard stance is. There is no information in the article about the diagnosis for either the woman or the bio couple, so we have no idea how difficult that embryo was to make.
When my wife went through each one of our frozen embryo transfers, one of the nurses or doctors (no idea who was who) called out verbally our last name and the number of embryos we were having implanted, I’m guessing for specifically this reason.
It's a common tactic across the medical industry. Helps to avoid walking into the wrong room with the wrong chart. There's too many ways that charting and logging can be screwed up, so casually checking with the patient ensures you're at least talking to who you thought you were.
There is a popular level book called Being Wrong Adventures on the Margin of Error that contains a lot of content about risk management in different industries. I found the book fascinating.
Well evidently not. Just give her as much money as she wants forever or close down seems reasonable to me.
IVF is very personal and people can go a little funny......but I wonder if the couple couldn't have done something a little nicer for her.... What if they sent updates via their lawyers and accepted letters and small gifts? Have an extra aunt for your kid....I understand there could be risks if a person turns kooky but at least make it a pen pal situation.... But it's not wrong of them, just makes me feel especially sad for the lady.
And they don't even know what happened to her actual embryos.....
Says this kind of mistake is rare, but how often would it be caught? If it weren't for obvious differences, it wouldn't have unless the mother went out of her way to make sure the baby is hers.
Same thought. Got easily caught this time because of the child not being the expected race.
I mean, there are all types of crazy situations that happen with IVF and fertility treatment generally. Like doctors that used their own sperm instead of donor tissue:
U.S. case:
https://time.com/6176310/our-father-true-story-netflix/
Canadian case:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/fertility-norman-barwin-disciplinary-hearing-1.5183711
My wife and I were worried an article like this could be written about us. We did IVF and successfully had a healthy baby boy with the same skin color, but he didn't look like either of us. Friends and family would claim, "he looks like mom!" or "he looks like dad!" without ever really sounding convinced. We very seriously considered the possibility that an embryo mixup occurred, but if it did, we would keep him no matter what because we love him.
After several years, I drunkenly ordered an AncestryDNA testing kid (Black Friday deal!). Without telling my wife (she'd freak out), I had my kid spit in a tube before daycare and shipped the package to the lab to get analyzed. After several weeks, we got the results back. He's definitely ours. My wife thought the situation was hilarious, and relieving.
That this woman got her baby taken away is a tragedy. I know it was the wrong embryo, I know it's not the same DNA, but this woman grew the baby with her body with the intention all along of keeping "her" baby. That Murray (the woman in the article) now has to undergo all the invasive IVF treatments again if she wants another child (without guaranteed success!) is crazy. That the "donor" couple got a free surrogate is wild. Many couples anonymously donate extra embryos all time, and I'm shocked the donor couple claimed the baby.
I am so surprised by your comment. I am doing IVF right now and after 2 retrievals have only made 3 euploids. I have no children, so I haven’t reached the end of this “journey”. If one of my embryos was transferred to another person and they ended up with a live birth from my embryo I would absolutely want my baby considering no embryo is a guarantee. People donate embryos, but they also act as gestational carriers. Neither should be forced on anyone.
All the best to you on your IVF journey and hang in there through those egg retrievals!!