What are a Surrogate's Rights?

[muttleynfelix]

Mar 6, 2013 8:30:13 GMT -5 adela76 said:

Mar 6, 2013 7:28:10 GMT -5 skubikky said:

Good point, This is an example of one that can't be enforced.  The surrogate was hired and contracted in Conn.  That contract had not bearing in Michigan as they only recognize the woman who is carrying the baby as the mother.  In addition, the Conn woman was not the biological mother, they had used an egg donor. 

I can certainly understand the Conn. couple not wanting to have a child with severe disabilities.  They having had two children already that have required great levels of care due to issues surrounding their prematurity. Or even if that wasn't the case.   But, they are asking that this child should be killed as opposed to adopted by a family that is willing to care for her regardless of the level of her disabilities.  As we're here on YM, if you were to view it only from a fiscal viewpoint, yes, this child is going to require a lot of financial resources.  Not just from her adopted family but from the government.  It is only fair to acknowledge that.  But, why would the Conn. couple have been so opposed to the child being born and then adopted? 

They weren't.  In the article I read, after the surrogate refused to abort, they informed her that they would take custody of the baby after it was born and surrender her to the state of Connecticut for adoption.  It was only AFTER they talked about adoption that the surrogate packed up and moved to Michigan (with the help of the woman who eventually adopted her baby, who she had met online).  

OK now I have to question the mental stabity of the surrogate.  I wonder if the child had been born healthy if she would have surrendered the baby to the parents at all! 

[Formerly SK]

Mar 6, 2013 9:44:39 GMT -5 muttleynfelix said:

Mar 6, 2013 8:30:13 GMT -5 adela76 said:

They weren't.  In the article I read, after the surrogate refused to abort, they informed her that they would take custody of the baby after it was born and surrender her to the state of Connecticut for adoption.  It was only AFTER they talked about adoption that the surrogate packed up and moved to Michigan (with the help of the woman who eventually adopted her baby, who she had met online).  

OK now I have to question the mental stabity of the surrogate.  I wonder if the child had been born healthy if she would have surrendered the baby to the parents at all! 

I wonder that too.  She obviously turned on the bio couple and refused to partner with them anymore on the situation.  Was it because they refused to pay 15K or was it something else?  At any rate, the surrogate seems unstable.  The fact that she's making the media rounds on this doesn't help my opinion of her. 

[zibazinski]

We have a stepdaughter in law using a surrogate right now. In Michigan it is very tricky, that's for sure. Which is why that "surrogate" moved there. I'm too involved in the subject to say anything more other than I hope the surrogate doesn't pull any shit like this one did.

[skubikky]

Mar 6, 2013 9:56:01 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

We have a stepdaughter in law using a surrogate right now. In Michigan it is very tricky, that's for sure. Which is why that "surrogate" moved there. I'm too involved in the subject to say anything more other than I hope the surrogate doesn't pull any shit like this one did.

Everything has risks.  Especially something as important as engaging someone to carry a pregnancy for you.  I wonder how many surrogate arrangements have encountered difficulties that might have been clearly documented in the legal agreement but in reality couldn't be carried through.  Such as this, contractually agreeing to abortion. 

[skubikky]

Mar 6, 2013 8:58:35 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Mar 5, 2013 18:46:09 GMT -5 raeoflyte said:

I try not to judge- but fighting so hard to keep the baby but then giving it up for adoption sits really, really wrong with me.

Yeah.  Me too. 

I didn't get the impression that she really wanted to keep the baby,  just keep the baby alive.
But, offering the surrogate money to have an abortion?  They wanted the baby dead instead of adopted?  WTF?  Really?
I question the common sense of this couple as well as the surrogate.

[midjd]

Mar 6, 2013 10:16:06 GMT -5 skubikky said:

Mar 6, 2013 8:58:35 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Yeah.  Me too. 

I didn't get the impression that she really wanted to keep the baby,  just keep the baby alive.
But, offering the surrogate money to have an abortion?  They wanted the baby dead instead of adopted?  WTF?  Really?
I question the common sense of this couple as well as the surrogate.

They may have had a valid concern about the ability to find an appropriate adoptive home. There are many, many more relinquished disabled children than there are loving homes for them.

