To think if you pay for a surrogate baby that you decide you don't want you should pay for the op he needs.

[sashh]

An Australian couple have paid a Thai woman to be a surrogate, she had twins but one has Down Syndrome so they left him behind and took his sister home.

He has a hole in the heart (news reporting that it is in addition to DS, actually it is more likely part of the DS) and his mum can't afford his op.

Surely the least you can do is pay for his bloomin' op?

Obviously there should have been an agreement with who pays for what under what circumstances but in reality is a poor person in a developing country going to think about that?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-28617912

www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-01/mother-of-thai-baby-abandoned-by-surrogate-parents-struggles-to/5642478

I agree with koala, the intended parents (the officIal term) should be legally and morally reponsible from conception.

Too many cases go awry where the surrogate demands more money, changes her mind, lies about whose baby it is, won't terminate, wants to terminate .... It is a child conceived for the intended parents whether it's their gametes or not. The decision should rest with them and if they would terminate for abnormality, it should be part of a legally enforceable document that the surrogate agrees. If she doesn't, then she shouldn't be matched with that couple, and vice versa.

The IP's should absolutely be at least financially responsible for their son!!

Legally, the boy is the surrogate mothers, whether she wants it to be or not, and that is wrong, she has no legal recourse to them paying for his keep, and I guess if he went into care, it's upon her head.

Surrogacy can work, but seems intercultural, international is too complex.

There are some dreadful myths and misunderstandings about surrogacy and what it entails on this thread. People purporting to know things when they clearly don't, very dangerous.

The Law regarding surrogacy is complex (not sure how it applies elsewhere in the world) but the SURROGATE MOTHER is the legal guardian until the baby is officially adopted by the parents, regardless of whose genetic material is used.

They couple requested the pg be terminated.
The surrogate refused on her religious beliefs.

So ultimately her decision.They all entered into an agreement and she changed her side of the agreemnent.
They would have discussed with her every stage of the pg - including her changing her mind and keeping the babies/baby (which sound unlikely given her financial state)

Should the couple have left both the babies with the surrogate?
Would they have paid her for undergoing part of the pg then the termination and recovery or is it money on delivery?

I don't think personally that they are liable for the little boys upkeep (whatever that involves)
It's one of those "Walk a mile in their shoes" situations.

Perfect example of a mistruth right there 70isalimit, adoption does not come into either domestic or international surrogacy in the UK. There is a court process that transfers all legal functions from the surrogate to the intended parents, but it has nothing to do with adoption

DownS - it has an 's' on the end!

The Law regarding surrogacy is complex (not sure how it applies elsewhere in the world) but the SURROGATE MOTHER is the legal guardian until the baby is officially adopted by the parents, regardless of whose genetic material is used.

Additionally, according to the Thai Visa website, a person is considered Thai by birth if s/he is born to a Thai father OR mother, anywhere in the world.

Whereas a child is NOT automatically considered Australian if s/he is born outside Australia.

Therefore, this poor little baby is legally a Thai citizen but not an Australian citizen. And I doubt that there is a legal precedent for forcing people to apply for Australian citizenship for a baby, when they don't want to.

ArabellaTarantella, no it hasn't.

I know purple pickles, the amount of people I have had to tell, including my mother REPEATEDLY that I did not have to and will never have to, adopt my daughter.

I've been told that if I adopted her she'd be more legally mine .... Ummmm yeah right

In the UK at least it's a Parental Order

Perfect example of a mistruth right there 70isalimit, adoption does not come into either domestic or international surrogacy in the UK. There is a court process that transfers all legal functions from the surrogate to the intended parents, but it has nothing to do with adoption

Okay, so it's not called 'adoption', the court makes a Parental Order. I think the point was that the surrogate (not the intended parents) is the legal parent until the court takes some action.

70isaLimitNotaTarget
But if the mother had agreed it is illegal in Thailand to abort other than some very strict criteria.

If the Australian parents had discussed abortion prior to insemination then they might not have gone ahead.

Terminating a pregnancy is very fucking different to abandoning a baby with DS with a mother who never intended to raise a baby, not least one with additional needs in a very poor country! Terminating a pregnancy means no life long struggle for either baby or the person left raising him.

There is such a thing as a legally unenforceable contract. An Australian court would not enforce any clause in a paid-surrogacy contract, for example, because it's illegal here.

I don't know the legal position in Thailand, but I doubt that a Thai court would force a Thai surrogate mother to have a termination against her will.

