October 25, 2007
-
Surrogate Mother
A married couple that were unable to have children had a child using a surrogate mother.
So when they were ready to have another child, they found another surrogate mother. They gave the woman a $1500 check and she cashed it.
But this time the surrogate mother changed her mind. The egg for the baby was the surrogate mother’s egg. The sperm for the egg was the sperm of the man who was expecting to get the baby.
The surrogate mother sued for custody of the child and also sued for child support from the man. The judge gave the surrogate mother custody of the child but ruled that the man didn’t have to pay child support because he was just a “sperm donor.” Here are the two links to the story: Link1 Link2
Under Florida law, “a pregnant mother giving up her child for adoption can change her mind at any point, even 48 hours after giving birth.” A surrogate mother is handled as a woman giving up her child for adoption.
I have two questions today:
Do you think a surrogate mother should be allowed up to 48 hours after she gives birth to change her mind?
Should the man providing the sperm be considered the father or a sperm donor?
Comments (86)
No she shouldn’t and he is the father.
donor
he wont raise her/him
and changing her mind seems harsh
soo i guess not
i would say 10min after birth
:]
I think that is a fair ruling.
48 hours is good for second chances
We’ve all made wrong choices.
He is a sperm donor.
Sperm donor.
I think she’s getting out of control. Changing your mind about it is one thing. She’s done enough damage to the expecting family by bailing on the agreement. It’s wrong of her to start suing and asking for money.
tough questions, Dan!
I’m pretty much against surrogate motherhood all together but since it’s already on the books… I think she should be allowed to reconsider. it is HER egg, after all, and she carried the babe for nine months.
and… I’m going to have to say that he should be considered a donor, not the father, because the word ‘father’ implies a certain relationship to the one carrying the child, which doesn’t apply in this case.
it’s a bad situation all around, thus why I’m opposed to surrogate motherhood.
oh, and, I do agree she shouldn’t be suing him for child support.
sperm donor is all he is, father means a lot more than having a relationship with a turkey baster
Sperm donor. No if she already cashed the check, she should give money back.
depends on who is raising the child
and no she shouldn’t.
A solid ruling, considering the laws. Although I think they should have entered into a legally binding contract with the surrogate, and that might have solved this complication.
48 hours…I really don’t know. I will never be a mother nor do I aspire to be so this is a question not geared towards me.
I do, however, think that it was a wise choice to consider the father as a sperm donor, since they did not actually enter sexual relations.
-David
She’s a surrogate mother, she shouldn’t have any time. The family paid a lot to have the egg implanted, they made a deal pretty much with that check. What a conniving bitch. I hate women like this.
I’m also glad the judge ruled him as a donor because I’d be pissed if I had to deal with a bitch like that on a daily basis.
$1500 for 9 months of pain and overeating. Wow, they sure know good maths.
She agreed to it, she cashed the check. 48 hours in other circumstances might be enough time, but since she cashed the check – her 48 hours are over. So I think she should either a) have the kid like she agreed to do, and give it back to the couple who wanted her to go through with it, or b) refund the couple for the procedures they paid for in addition to the check she cashed.
And he may be a sperm donor and the kids’ father, but because she agreed to be a surrogate mother, then she shouldn’t get child support from him, seeing as it isn’t even intended to be her child to begin with.
Things can get so very complicated.
I can’t claim to know anything .. but here is what appears to be the case for the first question.
The law states that the woman has final say over whether to relinquish the child she bears. What grants her this authority? The only distinction between her and the other consenting adult in the agreement is that she is the one who carries the child. This variable would grant her jurisdiction in deciding the question whether she wishes to keep the baby or not.
But should the simple act of carrying the child grant her this authority? The same woman had also already agreed to relinquish the baby upon birth; in fact, that is the only reason she is carrying the child in the first place. Why should carrying the baby entitle her to the unique right to renege on the original contract? Carrying the baby is a purely physical act. Of course she will also be emotionally attached to the baby; but then, so will the family that expects to adopt the child. Thus, if the emotional fervor for the baby is equivalent by both parties, neither can claim to have right to the baby on that merit alone. The emotional argument cuts both ways.