[chiver78]

Mar 6, 2013 10:16:06 GMT -5 skubikky said:

Mar 6, 2013 8:58:35 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Yeah.  Me too. 

I didn't get the impression that she really wanted to keep the baby,  just keep the baby alive.
But, offering the surrogate money to have an abortion?  They wanted the baby dead instead of adopted?  WTF?  Really?
I question the common sense of this couple as well as the surrogate.

I don't. there are plenty of couples that make the same decision to abort a severely disabled fetus whether they get pregnant the old fashioned way or via fertility treatments too. this is no different IMHO.

[Miss Tequila]

Mar 6, 2013 9:01:24 GMT -5 swamp said:

I'm still scratching my head about the "I won't abort for $10k but I will for $15k"

That's some interesting morals.......

Wow, so she isn't morally opposed to it..she is just a greedy fucker

[swamp]

Mar 6, 2013 11:23:18 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Mar 6, 2013 9:01:24 GMT -5 swamp said:

I'm still scratching my head about the "I won't abort for $10k but I will for $15k"

That's some interesting morals.......

Wow, so she isn't morally opposed to it..she is just a greedy fucker

apparently, yes. 

I understand not wanting to abort because you're morally opposed and I respect that.  If you'll do it for $15k but not $10k, you're just a money grubber.

[Deleted]

DH and I looked into surrogacy for a short time.  It seems like a very gray area of the law and lots of things can go wrong.

I wonder if the parents can sue the agency the surrogate came from?

[skubikky]

Mar 6, 2013 8:30:13 GMT -5 adela76 said:

Mar 6, 2013 7:28:10 GMT -5 skubikky said:

Good point, This is an example of one that can't be enforced.  The surrogate was hired and contracted in Conn.  That contract had not bearing in Michigan as they only recognize the woman who is carrying the baby as the mother.  In addition, the Conn woman was not the biological mother, they had used an egg donor. 

I can certainly understand the Conn. couple not wanting to have a child with severe disabilities.  They having had two children already that have required great levels of care due to issues surrounding their prematurity. Or even if that wasn't the case.   But, they are asking that this child should be killed as opposed to adopted by a family that is willing to care for her regardless of the level of her disabilities.  As we're here on YM, if you were to view it only from a fiscal viewpoint, yes, this child is going to require a lot of financial resources.  Not just from her adopted family but from the government.  It is only fair to acknowledge that.  But, why would the Conn. couple have been so opposed to the child being born and then adopted? 

They weren't.  In the article I read, after the surrogate refused to abort, they informed her that they would take custody of the baby after it was born and surrender her to the state of Connecticut for adoption.  It was only AFTER they talked about adoption that the surrogate packed up and moved to Michigan (with the help of the woman who eventually adopted her baby, who she had met online).  

Nope, their first response was this:

"She asked if the procedure had been scheduled. No, she was told. Only Kelley could do that.

The mother noted that the surrogacy agency was getting in touch with Kelley, and a few days later, Kelley received an e-mail from Rita Kron at Surrogacy International telling her that if she chose to have the baby, the couple wouldn't agree to be the baby's legal parents.

"You will be the only person who will be making decision about the child, should the child is born (sic)," Kron wrote."

then this happened:

"Kelley didn't want to be the baby's mother -- she'd gotten pregnant to help another family, not to have a child of her own. Kron gave her an option: the parents would pay her $10,000 to have an abortion."

"Kelley had a counter offer. "In a weak moment I asked her to tell them that for $15,000 I would consider going forward with the termination," she said.

But as soon as she got in the car to go home, she regretted it, Kelley said."

after this, the parents hired a lawyer.  AT this point, this is the chain of actions that the parents took:

          -asked the surrogate to have an abortion

          - threatened to forfeit their legal rights to the child

          - offered $10k for the abortion

          - declined paying $15k for the abortion

          - hired a lawyer to threaten breach of contract in a written letter to the surrogate

          - " planned to exercise their legal right to take custody of their child -- and then immediately after birth surrender her to the state of Connecticut."

At this point, the surrogate fled to Michigan.   Got medical support there and then made the decision to have the baby adopted by a couple she had come to know who had other special needs children.

