Gay dads take surrogate to court after she bans them from seeing twin baby girls

Coming up now on BBC2

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51148421

What a disturbing story. My heart breaks for the two little babies denied a mother.

I think I posted the link to the Resource thread before but here it is again, for those who want to find out more.

Surrogacy Resource thread : please post your links here www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3782983-surrogacy-resource-thread-please-post-your-links-here

@Pulpfiction1
You may be interested to listen to this podcast which discusses the process of egg donation - the thought of forty plus needlesticks to suck out so many eggs actually brought tears to my eyes.
It's a process that has real risks which are simply not acknowledged, women going through the process are not warned about the dangers.

podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/venus-rising/id1481872967?i=1000458521512

I always wonder, if you were an 'altruistic' surrogate and stayed in contact with the family and disagreed with the way they raised the child you couldn't say anything as you have the baby up.

It could be a sister, cousin etc but it wouldn't make any difference, if you spoke up it would cause merry hell, and as you saw them grow you could recognise traits or mannerisms in them that are reflecting your own. It could be torture.

I can se why people might not want to co-parent that way though.

Even in fairly amicable divorces, parenting ties that couple together for life in a way that can be really frustrating and difficult to navigate. It can be difficult enough at times to come to parenting decisions when you live together and have a good relationship.

With co-parenting like this you will have a person you presumably like, but now they are in a sense family. You have to listen to them, you have to consider them if you want to do something like move for a career, go back to school and reduce your salary. They might find a new romantic partner you don't like or even think is dodgy. You might find out their biological family is pretty nutty.

In a way I think most people would be a little crazy to do that willingly. I see divorced parents all the time who really struggle with these kinds of things while trying to bring up their kids. And as someone with divorced parents, and lots of friends of divorced parents, I think it is hard on the kids.

I think that kind of consideration is part of why parents who use IFV, surogacy, or adoption often have wanted no contact.

Well ideal for children is that they are brought up by their genetic parents and that their genetic mother was pregnant with them (as has always been the case for all of human history until recent years).

That way there is no need to debate what is more important genetics / pregnancy/ upbringing. Clearly they are all important.

That said obviously sometimes people's parents can't bring them up and so adoption is also very important.

It seems to me though that firstly some people have an overwhelming desire for a child that is genetically related to them and also that for adoption or fostering to be a success you probably need to be a better than average parent. Because of the issues that come from a child being separated from their original parents.

So I don't think adoption or fostering is always the solution. I think co-parenting is an interesting idea. I don't think its completely optimal as effectively you start off in an amicable divorce style scenario but it seems about a million times better than surrogacy.

If gay men want kids then they need to find women willing to enter a co parenting arrangement - not buy a baby.

Or adopt?
Or foster?

Egg donation should be banned anyway. Harvesting them is not a safe process and there is evidence it can lead to infertility and cancer. It's also dangerous for mother and baby to be impregnated with someone else's egg. Its also my understanding that drugs need to be used to stop rejection - and who knows what effect they will have long term on mother and baby.

Surrogacy needs to be banned. If gay men want kids then they need to find women willing to enter a co parenting arrangement - not buy a baby.

It brakes my heart that any child is removed from their mum (which I understand is sometimes a necessary evil) but to do it on purpose. It show such a lack of understanding and empathy for the baby and their needs - that I question whether the person commissioning the surrogacy is fit to be a parent. And that's not even taking into account how the mother is commodified.

It's a mess really. Because providing the sperm makes you the father but providing the egg doesn't make you the mother.

There are now four potential parental roles

Sperm provision
Egg provision
Being pregnant with and giving birth
Bringing the child up.

Honestly wherever possible I do feel it's best for children if all these four roles are carried out by the same two people, necessarily a man and a woman.

That said life is complicated, stuff happens and children manage to thrive anyway.

But surrogacy does seem to introduce the worst complications.

Those poor children will now be 13 or 14, I wonder what they make of it all if that arrangement is still ongoing?

Any idea what happened subsequently re custody / parental rights of the children?

*Babies are made OF us, BY us.
*
Damn straight Barracker, I got distracted and didn't read the full article TBH, I did read enough to share and was struck by this simple line "the babies are not for sale - at any price". Says it all really. I'd love to know how Margaret and her family are. She's got balls of steel, I'd like to meet her, and I'd really like to get her in front of someone at the Law Commission...

Wow, that story, OhHolyJesus.

It notes that this is thought to be the first time the surrogate kept the babies
I think it mentions 10 UK cases prior to this where the mother (the birth mother) kept the baby. This case differed because the eggs were donor eggs, unlike the previous cases.
Turns out trying to morally divorce the mother's body from the children she creates with it by using donor eggs doesn't work as intended. A mother goes through the same physical pregnancy and birth experience whether the eggs were hers or not. Attempting to rationalise that huge physical process into irrelevancy because:genetics can't be done.

A really interesting phrase leapt out from the article.
The babies' biological parents must now prove she is an unfit mother before they can apply for custody of their own flesh and blood.
Those babies are - literally - the flesh and blood of the birth mother, not the genetic parents. They may have been built from their genetic blueprint, the recipe. But all the ingredients, the energy, the physical matter of those children was literally derived, cell by cell, by the flesh, blood, and bones of the birth mother.
This is why I HATE euphemisms like 'carrier'.