Thus, if the only way to justify giving the woman ultimate and prolonged jurisdiction is by valuing the physical labor of carrying the baby as greater than her original agreement to only carry the baby for other parties, her case for keeping the baby seems to be hopeless. The emotional factor cancels out across the board, and her original intent standardized the reason for the baby’s existence as being for the other family. Reneging on the deal is unjustified. Her physical labor of carrying the child is no different than her fixing the house of the expecting family. If she signed a contract to build them a deck, and they gave her the materials, could she claim she wanted to have the deck after she built it? Obviously, even if she was deeply and emotionally attached to the deck, she could in no way argue that the deck was hers because of the physical labor she put into it.
Emotionally, it offsets, and her original intent trumps any capricious change of heart she might have.
hmmm thats a tough one. i don’t know that i would consider a surogate mother as giving the child up for adoption in most cases although it does seem that way here. i do agree with mothers choosing adoption to have the option to change their mind up to a certain point even after birth and 48 hours seems fair.
as for the man being a sperm donor, well the way she changed her mind, and in this case it being allowed by the law…i guess he is. i don’t think he should be obligated to pay child support.
also the couple was very foolish not to enter into a legally binding contract with her and a check doesn’t count as one. perhaps they should consider going through an agency or offering a market rate for the service the woman was to provide. surrogate mothers in my region make a minimum of $10,000.
Yes, I believe she should be given 48 hours to give up the baby since the baby is half hers. However, I think she shouldn’t bail on their agreement. Second, he is more like a sperm donor than a father in this case. A father is someone who have part of raising a child.
That is outrages! I will tell you later..too busy
hahaha, you said “sperm.”
…that is all.
no comment on her taking back her kid. sperm donor, obviously. he didn’t sign up to be a parent, merely a donor, and he should be treated as such. I do think, however, that $1500 is too little to pay for a human life, not to mention the pain involved in the actual birth, and tremendous inconvenience caused to the mother’s life over a 9 month period.
oh sorry, didn’t read the post all the way through. I guess you could consider him the father, but he only did it on the terms that he would get the child, so he shouldn’t have to pay child support.
She can “change her mind” all she wants…But that doesnt mean she should be able to keep the baby. She may not have signed the contract- but she cashed the check…. She agreed to carry the baby with the intent of giving it to them. He would not have “donated the sperm” knowing that she was going to keep the baby.
Since she broke the agreement, she should have to support the baby on her own.
sperm donor. unless he wants to be…
tough. going to lean towards yes on the second because i like that you can change your mind…
“it is HER egg, after all”
No it’s not. It’s the woman who would have otherwise been the motherif they didn’t have problems. They take the egg of the woman and the sperm of the man and put it in the womb of the surrogate. She’s not the mother. Just the incubator.
I think she should, at the very least, get no child support and have to pay back the family who gave her money to carry their child, plus any medical expenses they paid for her.
Since it’s none of the carrying mother’s DNA I think the other family should have custody of the child. I wouldn’t feel that way if it were, say, a gay couple. Because the surrogate did contribute to the physical make-up of the child rather than just serve as an oven. I think it would be utterly ridiculous to have the man who donated the sperm have to pay child support because he really wanted that child. He didn’t just knock some girl up or marry someone and leave them. He actively wanted a child and wanted to be a full part of its life, not just the one who paid the bills.
If you can’t handle being a surrogate then don’t sign up for the job. I think all of these women who surrogate should have to do a year of counseling before they start the process, because that’s so horrible to do to a family.
In South Africa I got 60 days to change my mind which is actually too long. I think 20 days is adequate. The father in this case is just the sperm donor
I think the mother has the right to 48 hrs to change her mind…BEFORE SHE ACTUALLY GETS PREGNANT!!! The woman obviously didn’t think this through and just wanted money out of it…
As for the second part…I would consider him both…I mean, he obviously had the intent of being there for the child and raising the baby as his own! He wasn’t just going to get her pregnant and then leave or anything like that.
