Surrogacy ends in abortion and ends a friendship

[OhHolyJesus]

This is an 'altruistic' surrogacy story between two friends in New Zealand.

A woman offers herself for the pregnancy for her friend called Jane for the purposes of the article (who had a very traumatic pregnancy and labour with her daughter and she was told a second pregnancy would keep her in hospital for months at best).

"Jane's friend piped up with the offer of a lifetime. "Out of the blue, she said, 'I'd make a good surrogate because when I had my pregnancy, I didn't really feel it,'" recalls Jane. "She said she'd talk to her husband and get back to me." Not long after, they began the process of surrogacy."

All seemed to go well with separate legal and medical advice but he surrogate mother struggled and her and her husband were clearly traumatised:

"When the Weekly approached the surrogate couple to share their side of the story, they asked to remain anonymous. The surrogate's husband said, "We entered into the agreement with a genuine desire to help. Unfortunately, things did not go to plan and she became very sick with prenatal depression. This is probably a more complicated story than it appears on the surface. Jane and John do not really know the whole situation."

(So not every pregnancy is the same, even if you have had easy pregnancies in the past, perhaps the depression was connected to a sense of inevitable grief?)

"Today, the couples are no longer in contact and Jane still doesn't know why their baby was terminated. "On reflection, it started to go downhill while prepping for the embryo transfer, but John and I didn't see it," she says. "The surrogate didn't like the process at the fertility clinic or the one choice of counsellor we had. I think she felt like she was let down."

Their baby.

To me, Jane appears to believe she has rights to force her friend to continue with the pregnancy.

""It was our biological baby and Jenny's biological sibling. I could've explained how it was going to affect the rest of our lives. Even though everyone has walked away from this and even though it's painful, I'll talk about it. I never expected I'd have to worry about someone terminating our baby. It never crossed my mind."

The article mentions that law reform is being discussed, or rather looking to be enforced:

"Labour MP Tāmati Coffey, who, with his partner Tim Smith, welcomed their son Tūtānekai by surrogate in 2019, currently has a members' bill in ballot calling for modern laws for modern families. It includes reform of birth certificates, providing a way
to enforce surrogacy arrangements and creating a register of potential surrogates."

www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/kiwi-mums-heartbreak-after-surrogate-terminates-her-pregnancy-i-went-into-shock/52Y6PO5M4LV73RGZF67TX5E4LU/

I'm astonished that the possibility of a termination hadn't ever crossed her mind. All kinds of complications can happen during a pregnancy that might mean a termination is needed. You can't force a woman to continue a pregnancy against the best interests of her physical or mental health. No matter how sad that might be.

And she does know why the termination happened - because her friend decided that was the right course of action for her mental and physical health. The details are someone else's private medical information.

Exactly Assassinated, I don't imagine that this woman believes she had any kind of ownership over her friend's body before the pregnancy, but once her and her husband's genetic material where inside her she believes she did.

It's an interesting example to me as it comes from NZ where surrogacy reform looks like it's following our current model (and it is being driven by someone with a vested interest) and it is often that I see people saying they think surrogacy between friends or family members is ok.

I does work out fine in those circumstances for some, but not all, as this news story shows.

A whole friendship lost, presumably a close one too.

I really do have every sympathy for all concerned here. However it really brings into sharp relief for me why we must never allow ourselves to minimise the humanity of women. I am against commercial surrogacy, and I am on the fence when it’s altruistic (although stories like this do give me pause).

I hope all concerned find peace.

That's horrific

Gosh what a terrible story @OhHolyJesus

Unfortunately as soon as an embryo is created people think of it as their baby, and that sense of ownership takes off as soon as it is implanted, the surrogate mother, even when a close friend or relative is soon reduced to the status of incubator. I have read so many cases where that sort of dynamic occurs, I would think it is pretty much the norm.

It doesn't sound like the counsellor and legal advisor did a very comprehensive job.

I wonder if the depression might also have been linked to the hormones. Women who have conceived without difficulty and had trouble free pregnancies may well be surprised to discover that a surrogate pregnancy involves the full ivf treatment and they have to subject their bodies to medical procedures and drug regimes they hadn't imagined. By then, especially in an arrangement between friends, they are likely to feel they cannot back out due to the emotional and financial investment of their friends.

This is exactly what happened in this case, albeit the woman carried the twins to term as she had not felt able to back out when the red flags appeared and the friendship still broke down anyway.

nordicmodelnow.org/2020/01/29/i-was-an-altruistic-surrogate-and-am-now-against-all-surrogacy/

Sad for all involved.
This statement though stood out as significant:

"Shortly after I got the letter, I was sitting down with a friend who was dealing with a big life event and she said her siblings were what got her through it," says Jane. "I told her I'd just found out I couldn't carry again and how we'd wanted two kids."

