How can this be ok? 'Surrogate' Baby born from meeting on Facebook

[OhHolyJesus]

This doesn't end well for anyone and I can't see why anyone would think this was a good idea but with more and more informal arrangements for surrogacy (this is formally an adoption so I don't know why the woman is called the 'intended parent') I can see this sort of legal battle becoming more common, maybe even in the U.K. where law reform is proposed.

The situation is, a woman posts on FB

“[W]ho wants to pop out a baby for my [fiancée] and I?!”

A mother of two offers herself and gets pregnant with her own boyfriend, so the woman and the fiancée asking have no genetic connection to the child (as would be required for a parental order in the U.K.).

The two women never meet in person.
Later the mother changes her mind but the baby, once born, is handed over to the woman, due to a judge ruling.

A legal battle ensues and it involves a brick through a window and I imagine a confused little 3 year old boy and a lot of heartache and expensive lawyers for everyone involved, apart from maybe the fiancée who is no longer in the picture, who has no relationship with the boy, genetic or otherwise.

As no money appears to change hands it isn't 'selling babies on the internet' but from the outset no one seems to be taking it all that seriously and no one is thinking about the little boy, who has two full or half siblings and a mother who he doesn't live with and who wants to have him with her.

https://nypost.com/2021/09/23/woman-locked-in-court-battle-with-surrogate-she-found-on-facebook/

You're really reaching here and I think you know it.

This isn't surrogacy, as you do acknowledge. This would have been adoption of a kind illegal in the UK. As often happens the birth parents changed their minds.

The birth parents were found to be unfit to care for the child which is why the couple who has originally looked for a surrogate were able to step in. This is nothing to do with surrogacy or the rights of women. A child was neglected so the child was moved to a place of safety, with this couple being able to suggest themselves because that is the way of things in the US.

Neither party are fit to parent in my opinion.

Wants and needs as has been said before.

I thought America had a civil war on such matters many years ago.

I was speaking to an adoption manager the other day and this was briefly mentioned, she said it's going to be a nightmare in years to come and as far as she was concerned from her experience, it's all about DNA.

I would be very careful getting involved in IVF etc, nobody can be trusted only you.

"When the child was about 4½ months old, the biological mother filed a petition to terminate the guardianship. The biological father did the same one month later — both wanted custody of the baby. The biological parents alleged the intended mother was unfit to care for the child, according to court documents. They accused her of making questionable parenting choices, like taking the baby to a nail salon when he was 2 months old and leaving him with her housemate so she could go to a concert out of state."

This article gives a lot more detail, including how the birth mother had her son added to her insurance which meant her eldest child was not covered by her medical insurance policy and this caused her to change her mind. The biological and genetic mother and the genetic father both claimed to want the child, as did the woman the child was placed with. What a terrible mess.

www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/09/23/facebook-messenger-massachusetts-surrogacy-parentage/

That poor kid

Has anyone actually ruled what's best for him. Sounds like only one set of parents wins here. The kid just gets his family torn apart and/or places with an unfit parent ( allegedly unfit)

If only the child was so highly thought about before he was conceived

This isn't surrogacy, as you do acknowledge. This would have been adoption of a kind illegal in the UK

I did acknowledge, the language of 'intended mother' is wrong to apply here, though the women involved, as is stated in the second article, referred to this as 'informal surrogacy' even though it would be through adoption that the woman unrelated to the child secures parental rights and recognition.

Perhaps it is the women who met on Facebook who are reaching to claim this is Surrogacy. Their words not mine (in '...' in the title of this thread).

Surrogacy should be illegal the world over. It’s child trafficking.

It’s exploitative, awful to separate the baby from its mother and incredibly misogynistic.

It should be being made illegal, not liberalised.

I’m really not keen on surrogacy at all.

At the very least, the birth mother should never share any dna with the baby - it has to be “entirely their bun” (ie that of the intended parents) as Phoebe in friends put it.

Surrogacy should probably involve as a legal requirement that all parties undergo independent checks to ensure this is something they really want to do, and the intended parents are suitable etc

And I agree an adoption as per the OP’s example, ie just meeting on the internet and asking for a baby, shouldn’t be allowed.

The issue here is that surrogacy is normalising the idea of having a baby to give away.

The birth parents were found to be unfit to care for the child which is why the couple who has originally looked for a surrogate were able to step in. This is nothing to do with surrogacy or the rights of women. A child was neglected so the child was moved to a place of safety, with this couple being able to suggest themselves because that is the way of things in the US.