If anything, the “father” should get custody because they did have a verbal agreement which is legally binding and the mother can get visiting rights and such…How they explain things to kid is all up to them
If the child is genetically NOT the surrogates, I don’t believe she should have any legal right as a parent. If the child is partially hers then yes.
And how can the man be held responsible when he was donating sperm to have a child with his WIFE. I think he should charge her with theft of valuable, life creating personal property. And breech of contract. How dare she steal the child and then try to blackmail them into child support. Ludicrous.
This is a really tough and complicated issue. Instinctually I do believe that the surrogate should have the ability to change her mind… at the same time that’s a horrible thing to put the intended parents through, who paid all that money (not just her $1500, but also all the IVF bills or whatever artificial insemination technology I’m sure was used) and spent 9 months anticipating the birth of their child, only to end up back at square one with nothing.
If the surrogate decides to keep her child, the father should be viewed as a sperm donor. That’s just too cruel to not only take away the child he’s been waiting for, but then try to charge him child support on top of it.
PS- I just want to mention, to the people so easily deciding that the surrogate should have no ability to change her mind, that especially if you have never been pregnant before you can’t anticipate the bonding that goes on during those 9 months of carrying a baby and feeling it move inside you, and then giving birth to it. You can’t really know how you’re going to feel about the child before you’ve given birth. I’m not saying she was right or justified in keeping the baby, just trying to give a bit of perspective.
Also, if you read the post more closely you’ll see that (in this case at least) the baby is genetically the surrogate’s it was her egg that was used.
What a heinous woman
Fair decision, but she should also have to pay the couple their $1500 back.
If she changed her mind then he is a sperm donor . . . unwillingly at that because he gave his sperm to be used for one purpose and she used it for another.
My personal opinion is that when a surrogate mother makes an agreement there should be a binding contract drawn up that supersedes the laws of adoption and the right to rescind giving up the baby. She is providing a service to the couple and if she doesn’t produce the product of that service – the baby – then she is in breach of contract and should have to repay all monies obtained during the course of the contract. [Of course, if the baby is miscarried that is another story. That is an "Act of God".]
She should definitely be allowed that time! Maybe when she looks at her baby she’ll realize how much she would be giving away..
He helped make the baby so he is the father in a way..
But he should just be considered a sperm donor..
Hmmmmm……well, the whole reason he was the sperm donor to begin with was because he WANTED a child of his own. Does he still want to be a father to that child, or does he want to consider himself only a sperm donor? He didn’t go to a sperm bank to BE a sperm donor. He wanted a child. How does HE feel about it? Obviously, the surrogate mother’s feelings seem to have priority here; I’m not sure why.
Why do some men seem so bound and determined to physically father their own child – not accepting another man’s child by adoption - yet willing to have it with an anonymous woman surrogate?? Do they really think this will really be better? And then to go on and be only a sperm donor, in the end? What does that say about his commitment to “his child”?
I think the man was selfish, too. Why not just adopt a baby, and give a child a great home? He could love another woman’s child, but not another man’s child? That’s just so selfish and egocentric.
Child support? He wanted this child, but she won’t let him have it now. She reneged on the agreement, so I think she now assumes responsibility of the child – this was her decision to enter into this, and now her decision to change her mind. He had no choice, after she changed her mind, and he either doesn’t want to or won’t be allowed to be a father to that child now. I say no child support – unless he’s part of that child’s life.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave….
dont they have contracts for this sort of thing?
Well, much like the fact that abortions should be free to all and I will happily pay more taxes to pay for it, the business of ownership versus the sanctity of parenthood should be viewed in non-magical practical terms.
The woman signed a contract. She accepted payment for her services. She started to spend the money! The kid is not hers. Someone should have put the baby in escrow so that surro-mommy would not bond with the spud.
Concurrently the father was merely a sperm donor. He was merely an element in a business agreement which she reneged on.
All bets are off. You want the nice baby?
Choke on it.
she can keep the baby but she should return the money to him. he is the sperm donor and shouldn’t be required to pay child support.