[Phoenix84]

"When Kelley would not agree to abort, according to CNN, she says the couple offered her $10,000 to reconsider. Kelley refused, instead asking for $15,000; the couple would not pay that much, and Kelley said she had changed her mind anyway."

So let me get this straight.  The surroget was willing to sell out her supposed morals for 15k but not 10K?  Nice. 

"Eventually, Kelley learned she and her children could relocate to Michigan, a state where the birth mother, and not the genetic parents, is considered the legal guardian. She chose this option, and gave birth to the baby there. Baby S was born with a panoply of issues, including holoprosencephaly, which means the brain fails to completely divide into distinct hemispheres, and heterotaxy, which means many of her internal organs are in the wrong places. She also has a misshapen ear and many complex heart problems. Ultimately, though, Kelley, a single mother, realized she could not raise Baby S, and wound up finding her adoptive parents who had experience with high-needs babies."

Again, seems strange the surroget would fight so hard for the baby then give her up for adoption because she can't deal with the medical issues. 

Unfortunately, it sounds like the kid won't live that long anyway. 

[Phoenix84]

But wow, $22,000 for carrying a baby to term?  Not a bad payday for a few months of "work."  That would make a good side business. 

[swamp]

Mar 6, 2013 15:17:09 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

But wow, $22,000 for carrying a baby to term?  Not a bad payday for a few months of "work."  That would make a good side business. 

Being pregnant sucks. 

Would you like hemorroids the size of golf balls, sciatica, fire breathing heartburn, swollen feet (so swollen you can't wear shoes), insomnia, exhaustion, headaches, constipation, continuous nausea with intermittent vomiting, stretch marks, urinary incontinence and itchy skin?   That's what I had for 9 months.  Not worth the money.

I'm sure those lucky people who like being pregnant would find it worthwhile, though.

[NastyWoman]

Mar 6, 2013 15:17:09 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

But wow, $22,000 for carrying a baby to term?  Not a bad payday for a few months of "work."  That would make a good side business. 

Phoenix, please watch this (see link) and come back after that.  Disclaimer: no actual babies are being born in this video

www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/2-men-labor-dutch-tv-article-1.1242673

[zibazinski]

No kidding, pregnancy sucks big time. I'd have had more kids if I didn't have to carry them. I have no bond to my kids because I carried them.  I love them in spite of it. Lets not even go into labor, that's hell on earth.  

[Phoenix84]

On a totally off topic note, I wonder if surroget income is taxed like a normal "job."  I would assume so. 

It would be interesting to put on your tax return, or when someone asks you what you do, you say "surroget." 

[muttleynfelix]

Mar 6, 2013 15:17:09 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

But wow, $22,000 for carrying a baby to term?  Not a bad payday for a few months of "work."  That would make a good side business. 

NO WAY IN HELL!!!!!  It was miserable, miserable, miserable and you could not pay me enough to do be pregnant again.  I'll leave out the first 8 months of misery. The last month my legs would intermittantly go numb and I would have excrutiating pain from my low back through my hips and down my legs from the baby sitting on my sciatic nerve.  I wanted to curl up in a ball and die.  The only thing that hurt worse was the baby crowning and that was over in like a minute.  The back leg issue went on for most of a MONTH! Nevermind, I couldn't eat what I wanted, the first half because I was sick all the freaking time and the 3rd trimester because I had gestational diabetes.  I would rather shovel shit than be pregnant again.

[Cookies Galore]

Pregnancy and childbirth does still carry the risk of death, so tacking on everything else a pregnant woman suffers, there's your $22,000 fee. Not cakewalk in the least.

[justme]

Assuming term means 40 weeks, that works out to $3.27/hr for your trouble of carrying a child. And beyond what the others have said, you are putting your life at risk (mother do still die during childbirth), it could have a great impact on your family's life (what if you're put on bedrest at 24 weeks?), and that doesn't even account for the things your partner does that you can't while pregnant. Also there's maternity clothes, medical bills, and all the extra food you eat while pregnant - not sure how those costs are accounted for, probably varies.

[Sam_2.0]

There was something awhile back about surrogacy being a popular option for wives of soldiers while their husbands were deployed.

I have no issue with being pregnant. Some MS, normal aches & pains, but it is not a big deal. I wouldn't hire myself out for it but I would do it in a heartbeat for a close friend or family member.

