surrogate custody rights

What do you think about rulings regarding Surrogacy custody rights?[1]

If a women agrees to be a surrogate mother and then changes her mind, does she have to right to refuse to hand the child over come due date?

Personally i feel that *Yes* the birth mother has the right. She was the one who carried it from embryo to newborn. while she did go into it to with knowing fully what she was doing so did the genetic parents. A woman who donates her eggs has no right to the chid then a man who donates sperm. It's still her body and it still her baby.

I'll hear couples refer to these women as 'baby-snatchers' or the like and the birth mother is nothing more than a womb-to-rent.

She may of broken a deal and perhaps can be changed of breach of contact, but she has in no way committed kidnapping or anything else simply because she has changed her mind. She has the same claim to her child as a woman who agreed to place her child into an adopted home regardless of DNA.

edited 30th Oct '10 5:00:32 PM by joeyjojo

She may of broken a deal and perhaps can be changed of breach of contact, but she has in no way committed kidnapping or anything else simply because she has changed her mind. She has the same claim to her child as a woman who agreed to place her child into an adopted home regardless of DNA.

Do the mothers who give their children up for adoption sign agreements not to renege and return for the child? That would run completely counter to the purpose of adoption agencies, and it's the only way I can think of to render the situations properly analogous.

By signing the contract, the surrogate mother acknowledges that the genetic parents are the ones with the right to the child. I'm not sure I would regard such an action as kidnapping, but I would consider it breach of contract of the most inexcusable kind.

Do the mothers who give their children up for adoption sign agreements not to renege and return for the child? That would run completely counter to the purpose of adoption agencies, and it's the only way I can think of to render the situations properly analogous.

Yes they do, but they are more or less meaningless. No judge is going to take a child from it's mother because of a prior agreement.

It was referred to in Juno, Bren lost 'her' frist child when the birthmother backed out of it in the later pregnancy.

Why should the birth mother ever get custody in the first place though?

because it's her child she carried for zygote to newborn.

edited 1st Nov '10 4:57:18 PM by joeyjojo

Yes they do, but they are more or less meaningless. No judge is going to take a child from it's mother because of a prior agreement.

It was referred to in Juno, Bren lost 'her' frist child when the birthmother backed out of it in the later pregnancy.

That wasn't actually what I thought you were talking about; I had in mind a mother who gives her child to an adoption agency, but comes back before it's adopted. Preventing that would run counter to an adoption agency's purposes in a way that preventing a mother from refusing to hand over her child directly to a willing family.

In that case, I think the mother should arrange to sign a contract after carrying the baby to term. She could renege on the verbal agreement to sign the contract, and it would not be a breach of contract (although it would probably be very upsetting to the adopting family,) and she wouldn't sign the binding agreement until she's confident that she'll go through with it.

In any case, I have little sympathy for someone who signs up for an arrangement like surrogacy, knowing the risks that it will be emotionally difficult, and breaks the arrangement. A mother giving her child up for adoption, by comparison, almost certainly did not sign up to be pregnant.

If they secretly intended to keep the baby all along, that's an extremely deplorable abuse of the arrangement with the genetic parents. If they change their mind partway through, that's a failure of forethought on their own part that they had every opportunity to avoid. The difficult situation is entirely brought upon themselves.

edited 1st Nov '10 4:55:19 PM by Desertopa

I'm fairly sure that the birthmother can welch on the deal and take the child back off the adopted parents before a set time.

edited 1st Nov '10 5:29:26 PM by joeyjojo

Depends on the situation- in international adoptions once you have legal custody, that's it, the birth mother is out. I'm not certain what the exact situation is domestically.

Seems to me in some of these situations, custody could be awarded to one parent, with visitation rights granted to the other. Not unlike the aftermath of a divorce, which makes a much better analogy in my opinion.

edited 1st Nov '10 5:50:38 PM by DeMarquis

I thought everyone went to The Netherlands for surrogate mothers anyway. Aren't the laws more favorable there?

By signing the contract, the surrogate mother acknowledges that the genetic parents are the ones with the right to the child. I'm not sure I would regard such an action as kidnapping, but I would consider it breach of contract of the most inexcusable kind.

I think that just about sums it up. Saying that the woman in such a contract who gave birth to the baby has a right to it makes about as much sense as saying a factory worker has the right to take home everything he was hired to make in lieu of his wages.

yeah, about that.

You. Can. Not. Sell. Human. Beings.

Sure it's wrong to promise children to some one and they not give it over, but you can't make them. This isn't factory work, people seem to think surrogate mothers can be treated like fricking rent-a-womb. It just seems a little A Handmaids Tale to act like it's prenatal childcare.

edited 1st Nov '10 8:02:22 PM by joeyjojo

Sure it's wrong to promise children to some one and they not give it over, but you can't make them. This isn't factory work, people seem to think surrogate mothers can be treated like fricking rent-a-womb.

