If you had money to burn, would you use a surrogate?

[Hippiesip]

Say you're having difficulty TTC a second or third child, would you pay for an American surrogate if you simply didn't want to wait/go through the pregnancy?

I think I would. I loved creating my son but pregnancy was extremely difficult for me mentally and emotionally. I would rather not doing it again, but still growing our family.

That that is something that again we will have to agree to disagree on, & I know that the way I see is how the majority of surrogates do...otherwise they wouldn't sign the paperwork to revoke all rights. I'm no more a mum to my surro baby than I am to my best friend's daughter. I gave birth to her but she isn't my daughter

But what if she sees that differently when she's older?
You need to prepare for that potentially happening.
LOTS of adult adoptees see their birth families as much more their family than their adoptive families.

The child may indeed see it very differently when she grows up mustbe. Even if we focus solely on genetics, the importance of that cannot be understated and she has a right to know that aspect alone of her heritage.

Also if she has grown up without a strong mother figure in her life she may feel even more strongly about it. I don't know if that is the case in this instance, but it is in others.

Despite the fact that a child should have, in my view, a right to information and indeed even contact with a biological parent if they wish it (barring any concerns about abuse etc) there seems there is nothing to stop the parents of the child in a surrogacy scenario not giving them that information or access. That's morally wrong as far as I'm concerned.

She will always know who I am, where she came from & why I carried her. She will have grown up with her family, & we have always been seen as 'extended' family. However i will never be comfortable with being called 'mum' - and this is something we have all agreed on. As she gets older, should she have questions etc, there is a large number of adults involved in her life to answer them.

What if she WANTS to call you mum?
Again, birth parents who have placed children voluntarily may NOT want their child to call them mum - and that is a massive rejection for older adoptees.

there seems there is nothing to stop the parents of the child in a surrogacy scenario not giving them that information or access.
Indeed - it's not like in adoption where PAPs are heavily screened and trained - and yes there have been some horrific cases but the vast majority understand the need for connection to a child's biological roots.

But that information is readily available to surrogate children, just as it is when parents use donor eggs. The birth records for example are public record as they are with any child. The CAFCASS reports can be accessed by the surrogate children too, which details everything about the journey. Even if - and ime it's rare - the IPs decided to try & withold certain information, there are avenues for the surrogate children to pursue. And I would say that that can work the same way in adoption; adoptive parents may attempt to withold info or consent/blessing for their child to contact other family. I guess that comes down to the parents prioritising themselves over their children...sadly that isn't just isolated to surrogacy!!

Thanks mutbemad that makes a lot of sense. I only have one child and had a smooth pregnancy so never encountered those other expenses. Glad to hear it's monitored as well.

Nordic no problem. They monitor low & high expenses, which is why it's tricky when people talk about surrogates (here at least) being exploited. You get a lot of invasion about your motives/the motives of your IPs if your expenses are deemed too low. I guess we can't really win!

must I'm not an expert on adoption by any means, but it isn't always that simple. Outcomes in care for older dc are pretty abysmal, so only really done when remaining with family would be a worse outcome. On the other hand a baby or young child taken into care from the same family could be judged to have a better outcome in care.

So eg an unfit parent might have a younger child removed for neglect, but in the circumstances an older child with some degree of independence for basic needs might do better remaining in the community and those they are attached to, even if the care isn't really good enough.

The sad truth about the current care system is that a preteen in a dirty house with a moderately neglectful but not abusive parent, with friends and neighbours looking out for them and providing food etc when needed is likely to do better mentally than they would if that was all taken away and their physical needs were met in a care home. Of course if taken into care at an early age the outcome is much better.

But that then brings the dilemma of judging the risk of leaving a younger child to possibly experience the predicament of the preteen in future. And sometimes when young dc are taken into care it is because that risk of severe future harm is deemed too great, rather than because they are currently experiencing unacceptable harm. And with no blame attached to child ss, occasionally that decision might in future turn out to be inaccurate for that parent and they go on to raise other well cared for dc.

Likewise there are scenarios where parents learn from mistakes with their older dc, or their circumstances have changed, or even just down to different needs amongst dc and the parent/ family members ability to meet them.

No me either, as I say this is from observation & discussion with people around me.

I see your point re SS maybe thinking lessons had been learnt over mistakes with younger children...sadly in the two friends i know who now have guardianship of siblings that isn't the case. One friend had three children removed, ranging from 6 to a newborn (the newborn was removed the day of birth). There were many issues with medical tests not being done & the children being deemed at risk - she now has contact with her eldest child but is allowed none with her younger two, who were adopted. Yet now she is legal guardian to a 3 year old & an 11 and it has been proven through medical tests that her eldest son has in fact got the condition she thought

It could be that that is a significantly low number of cases that have been majorly fucked up, but again ime the same is with surrogacy. Ime everything is done to ensure the surrobaby is the centre of every decision; contact with families, what information they are given etc. I've seen one case where an IP lied about using a surrogate & convinced everyone she was carrying.

Out of interest, do you also see a GS as the child's biological mother, even if the child has no genetic relationship at all to them?

If we were to proceed with my friend as a surrogate, she would always be a part of our child's life, and she would be the reason they existed. She would be the child's surrogate mother who carried and birthed them, but the child would be mine and my husband's baby. Do you think that this would make her the child's biological mother as well? Or do you think biological mother refers to a child's genetic mother (so whoever's egg was fertilised and became the baby in question)?