That isn't what women do. Our own bodies build babies FROM our own bodies. Our bones are leached to build their bones. Our blood supply increases to build their bodies, from our nutrients, our energy. Babies are made OF us, BY us.

(Over and above any salary.)

I'm wondering if anyone's done any actuarial calculations regarding what the true cost of a woman's risking life and health should be given the probability of things going wrong.

UN hazard pay is about $1,400 per month.

OhHolyJesus wow what a story.

We only get one side, again, and the commissioning parents might be nice people, but I can't help but feel that outcome is better for the babies.

Probably the worst of both worlds for the commissioning father though.

I have often wondered how long that marriage lasted.
That's a terrible story. I wonder if the idea that men's "legacy" drives surrogacy means men are more likely to take a dispassionate view of the transactional aspect? And whether men are more likely to reject "imperfect" babies?
I know a lot of the control of women is/was because men want to ensure any offspring they raise are biologically "theirs". Are there any sources on whether women are more or less likely to bond with adopted children, for example? How often with rejected surrogate babies is the decision down to the woman?
There might be no correlation but it would be interesting to know.

Check this out - from 2006!

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-423125/Surrogate-mother-says-Sorry-Im-keeping-babies.html

It notes that this is thought to be the first time the surrogate kept the babies and it also mentions a review of the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 so the law was being looked at back then.

That would be great @OhHolyJesus

Surrogacy Resource thread : please post your links here www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3782983-surrogacy-resource-thread-please-post-your-links-here

I'll add a few links later too.

When the consultation was still open I read a few articles and I can dig them out but one was about the widowed father of a surrogate mother who was crowdfunding to pay for her funeral. She was American, having twins for a Spanish couple and she left 3 boys behind. There is a requirement I think to have life insurance in class contracts and from what I read it was a financial choice due to their circumstances. She died before childbirth.

Another case was twins being born in Pakistan I think it was for Australian intended parents, they left the boy but took the girl. The little girl will never know her brother.

Another was a wealthy Thai businessman having multiple children born by surrogates, crazy numbers, around 20 (?) so to create a family dynasty for his business. They were cared for by an army of nannies.

And the one of the women in the UK who had kept the boy after he was born with disabilities. I read the case file on the previous surrogate the couple had for their other children and the way in which both surrogate mothers were treated was appalling, and by the 'matchmaker' as well.

And the one of the little girl left in the Ukraine as posted upthread.

If I can I will find them all and put them on the surrogacy resource thread...

I wonder if there's any research on that in the USA? There are pages of horrible news stories

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/children/11055643/British-mother-rejected-disabled-twin-because-she-was-a-dribbling-cabbage-says-surrogate.html

www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/health/surrogacy-kelley-legal-battle/index.html

www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/02/surrogacy-contract-melissa-cook/463323/

I really think a lot of people talking of surrogacy as a contract grossly gloss over the potential for things to go seriously wrong in pregnancy and childbirth. Women do still die in labour. They do still end up in permanent vegetative state.

Perhaps I'm more aware of that being in the States with our high maternal mortality rates.

I'm wondering if anyone's done any actuarial calculations regarding what the true cost of a woman's risking life and health should be given the probability of things going wrong.

I have a feeling such calculations would reveal that the prices most people are paying are nowhere near high enough. That the true cost, with risk priced in, would be out of range for all but the very wealthy.

As regards surrogate mothers who change their minds and choose to keep their babies, I have seen it said that it is more common for commissioning parents to renege on the deal than the other way around.
(If anyone can find statistical verification of this claim I would love to see it please).
I am inclined to believe it is true - the main reasons mentioned were relationship bust up (of the commissioning parents) and the baby not being a healthy baby.

Take this tragic little girl in the Ukraine, whose American parents want nothing to do with her.

It really doesn't surprise me - with healthcare being so expensive in America I can see a hard economic decision being made about taking home a poorly child. And when a baby is commissioned from a woman one has never met, thousands of miles away, what sort of emotional attachment would one have? Cancelling collection would be as easy as cancelling that new car when you are made redundant and realise you can't afford it.

Most surrogate mothers will be doing it for money, and already have children of their own, they don't want another child that may not even be genetically related to them.
Cases of mothers who decide to keep the baby hit the headlines and strike fear in the hearts of commissioning parents buyers, but it is just as likely to be the other way around.

Deep in the 500 page consultation this issue is addressed and the law commissioners breezily dismiss the problem as being no different than if parents of a normally conceived baby decide they don't want it.
I was involved in such a case a long time ago, when a couple had a Down's syndrome baby (before testing for Downs was routine). The father gave the wife an ultimatum - keep him or the baby. The baby was left on the maternity ward, and stayed with us for a couple of weeks before being fostered. During that time the mother visited a few times, bringing small gifts of toys and clothes. I have often wondered how long that marriage lasted. I digress. But how much easier is it for commissioning parents to decide they won't be taking this baby home if it doesn't come up to scratch?

Thank you Ali86 for keeping an interesting conversation going ..can't talk now
Sorry late night - but will talk in the morning.