Morally, I think it would be abhorrent, and a human rights abuse, to force a woman to terminate a foetus, regardless of any contract she has entered into.

It's a difficult one. I am outraged, but the report I read said they asked her to abort when it was discovered he would have DS but she chose not to.

Does it say why the parents decided to find a Surrogate Mother outside of Australia?
They must have had their reasons?
What is the law regarding surrogacy in Australia?

This issue is less about the babies citizenship.
It's entirely about a 'business arrangement' because that's what this is. This isn't a case of a woman having a baby to help a couple, money changed hands and it's a business transaction.

(BTW - I'm in favour of surrogacy, but it needs to be in a situation where every possibility is covered)

I would ask a surrogate if she would be prepared to terminate , and if the answer was No then that would cease there.

She chose to go against the wishes of the couple who were paying her.
So it's her decision. Her choice. She made the choice of behalf of the baby she was carrying. Biologically not her babies.
But still her choice to make,
Therefore, the responsibility - and that of his medical fees- ends with HER.

Tbf the posters who mentioned adoption of a surrogate baby didnt say for definate they were unsure of legalities whatever document is needed the parents still need it and this is a thai Australian not in the uk

So what Trazz? Her body, her choice. It's not difficult.

Let's say a young couple have an unwanted pregnancy. He doesn't want the baby. She does. She doesn't terminate. Her body, her choice. He then has to pony up for the child. Tough.

Let's say she does want to terminate. He doesn't. Tough. Her body, her choice.

If that couple didn't want to deal with a curly issue, they should have kept their respective eggs/sperm in their own bodies.

Fwiw I have nothing against surrogacy I just dont like the attitude and actions of these parents

Yes, she will be left with a baby with additional needs in a poor country, she 21 and has 3 children now (6 - the new baby)

Yes she wanted to pay for her own childrens requirements.

But SHE took the money. She took the £9000

Then she decided to go against their wishes. There were 3 adults and 2 babies in this equation.
One person made a decision which affected all of them.
She must've known in the remaining 20 weeks of the pg what the outcome would be. Unless the couple said "Yes don't worry, we'll go ahead and take both babies home". ??

The whole "business transaction" is bullshit. It's exploitation when you're talking about poor women from poor countries.

Taking the position that they have equal bargaining power and that any signed agreement means that all parties have a moral obligation to follow it. There is a gross power imbalance and it is exploited so imo the agreement is morally bankrupt from the get go.

MrsJay yes I agree probably none of us know much about Australian adoption law.

However assuming his sperm got into her body and whether that was by the conventional method or otherwise, then genetically he is responsible for that baby. I doubt if Australian or Thai law sees it differently so at the absolute minimum he , although not necessarily his wife, is financially responsible.

We don't know if it was an implanted fertilised egg. If it was then his wife presumably is also financially responsible?

^This issue is less about the babies citizenship.
It's entirely about a 'business arrangement' because that's what this is.^

No, the baby's citizenship is integral to the whole issue. People are saying that the Australian 'parents' should be made to pay for the baby's treatment in Thailand, or that the Australian government should. Morally, I don't necessarily disagree, but legally - the baby is not Australian, he is Thai. Under both Australian and
Thai law.

^Does it say why the parents decided to find a Surrogate Mother outside of Australia?
They must have had their reasons?
What is the law regarding surrogacy in Australia?^

Because commercial surrogacy is illegal in Australia. Within Australia, only altruistic surrogacy is legal. As you can imagine, there are not many surrogate mothers available in Australia.

The "business transaction" bit is bullshit. We have this argument from time to time here when some mother's darling son has been caught out by a scheming harpy who gets herself pregnant.

Sorry all, men if your sperm gets inside a vagina you can't walk away from the end result.

Yes their is an imbalance of power however but that's maybe why they went to Thailand?
Are you telling me in the whole of Australia they couldn't find a Surrogate ?

They gave money for a service.
She took the money.
She then went against their wishes.
So ultimately, she made the decision.

I don't like surrogacy being called "Selling your baby".
It's basically incubation, but legally a minefield.

I just think the whole thing is just a mess what chance has that little boy got the thought of babies being a bussiness transaction leaves me cold.

Totally totally disagree 70isalimit

So you only take the baby if it is as healthy as you want? You get to force a woman to have an abortion if it isn't shaping up the way you want to be? That is a disgusting idea.

Life and making babies is messy. Especially when you use a surrogate. You take the risk. Especially when the financial strength is in your favour.

These people are void of any human decency.