If they think they might be inclined to keep the child, they shouldn't sign away the right to do so in the first place.

There are certainly situations in which you can legally force someone to give up custody of the child, and I think that this should by all means be one of them. Make it abundantly clear to anyone considering offering their services as a surrogate that they must be certain they will be willing to give up the child, because if they're not, the government will not be on their side.

well here in Australian at least the law side with the birthmother, we have a bad history when it comes to taking children off people.

The thing is reproductive freedom is a fundament human right, a right of keeping a child or not goes beyond any contract. you should be made to pay back cash that pass hands, and maybe sue for whatever. But the kids are still yours.

edited 1st Nov '10 9:15:27 PM by joeyjojo

Rights are only rights insofar as they are protected. If the government intervenes on the behalf of the surrogate mothers rather than the genetic parents, then people will be less inclined to trust surrogacy. By guaranteeing the rights of the genetic parents, the government would also provide the service of disincentivizing anyone who wasn't really certain in their choice from becoming a surrogate mother.

I for one would support less reproductive freedom than we already have in most of the developed world, but that's a matter for a different topic.

Less freedoms? now i'm intrigued... tell me more i'm interested. Do i hear the sound of tiny little jackboots?

you said that it will make people less likely to trust a surrogate, well in my mind that's a good thing. If people know that the legal contract is a worthless as the paper is written on then they they they will think twice before entering this arrangement if everyone is not above board.

edited 1st Nov '10 9:33:50 PM by joeyjojo

If the government will back her up if she reneges though, the genetic parents will have less reason to trust the surrogate mother no matter how much she says she's on board. She isn't being forced to make the choice with the weight of the knowledge that it's irrevocable.

If the legal contract is strictly enforced, then people will be less likely to enter into it in the first place if they are not fully prepared for it.

Less freedoms? now i'm intrigued... tell me more i'm interested. Do i hear the sound of tiny little jackboots?

You're imagining it.

I get sidetracked enough in On Topic Conversations accidentally, I'm not going to do it on purpose.

Hmm perhaps, personal i believe that Science Has Gone Too Far with this one.

it to see sad what seemed like a way to give a couple their own children to turned into a custody battle where no one really wins. But I can take solace...

Surrogacy has for the first time in human history give women a taste of what it feels like to to be denied the right to see their own flesh and blood and be dismissed as little more as than a Glorified Egg Donor.

It tastes bitter.

edited 1st Nov '10 10:18:23 PM by joeyjojo

Well, I'm of the opinion that the genetic parents have more of a claim to the child being of their flesh and blood. If the surrogate mother keeps the child, then they've basically stolen the DNA of the genetic parents. I don't see how that's better than- say- the genetic parents refusing payment after taking the baby.

How is it theft? they gave the DNA to her.

Anyway even if she did steal the *DNA* that doesn't mean they have right to the *BABY*

it's like saying if some one stole your home blueprints then you get to live in the house they built from them. It doesn't work like that.

edited 1st Nov '10 10:31:21 PM by joeyjojo

It's theft because the agreement was that the genetic parents would receive the baby. They didn't consent to leaving the child in the care of the surrogate. It's completely different from just "giving the DNA to her." I don't see why this isn't obvious.

I deposit money into the bank under the presumption that I retain ownership of the money and can withdraw it at a later time. If the bank says "Oh jeez, we've taken care of this money and developed an emotional attachment to it. Sorry, but we're keeping it." I reserve the right to both be royally pissed and take legal action.

Surrogacy has for the first time in human history give women a taste of what it feels like to to be denied the right to see their own flesh and blood and be dismissed as little more as than a Glorified Egg Donor.

If the surrogate mother had any problems with this arrangement, she should not have signed up for it in the first place.

You know why people sign contracts? Because they need a way to ensure that both parties will adhere to an arrangement when they otherwise might not want to. If you are afraid of a contract's potential to exert coercive power over you, don't sign it.

I admit it's unfair to the 'donors' to be screwed like that. but it's not like it's that different from a regularly custody battle.

The person who carries and births the child gets custody

Unless she is a total F up that's just how it goes, why are people not getting this? It been happing to men for years. they don't like it, but they don't deluded themselves that things will change. It's doesn't matter if she got pregnant through hook or cook: the kid belongs with her.

Now you may disagreed with me and say that bloodline and honour transcend the 'it came out of you so it's yours' rule. But the legal court does not. Time and time again it's come out the same: The birthmother gets to keep her baby.

Good Night

edited 2nd Nov '10 12:16:49 AM by joeyjojo

That's the just world fallacy, isn't it?

i'm sorry i'm not familiar with that one.

It's basically the assumption that the world is a just place, and events that occur ought to have occurred. Basically, "X is fair because X happens."

It might be worth Googling.