Surrogacy ends in abortion and ends a friendship

‘It was a disaster for both sides. Imagine your biological child being terminated and you have no say over it. Its a bad idea.’

That’s the usual situation though whenever a woman has an abortion in most countries. Father’s don’t get a say, which is as it should be.

Sorry to post so soon again, but a baby is not some bespoke item you order with an option to cancel.

I would bet that the embryo was not made with the DNA of the commissioning parents, either. IVF mothers often mourn or worry over their remaining frozen embryos (which they took numerous jabs and hormones to create), so I think there is a real disconnect the further you get from the biological reality of mothers gestating and birthing their babies.

And while I'm 100% pro-choice, no woman lightly gets an abortion...and 23 weeks would be quite difficult!

What a mess.

This is the weird limbo of surrogacy-yes, it's not her and her SO's DNA...but it's her baby legally I assume and the baby will certainly understand her as mother like all born babies.

Nobody is thinking of the child.

Those commissioning parents are absolutely awful people...I secretly hope the baby will be better off

Never ceases to amaze me that the people that go into these things don't seem to have ever considered the possible outcomes that differ from what is initially intended.

It is her baby. She chose to become pregnant and grow the baby. When the baby is born she is it's only parent, assuming she's not married/in a CP. Her choice now is whether to have the baby adopted, or raise the child herself. An abortion obviously isn't possible at this point.

I don’t understand the language in all of this. It’s all so euphemistic and vague.

A surrogate mother is one who looks after a baby when the birth mother is unable to. When one of our sheep has triplets, or dies we try to find the orphan a mother who has lost her own lamb - she is the surrogate. In the past in humans a surrogate mother was the same, sometimes people even say ‘she was like a surrogate mother to me’ of their aunt or something if their own mother was useless. But now the birth mother is prefixed with surrogate (obscuring the fact that she is the mother) and the woman who wants to raise the child is called the mother. It’s all so manipulative and quite deliberate.

There's a new campaign group to end surrogacy here

providing a way to enforce surrogacy arrangements and creating a register of potential surrogates

These are both very chilling for women's rights (the registry makes it sound like surrogacy would be a profession!)

And how, exactly, do they intend to enforce surrogacy arrangements? If a woman has a high-risk surrogacy pregnancy, would there be ways to protect the fetus over her own health so she 'delivers' the baby per the contract? I find this all so horrifying.

It wasn't too long ago that it was common for teen girls and women to expect that pregnancy and death in childbirth were very real possibilities they had little control over.

While women still have all these problems, better maternity care, reliable birth control & abortion, better laws re: rape/divorce and more equitable economics have lessened the eventualities of dying in childbirth or being pregnant against our wishes. Now, women who want children choose the risk of pregnancy and childbirth, rather than it being forced on them...but these suggestions for laws do the opposite and turn us backwards.

In the article it’s interesting that Jane describes her daughter as “caring” - it’s as though she expects everyone always to put her feelings first, even her daughter. She says she could see the surrogate mother, her close friend, was not happy with the fertility clinic but they still went ahead. Again, presumably Jane’s feelings were the first priority.

There were no winners here. I think that many people underestimate the needs of the surrogate, as well as the child, in these arrangements. At the end of the day, it is always important to think why people believe they have a right to a child by surrogacy. Particularly when there is always risk to the mother as well as the foetus.

And any healthy pregnancy, without any lasting issues, and delivery of a healthy child may be more luck than anything else.

Lots of sad stories. The media seems intent, mostly, on painting surrogacy through rose tinted spectacles, or if things go wrong on blaming the Surrogate mother.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be flippant Soubriquet , I succeeded in posting before I had fully thought out what I meant to say and didn't correct it. But that is an awful case, I suppose if the SM decided to renege on the deal whilst not wanting the baby herself then social services would arrange adoption. I wonder if they considered the CP at all or perhaps there were reasons why she wasn't offered the chance to adopt the baby.

None of this is good for babies.

It was a disaster for both sides. Imagine your biological child being terminated and you have no say over it. Its a bad idea.

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

However it was above and beyond normal expenses

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Surrogacy needs to be banned.

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.

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

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.