He is a sperm donor. At least for child-support’s sake.
But, these things could all be solved with a carefully crafted contract ^_^
She is breaching her agreement with him in deciding to keep the child; and even though he can’t get the baby back, he could sue for breach of contract.
I really don’t think you should be able to change your mind if you sign a contract.
What is really the difference between a father and a sperm donor anyway? He is the biological father of the child, he expected the child, the child is half his.
The only difference is instead of the child being carried in his wife, its being carried in another woman.
I don’t think the woman who kept the child should have been able to.
I have some experience with this, I was adopted at 3 months old, my sister was adopted at 2 weeks (from a different family).
she is almost like a hooker that got pregnant. she got the check, cashed it and now wants more money. but the couple is dumb for not asking for the signed contract too.
Although it may be harrsh for a surrogate mother to change her mind up to 48 hours after she gives birth, I understand why that law exists. Mothers get attached to their babies and, even more so, after they actually have them. It can be heartwrenching for a mother to give up a baby for adoption, even if that was her intent from the beginning just as many girls have a very difficult time with their conscience and emotions after having a voluntary abortion.
As a result of my above answer, I suppose the man would have to be considered the sperm donor. However, I sure hope the couple got thier money back and that the surrogate mother paid the man for his sperm donation.
Poor couple!!
This situation is really complex. It’s a case of not seeing the forest for the tree. In the big picture…the man is merely a sperm doner. Fatherhood is so much more than biology. And as far as the suggogate goes, she “contracted” with this couple and by cashing the check, she sealed the deal. This is a case of Torte and should have remained exactly that…but evidently the surrogate saw “opportunity,” dictated by a possible “emotion” she never took into consideration. However, a deal is a deal. Despite her guesstimated emotional “feelings” now, she was not mature enough to foresee the consequence of her acceptance into this contract. What is amazing now, is that although she might ”think” she loves her baby…how much loves is she really exhibiting when she denies the infant the “right” to a home with a mommy and daddy, cohesively nuturing the child, under one roof? This is a shame! She is beyond selfish…she is self serving!
Donor.
i don’t know bout the mother thing… thats a tad confusing.. and i’m on my way out..
but as for the “father”
he’s a sperm donor and that’s that. He doesn’t have to pay a dime.
… that is unless he leaves his wife for the surrogate, of course…
Tough questions. Isn’t it funny (or not) how all these questions wouldn’t arise if we didn’t try to “play God”?
My heart hurts for women who can’t have children, so I don’t want to seem like I am minimizing their pain. The whole situation just seems destined for heartache from the beginning.
Just a note to the person calling the man sefish for not adopting a child, I’ve known plenty of couples where it was the women pushing for a surrogate child over the man. I don’t think we can call either selfish until we know who wanted the surrogate child over an adoption and why. Also, adoption is costly and legally exhausting. It’s not just a simple procedure of “picking up a kid from the orphanage.”
As to your questions:
1. With the laws the way they are now, yes. I do believe that they should be looked at in the case of a surrogate mother. Also, if the women agrees to keep a child she was a surrogate for, she should have to refund the money paid to her.
2. The man should be considered a sperm donor and should get his money back (including reimbursment for any costs associated with the pregnancy). The fact that she tried suing him for child support shows a heartlessness on her part, and perhaps shows she is not fit to be a mother.
That’s so tough on the family that was waiting for that baby!! I’m thinking that because she’s provided the egg, that does give her some right to change her mind, BUT she’s also cashed the cheque AND trying to get more money out of it – that to me just seems conniving and greedy. If she’s going to keep the baby because she changed her mind and yet doesn’t have enough money to support it alone, she should give the baby to the family…
what a complicated situation…
*HUGS*
As much as it sucks, I do think she should be able to change her mind. But she should have to give them back their money. He should not have to pay child support; he should be seen as a donor.
Wow, he should be considered the father.
No, the surrogate should NOT be allowed to change her mind at all. She entered into a contractual agreement for which she was paid for her services. And he’s a sperm donor, now. Nothing more. It would be no different than going to a clinic for the anonymous sperm.