Out of interest, do you also see a GS as the child's biological mother, even if the child has no genetic relationship at all to them?

No I don't. I don't think Tummy Mummy cuts it as a descriptor either though. I'd use surrogate mother as a term to describe a woman who carries the child but isn't genetically related and biological mother for someone who is related.

My children are not biologically mine. My surrogate is their biological mother. However, I am their mummy. My eldest knows that he grew in her tummy, he knows he grew fro more her eggs as mummy doesn't have any. That is all he needs to know currently. As he gets older....he will understand more...and be told more. Our surrogate and her family will always be part of our lives. It has been an amazing experience and one which is replicated more often than anyone realises unless you are in the world of uk surrogacy.

That so you'd describe me as what, someone who had a baby & decided to allow her father to raise her instead of me? If i'm not a surrogate mother there must be another preferred term for me?

Biological mother must same as I would for a parent who had given a child up for adoption.

And I don't at all dispute that someone who isn't biologically connected to a child can be their mother, as in primary female caregiver and fulfill that vital role. That's not incompatible with recognising that the child also has biological parents who may, or may not, be their primarily caregivers. It isn't a value judgement but descriptive of the reality of the situation.

See I don't agree with not using the term surrogate mum for TS. It almost implies that I had a baby I couldn't or wouldn't cope with & handed it over. Which isn't the case

that Our surrogate is the biological mother but she is also the surrogate mother...do we refer to her as the biological mother..no. She is my children's surrogate mother...she also donated her eggs which makes her biologically related. No one I know who has gone through ts denies this. It's just we don't focus on it unlike yourself. If as an ip you can't accept this....then you shouldn't look to do ts.

I don't think Tummy Mummy cuts it as a descriptor either though. I'd use surrogate mother as a term to describe a woman who carries the child but isn't genetically related and biological mother for someone who is related.

When a child is older they are able to understand the word surrogate mother

Educationalists psychologists who have done research into developing books to explain surrogacy to young children, often use words like tummy mummy, to explain how gestational surrogacy works, in language small children can understand.

For example:

The Very Kind Koala: A Surrogacy Story for children : https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1482621525/ref=pdawfbt14img2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=EE2RYBHM50E9S82YS144

The Kangaroo Pouch: A story about surrogacy for young children: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1499342721/ref=pdawsim143?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=HCTC1S8Z718BTP8TR7KF&dpPl=1&dpID=41LAGXl0yGL

Sophia's Broken Crayons: A Story of Surrogacy from a Young Child's Perspective
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1499342721/ref=pdawsim143?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=HCTC1S8Z718BTP8TR7KF&dpPl=1&dpID=41LAGXl0yGL#productDescriptionsecondaryviewdiv1518535030298

A Surrogacy Book for Young Children: Grown in Another Garden:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1535559683/ref=pdawwsim1443?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=8WA00BWHAR5Y7QDJRE8D&dpPl=1&dpID=51pEHHHSD4L

No I don't. I don't think Tummy Mummy cuts it as a descriptor either though. I'd use surrogate mother as a term to describe a woman who carries the child but isn't genetically related and biological mother for someone who is related.

That makes perfect sense. I'm not sure why you're getting grief for it.

that Our surrogate is the biological mother but she is also the surrogate mother...do we refer to her as the biological mother..no. She is my children's surrogate mother...she also donated her eggs which makes her biologically related. No one I know who has gone through ts denies this. It's just we don't focus on it unlike yoursel

It's not about "focus". It's about reality. A woman who gives birth to a baby conceived with her own eggs, is a biological mother. (Clearly a lot of people are uncomfortable with that reality hence the growth in GS/egg donor combo situations.)

A comparison would be half siblings who might consider each other plain "siblings" and refer to each other that way, but nevertheless factually they are half siblings.

I can understand the need to simplify it for a child but it's a twee term that I don't think adults need to use in a discussion on the topic. I can't understand myself why using biological mother is an issue, it's a simple factual description.

Our surrogate is the biological mother but she is also the surrogate mother...do we refer to her as the biological mother..no. She is my children's surrogate mother...she also donated her eggs which makes her biologically related. No one I know who has gone through ts denies this. It's just we don't focus on it unlike yourself.

But she is the biological mother, why shy away from that term?

I can understand the need to simplify it for a child but it's a twee term that I don't think adults need to use in a discussion on the topic. I can't understand myself why using biological mother is an issue, it's a simple factual description

I used it within the context of how I would explain their story to my child, if I were lucky enough to have a baby through surrogacy with a friend. I didn't and wouldn't use this without the context of talking about a surrogate to adults. The whole point was about how to communicate with a small child how they came into this world, in language they can understand at a young age.

My friend who would like to be a gestational surrogate for us would be the child's surrogate mother.

She would not be the child's biological mother because she would have no biological relationship with the child. Our embryos are made from my eggs and my husband's sperm. They are genetically ours.

Biological mother may be a simple factual description in the case of TS or egg donation. But my posts have all been about GS.

i love the terms 'tummy mummy' & 'surrobub' they're great imo. They're very widely used in the surrogacy world so it's second nature.
So is the knowledge that yes, biologically i'm linked to my TS surrobaby, but i will never be 'mum'

I'd be very surprised to find any surrogate who sees their surrobaby as their child. Or any surros who are called 'mum' by their surrobaby.