No I don't think that's right. The NY Post article isn't very clear about the timeline but the Washington Post is better. It sounds as if the child was handed to the 'intended parent' and that triggered the hospital to make a neglect report. The welfare authorities checked out the families and had no concerns. The biological parents signed the guardianship documents and the child lived with the intended parents but then the bioligical mother had a change of heart (months in) which triggered the dispute.

This isn't a child being moved to a place of safety. It's about a transaction for a child that has 'gone wrong'.

This isn't surrogacy, as you do acknowledge. I'm not sure it's that clear cut. Certainly both news articles treat it as an example of why more surrogacy laws are needed. As a PP said, surrogacy has normalised the idea that you can transact to get pregnant and then transfer the baby. Once you've done that it's pretty difficult to draw bright lines as to when that is OK and when it is not.

Sure this arrangement wouldn't be recognised as surrogacy in the UK (yet) but it's worth asking what's different from a surrogacy arrangement that we would recognise. There have certainly been cases in the UK with surrogacy arrangements made through facebook example
Of course the big difference with the case in the OP is that the 'intended parents' don't have a genetic link to the child. But there are countries that recognise surrogacy without the need for a genetic link and the Law Commission here has proposed that we might go down that route too here p277 downwards in that link. If you get rid of the genetic link requirement then the only real difference is that the biological parents (presumably) had sex to conceive. I'm not sure that there should be any legal or moral difference between babies conceived through sex or by any other means. Certainly it doesn't seem to make a difference to the child.

If you get rid of the genetic link requirement then the only real difference is that the biological parents (presumably) had sex to conceive.

Not really, in practice. There are more important differences. But I agree there should be specific legislation making this scenario impossible.

No one, but no one, in the UK surrogacy world would have a child with their partner for a surrogate. That's millions of miles away from where they stand.

The possibility of not requiring a generic link in future has a very specific context. At the moment, couples who are unlucky enough to both have fertility issues can't be considered for surrogacy because you can use one donor but not two. In practice, these are often couples who have both had cancer or similar catastrophic bad luck, and would simply be using both services offered by an IVF clinic with all the testing and screening that comes with it. Given how many parents are parenting a child they're not genetically related to already, it is not an earth shattering move to allow those couples a chance to participate in surrogacy when others can. I agree there needs to be legislation to prevent situations like this one but no reputable UK surrogate or their partner would consider it-that's just not how it works. They would feel differently towards the baby for one thing and they would predict that.

I agree that the problem here was a collection of reckless people mistaking baby selling for surrogacy.

I think I took my baby to a nail salon when they were a couple of months old. Odd thing to be vilified for.

@VestaTilley

Surrogacy should be illegal the world over. It’s child trafficking.

It’s exploitative, awful to separate the baby from its mother and incredibly misogynistic.

It should be being made illegal, not liberalised.

This! Completely agree.

I'm sure no reputable UK surrogate would do anything remotely like this and that it's very far from any surrogacy where those involved have taken advice and used clinics etc. But the problem is that you can't base your law around what reputable people do. Take out the lack of genetic link and this is the kind of situation that the UK courts have had to deal with (casual arrangements made online, no counselling, no welfare checks). The problem is that you can't legislate to stop people doing it you just have to deal with the mess they create.

I appreciate the arguments for removing the need for a genetic link (though I don't think all jurisdictions that do it require medical reasons before allowing it) but once you've done that then you've essentially got the situation here. An agreement to carry a baby and hand it over.

I appreciate the arguments for removing the need for a genetic link (though I don't think all jurisdictions that do it require medical reasons before allowing it) but once you've done that then you've essentially got the situation here. An agreement to carry a baby and hand it over.

The Law Commission have proposed removing the requirement for a genetic link for "medical" reasons. Though I think the interpretation of medical reasons is likely to be generous. But if this isn't required then inevitably people will save themselves the bother and expense of IVF via a clinic and settle for an arrangement to breed a baby and hand it over as has happened here.

The other problem is that unless social services are involved before the baby is born, and assessments done in advance with agreement regarding the destination of the baby at birth then presumably the baby will go home with the commissioning parents. By the time parental orders come to court the baby will have resided with them for some time. In these cases possession is 9/10th of the law. Invariably when it comes to considering the best interests of the child the courts are reluctant to remove the child from the only home and parents/care givers it has known (unless there is obvious risk of harm). As happened in this case. So really the best interests of the child are not served - an agreement is reached based on fair accompli.

The kennel club protects puppies better than we protect babies!