Personally, I think the court should have forced her to pay the family back.
No, and the courts should have gave that baby to the people who asked her to be a surrogate for them.
I think we need to decide what make a person a father or a sperm donor, because in some cases, the man is held accountable even if he had no desire to be a father – and in other cases like when the woman wants to abort, he’s just a sperm donor with no rights. Why do we not give our men the rights of fatherhood but saddle them with the obligations? Granted, these are generalizations, but I think we need to establish what makes a father a father, and not a sperm donor.
I think she should get 48 hours to change her mind, but if she does change her mind, she should give back any money she was payed.
I think the father is more than a sperm donor. He wanted a child. That is why he payed the woman to be a surrogate mother. If he wants to be in the child’s life, he should have that option.
1. 48 hours? Sure, but she has to return whatever money that was given to her to begin with.
2. Sperm donor
Sperm donor. Given the exchange of money for ‘services rendered’, he’s only a sperm donor. I think this woman is out of control. Didn’t they have a written contract? She should be allowed 48 hours to change her mind…but to sue him for child support. etc?!
What a litigious society we have!
A surrogate should sign a contract before the business is undertaken at all – this contract should state that the child belongs to the people who intended to bring it in to the world. If she decides that she wants to keep it, she must convince the true parents to sign it over to her.
If a man has partial custody or visitation rights, he should owe child support. If a man gives his sperm without the intent of becoming the social father of the child, he owes nothing.
I do think she should have the right to change her mind, but at the same time if she DOES change her mind she needs to repay everything to the family that had paid to her. How devastating for the people that thought they would be parents, though. And he is only the sperm donor; if he had not thought he would raise the child he wouldn’t have gotten her knocked up in the first place.
MySoulsIdol:
This egg is THIS situation did in fact belong to the surrogate mother.
Irregardless of the fact this is the kind of woman who I want to drag out in the street and beat the H*&^ out of. Nothing incenses me more than a woman using a child to gain monetary benefits with no regard to the fact of how it will effect the people who WANT to parent the child.
In this situation, because it is OBVIOUS this women was trying to gain money from this family, I would say call him a sperm donor. Better yet, send this bitch to jail for extortion and fraud and let the man who was not only a sperm donor, but the man who WANTS to be a father have his child.
The dude did donate expecting to be a father, he was gonna raise this kid and biologically it was his. I don’t even want to mention the money– that jsut sounds too cold, too much like human trafficking…paying for a kid… (I won’t start on adoption…) I hope the dad at least gets visitation. The thing is– all people involved have an emotional stake in it, I dunno about the 24 hour rule, but the surrohate should definitely have the right to keep her kid (does 1500 even cover normal hospital bills? wtf!) The surrogate should pay the couple and should allow visitation.
You can’t put a price tag on your own baby. Maybe that’s jsut me being oversensitive, but this woman put her time her energy, emotion, her entire body into this, so it’s not just about money. She’s not just a surrogate, she IS the mom.
She cashed the check…..i say its a done deal! Shes a adult making adult choices, the mother shouldn’t even see the baby. 10 min is too long, once you see the baby it would be over, you’d want to keep it! If he paid her to have his baby they its his baby, she was just the oven!
Fuck it it’s fair …i’m happy for the guy, that he doesnt have to pay. Oh I bet that shocked the shit out of that stupid woman.
If you agree to be a surrogate mother, you absolutely should NOT be allowed to keep your baby and sue for child support. The agreement was that it was not to be raised by her; and therefore it should not be. It sounds like a scam for money to me.
IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE:: she shouldn’t be because she agreed and was payed. and he should be the father because it’s his sperm and once again, they payed.
and if the woman is going to keep the baby than she needs to be giving the money back. i can’t believe she had the nerve to ask her child support..AHHHH people drive me insane!!!
the parents should have gotten an anonymous donated egg. then the surrogate would have no claim. seems like the father could counter sue for scamming him out of his genetics. the baby is as much his as hers. If I were him I would feel like someone stole my baby.