Usually the bio parents cover all health costs, so the $22,000 probably was her payment straight up. If she already had kids she probably already had the maternity clothes. And you only need an extra 300 calories/day while pregnant so grab a couple of apples.

I did read awhile back about Indian surrogacy on the rise. Apparently it is a pretty affordable option. You can pay these ladies $10,000 or less. Only downside is they are half a world away and you have to go get the kid when it is born.

[Mardi Gras Audrey]

sam,

i heard that about the mil spouses as well.  apparently, it wasn't limited to while the soldier was deployed. what made it more lucrative was that tricare (mil health insurance) would pay for the medical costs (these women wouldn't mention that they were surrogates).  because the soldier's med insurance was picking up 100% of the medical, these women were negotiating higher rates with the new parents. It was a lot of gaming the system...

[zibazinski]

Indian surrogacy is on the rise. We looked into it for her. I'm less than thrilled with her surrogate as she is old and has some crazy ideas on how said child is going to be brought into the world. But I'm trying to stay out of it. She has enough buttinskis in her life.

[Miss Tequila]

I didn't mind being pregnant...in fact, I loved having the baby inside me.  I did get horrible sciatica with my oldest but I sitll loved being pregnant.  I would have willingly taken $22K to be pregnant.  What I couldn't have done was turn the baby over after carrying him/her for 9 months.

[quince]

Ooh. I wish I could pay someone to be pregnant for me...22K doesn't sound like a bad deal!  The confusion over rights is where I will deal with it.

I think she should definitely have the right NOT to abort, but that should invalidate the contract and she should receive no further compensation (dunno if she did...).  AND have to reimburse monies already paid to her/medical charges/etc. But of course she should have the right to control the medical procedures that she undergoes, period.

[DVM gone riding]

I will throw you a loop! A friend of mine agreed to be a surrogate. After two rounds of failed IVF (or maybe just one) she said--"you know I am very certain if I have sex with my BF I will get pregnant" she got the BF to agree and she was right immediately got prego! Both agreed before trying that they were going to give the baby to the couple--everything is fine and that is most likely what will happen. I worry if the baby is born with something wrong the adoptive couple won't want it!  Not sure what whose rights are in that situation since it isn't actually a surrogacy!

[raeoflyte]

Mar 6, 2013 20:29:07 GMT -5 quince said:

I think she should definitely have the right NOT to abort, but that should invalidate the contract and she should receive no further compensation (dunno if she did...).  AND have to reimburse monies already paid to her/medical charges/etc. But of course she should have the right to control the medical procedures that she undergoes, period.

This.

[Phoenix84]

Mar 6, 2013 15:48:46 GMT -5 muttleynfelix said:

Mar 6, 2013 15:17:09 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

But wow, $22,000 for carrying a baby to term?  Not a bad payday for a few months of "work."  That would make a good side business. 

NO WAY IN HELL!!!!!  It was miserable, miserable, miserable and you could not pay me enough to do be pregnant again.  I'll leave out the first 8 months of misery. The last month my legs would intermittantly go numb and I would have excrutiating pain from my low back through my hips and down my legs from the baby sitting on my sciatic nerve.  I wanted to curl up in a ball and die.  The only thing that hurt worse was the baby crowning and that was over in like a minute.  The back leg issue went on for most of a MONTH! Nevermind, I couldn't eat what I wanted, the first half because I was sick all the freaking time and the 3rd trimester because I had gestational diabetes.  I would rather shovel shit than be pregnant again.

Hmmm, if pregnancy is that unpleasent and dangerous.  Then we could flip the equation and say if you don't want to go through the hassle of being pregnant, you contract it out and hire a surroget.  Your capacity for making babies would be limited only by your imagination and the size of your bank account. 

Michelle Duggar makes it look easy though, she's been pregnant for something like 15 years, so it can't be that bad

[Formerly SK]

Michelle Duggar makes it look easy though, she's been pregnant for something like 15 years, so it can't be that bad

Yeah but her vajayjay hangs down to to the floor. 

[adela76]

This story would have been more fitting for YM if the surrogate had kept the baby and then sued the bio dad for child support.  Like this one did:

www.care2.com/causes/couple-ordered-to-pay-child-support-after-surrogate-decides-to-keep-baby.html