It was at this moment that the friend offered to be a surrogate...
While going through a "big life event" for which she needed support from her siblings to get through. Understandable that she was very affected by her friends plight, and her sadness at her daughter being an only child. However did noone consider she may be emotionally vulnerable or fragile at the time? Because that raises red flags for me. Do counsellors not explore a surrogates motivations? Especially if the surrogate has recently gone through a big life event? Or are the counsellors there just to rubber stamp things for the clinic? Shocking really, you would think that if the mental and physical wellbeing of the surrogate mother was a priority, these issues would be explored in depth before any agreement is made.

It was at this moment that the friend offered to be a surrogate...
While going through a "big life event" for which she needed support from her siblings to get through

Good point Squishy

I'm guessing it was a loss in her family (not a divorce or having her husband leave etc as he was still with her and involved).

She was at a fragile state when she made the offer of the surrogacy, something her friend seized upon. Who does that? To a friend?

The article says things moved quickly along after her husband agreed to it, something he might have been convinced was a good thing for his wife given what had recently happened, whatever it was, he might have seen it as a positive thing for her to concentrate on.

I am not sure what type of counselling or assessment goes on with surrogacy in New Zealand, but the surrogate mother could have been very convincing, maybe even convincing herself, or the focus of those involved in signing this off, could be (as I think it is in the U.K.) whether the surrogate mother is capable of giving the baby up at the end and relinquishing her parental rights.

Having read Unexpected Mother (where the CPs split up during the second surrogate pregnancy) the surrogate mother didn't come across as being properly assessed or counselling anything beyond the surface agreement. This was a US commercial surrogacy though not directly comparable but still, who knows what kind of assessment goes on and what it is based on.

"Under New Zealand law, there are no legal protections for parents having a baby by surrogate or for the surrogate herself. The surrogate is considered the legal parent and the biological parents must adopt the child after birth to make the relationship legal. This means that under NZ law, the surrogate can either terminate or keep the baby as she wishes. It also means that the biological parents can change their minds and abandon the surrogate with the baby.
Given the lack of protections for either party, some legal experts say our laws are "not fit for purpose". Labour MP Tāmati Coffey, who, with his partner Tim Smith, welcomed their son Tūtānekai by surrogate in 2019, currently has a members' bill in ballot calling for modern laws for modern families. It includes reform of birth certificates, providing a way
to enforce surrogacy arrangements and creating a register of potential surrogates."

They talk about enforceable contracts, which are indeed the case in the commercial USA. Whatever happened to "her body, her choice" which proponents of surrogacy often trot out as a reason why women cannot/should not be prevented from having a surrogate prefix they wish. And yet they would force a woman who realises this is a mistake early in the pregnancy to carry in and complete the deal? And if the commissioning parents change their minds and abandon the baby (as happens from time to time with several well documented cases I have seen) ?Well it would obviously be a terrible outcome but it's probably better that other arrangements are made for the baby than that it is sent home with reluctant parents who don't want it and won't love it.

Having a surrogate prefix?? That should read having a surrogate baby!

And she does know why the termination happened - because her friend decided that was the right course of action for her mental and physical health.

Precisely. It's so common to hear "I don't understand why this happens" when what someone means is more like "You told me your reasons and I've decided that they are invalid."

Fascinating and shocking thread. Thank you know particular for posting the NordicModelNow surrogacy article.

'the surrogate can either terminate or keep the baby as she wishes'

What a difference a word makes. Reading that phrase with the word 'surrogate' replaced with 'Woman' makes me realise why the other side is so desperate to erase the word woman.

Yes it is very telling dyslek
I hadn't really thought of that before either.

Jane should not have accepted the offer of surrogacy in the first place.

It’s such a big ask I would never do it for my best friends or sister because you don’t know how you may feel and it’s far too complicated.

I know someone who was due by to have a baby by a surrogate woman. She couldn’t have children herself.

She never got the baby in the end. The surrogate wanted more money which this woman couldn’t provide so the baby was given up for adoption

Sad story all around

Was that in the U.K. @Soubriquet ? Given that surrogacy is meant to be altruistic albeit with generous expenses that's a very tricky situation to have arisen.

Surrogacy needs to be banned.

Just knowing all the complications that can happen in a 'normal' healthy pregnancy for a 'normal' healthy couple makes me feel really uncomfortable about surrogacy. I know there are people who have had great experiences but I just think its a bad idea

@TheWeeDonkey

Just knowing all the complications that can happen in a 'normal' healthy pregnancy for a 'normal' healthy couple makes me feel really uncomfortable about surrogacy. I know there are people who have had great experiences but I just think its a bad idea

A pp on a different thread said when rich women have surrogate children for poor people then you know its definitely altruistic. I dont know of a single case like that. That's only one good reason to ban it. Although I'm fairly sure even if banned then illegal ones would go on somehow. And probably that's not great either.

This is an interesting case loosely similar to the OP case in so far as the surrogate mother became unwell early on in the pregnancy but things ended differently.

In a nutshell the SM was 51, and became pregnant with twins. It doesn’t say if this was the result of multiple embryo transfer or it could have been spontaneous identical but I suspect the former. At the 12 week scan the obstetrician expressed concern for the health of the SM should the pregnancy continue. I’m surmising that the commissioning parents demonstrated more concern for the well being of “their” babies than of the SM and that was the reason for the breakdown in relations between the parties. The pregnancy continued however, and the babies were born early. The SM was happy for the CP’s to have the babies but has steadfastly refused to agree to the parental order, leaving the children in legal limbo regarding parents. She appears to have done this to make a point and punish the CP’s.