Asurrogate Mother gets paid right- Hummm, then if she keeps the baby she should have to give back the money.
Its insain – If ya cant have a kid adopt !
And only 1500 that wasnt enough- and who paid the Dr & hospital bills then ? Hummmm, Thats messed up !
in my opinion i that they should have checked her background before agreeing to choose her as an appropriate surrogate mother. if they would have done proper research this situation would have been totally different.
What a mess!
a surrogate mother shouldn’t be allowed to change her mind at all. and he shouldn’t be held responsible for someone’s greediness.
They should have a contract.
If the woman carrying the child is allowed to keep the baby, the father should not have to pay child support (so “sperm donor” for legal purposes).
“Also, adoption is costly and legally exhausting.”
And this isn’t?
It’s not just a simple procedure of “picking up a kid from the orphanage.” Damien Vryce
I don’t think either one are “simple procedures.” Adoption does take time, and incurs costs. And adopted kids usually don’t come from orphanages. I know, I was adopted. Surrogacy also takes time and money - and now this one is even more long and drawn out, and more expensive than it probably would have been if all had gone well. The $1500 was only a downpayment, and the whole thing was a very involved ordeal for all, it seems.
I think the mother should be allowed to change her mind. The Lord gives children to be loved by thier mothers. It should be that she should not have done it for money. Children should not be for sale.
I do feel for the couple involved, but they were aware of the risks involved..
She broke a contract and stole his sperm! She should pay the $1500 back. It was her egg so go ahead and treat it like she was giving the kid up for adoption and changed her mind, but she is still being underhanded and he should not have to pay her a dime in child support. She should pay whatever medical charges he accrued donating that sperm and he probably paid to have her implanted too. And the pregnancy bills. She could owe him around 10 grand! The nerve of asking for child support. The couple was stupid and should have gotten a tight legal contract written up before hand so that if she changed her mind they would get a percentage of what they put into this reimbursed.
Read link #2. The lady never intended to give them the baby. Scary. Both parties had lawyers from the beginning. The couple found her on a surrogacy website, they thought she had signed the contract but she didn’t. She took his sperm under false pretenses and then tried to get a permanent income from him. This casw was obviously fraud.
It should’ve gone to the guy. So unfair. He gave the sperm. She just agreed to carry the baby. But i really think they should’ve had some sort of contract of smthin.
She shouldn’t try to sue the man for child support. Taking the child away from him and his wife under the scam has already done alot of dammage to that family. She is just being malicious.
No, not when cash passed hands, and they had agreed upon the whole thing. And he shouldn’t be considered the father, because the whole point was for him and his WIFE to raise the child together. Why the used the surrogate mother’s egg, I don’t get it…..but she shouldn’t be in the picture.
what a ridiculous world we live in.
He wanted to be a father, she wanted $1500, But we can’t always get what we want.
A woman was paid 1500 dollars for goods she did not provide. It’s clearly her child if she wants it, but the money is not. She should owe them money. If I go to a restaurant pay in advance for a chicken breast, and the chef, after preparing it, decides he wishes to keep said chicken breast for himself, that restaurant can not keep my money. I didn’t get my order.
As for collecting child support, that is a ludicrous scam that would only pave the road for a million con artist surrogate mothers.
What a sticky situation – however – she agreed to be a surrogate mother i.e. carry the child to term and then give up the child to the couple who paid her. IF she had given the money back to the couple and let it go then I would be more inclined to be sympathetic towards her but in this case of her trying to get child support from the man – who IS a sperm doner BTW in this altered situation – is a load of steaming bullshit and paints her as nothing more than a coniving golddigger and who’s likely inent was to do this all along.
I think that if anything she should be sued for theft of the man’s sperm. He did not donate it for HER to have the child after all.
no she shouldn’t and doner
That’s a tricky one but I would say the guy is the father and not a sperm donor since she met the couple that wanted the baby. It would be different if she was going to let this couple adopt her child and changed her mind about but she cashed the check which implies that she consented to carry the child and let them have it.