This case has been cited by the All Party Parliamentary Group to demonstrate why the law needs to change, so that pre-birth parental orders will be the norm and that will prevent SM’s from doing this in the future. Whereas I would say that if the law prevented the use of 51 year old women to carry twins then this sort of problem is, perhaps, less likely to arise?

www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed167456

Relevant background
16. The applicants were unable to have children due to medical reasons and decided to embark on a surrogacy arrangement. They were put in touch with the respondents through a non-profit organisation in this jurisdiction that puts intended parents in touch with surrogates. The arrangement with this organisation allow only for the surrogate to select the intended parent they might be willing to act for from their profile. The applicants were contacted by E. She had been a surrogate before which had been a positive experience for her, which she hoped to replicate in an arrangement with the applicants.

17. The applicants were delighted to have been selected by E and within the recommended three month 'getting to know' period it was agreed E should have two sessions with an obstetrician who had had some previous involvement with her. C and D attended one appointment with her, and F attended the second. The parties then decided to proceed with a written surrogacy arrangement and signed their agreement 3 months after they first met.

18. E was age 51 at the time the embryo transfer took place at a fertility clinic operating in this jurisdiction. The parties had all had the mandatory 'implications' counselling provided by the clinic before the transfer took place.

19. Unfortunately the relationship between the applicants and respondents broke down. It is not necessary for the court to investigate or determine the reasons for that change, save that the catalyst appears to have been an appointment around the 12 week scan when the consultant obstetrician expressed very real concerns about the health of E if the pregnancy continued. Further specialist advice was sought and the pregnancy did continue. E considers the applicants did not show sufficient concern for her wellbeing during this period. The applicants acknowledge in their statement the situation could have been handled better by them. Regrettably the difficulties continued, there was limited contact between them although E periodically updated C and D about the progress of the pregnancy.

20. The children were born early; the applicants were not at the hospital at the time and on arrival encountered difficulties in them gaining access to the children, who were in the neonatal intensive care unit. They were able go in the following day, but were, understandably, distressed by the circumstances.

21. Unfortunately relations between the parties did not improve, although there remained some communication between them after the birth. The applicants continued to send E photos of the children until early in 2016, when she stated she did not want to receive anything further.

22. The applications for parental orders were made in mid-2016. There is no dispute between the parties that all of the relevant criteria are met, save for the issue of the respondents consent. Mediation to help resolve the issue of consent was, sadly, not successful.

23. Both applicants are the biological parents of the children (s 54 (1) (b)); E was the gestational surrogate (s 54 (1) (a)); the applicants are married (s 54 (2)(a)); they issued their application within 6 months of the children's birth (s54 (3)); the children have had their home with the applicants effectively since birth (s 54 (4) (a)); the applicants domicile of origin is here (s 54 (4)(b)); they are both over 18 years (s 54 (5) and any payments made to the respondents were for expenses reasonably incurred so do not require the authorisation of the court (s 54 (8)).

24. Both children are thriving in the applicants care.

25. In their statement filed in support of their application for parental orders the applicants acknowledge the enormous gift E, with F's support, has given them. They express regret at the breakdown in the relationship between the parties and acknowledge their part in that situation. They describe their utter joy at having a family and hope that E and F will change their minds to enable the children to have the legal status which they say truly reflects where they come from and who they are.

26. The respondents have each filed a statement where they set out their account of the background and their reasons for not agreeing to the court making a parental order. Their reasons include highlighting how E felt so unsupported when the relationship between the parties broke down, to increase awareness and emphasise the need for intended parents and surrogates to work co-operatively and to support and show compassion to the surrogate. F feels as he agreed to support E in this arrangement, he should support her decision not to agree to the making of a parental order. He also feels by not agreeing it ensures what has happened is not forgotten. Both respondents have said in their statements they would not object to an adoption order, as F says he would not want the children's lives to be left in limbo.

Their reasons include highlighting how E felt so unsupported when the relationship between the parties broke down, to increase awareness and emphasise the need for intended parents and surrogates to work co-operatively and to support and show compassion to the surrogate.

Interesting that the APPG, and Law Commission who have also discussed this case somewhere in the consultation document, both consider that, rather than look at the vulnerability of women who offer to be surrogate mothers, and the need for them to be protected, they all agree that women must be disciplined by the law to prevent them from having the opportunity to be so mean in the future.

And it's not true that Jane could not have children at all. She already has one and was told another pregnancy would mean months in hospital, not that she was entirely incapable of having another child.

@FannyCann

Was that in the U.K. *@Soubriquet* ? Given that surrogacy is meant to be altruistic albeit with generous expenses that's a very tricky situation to have arisen.

Yeah the U.K.

Technically it wasn’t phrased as payment it was phrased as expenses as legally allowed

However it was above and beyond normal expenses