Surrogate dies in childbirth, leaves behind two of her own kids

[ConfessionsOfTeenageDramaQueen]

"According to the post, Michelle and Chris decided to help another family who wasn't able to have children after they were done having kids of their own.

Michelle was on her second surrogacy for the same family when she lost her life.

Like any other pregnancy, surrogate pregnancies involve the same medical risks of carrying a child and giving birth."

This makes me really angry. Link below.

www.foxla.com/news/california-mother-of-two-dies-giving-another-family-the-gift-of-life?fbclid=IwAR2RgBrXZnWZa1DES4PQWDYMifkY7YCpLy6WVEOoHj6cD145L9Xof1Iy4mI

If I make an agreement to get pregnant by random donor sperm and give the baby to someone else in a surrogacy arrangement, neither social services or the court need to be involved. And the indended parent does not need to be vetted.

Wouldn't the independent parent have to adopt the baby though? So the same process would have to occur, otherwise, in law they would never be recognised as the parent. They wouldn't be on the birth certificate for example.

Wouldn't the independent parent have to adopt the baby though? So the same process would have to occur, otherwise, in law they would never be recognised as the parent. They wouldn't be on the birth certificate for example.

That's where I'm confused. Not all intended parents are genetically linked, so why can they just take a baby without social services and court involvement just because they arranged the pregnancy.

Fertile people can have children at will without pre conception checks on them.

This could be used as an argument to just do away with checks for adoptive parents too.

It is a basic human right, imo, to be free to attempt to start your own family without interference from any outsiders. However, that does not extend to a right to be given a child, either by adoption or surrogacy (or ivf for that matter). Therefore state interference in deciding who should be given a child is acceptable.

I've done quite a lot of reading of research into babyhood and early childhood. I think surrogacy is wrong because willingly creates a child, knowing that child is to be deprived of its mother. Your skin smells the same as your amniotic fluid ffs, don't tell me the baby won't feel that loss.

I also get rather sick of the argument that because a baby isn't genetically related to the surrogate mother, she is "just" an oven, or it's simply renting a womb. The surrogate's blood components, micronutrients stores, energy intake etc all go directly to making that baby.

Adoption at birth is different as the foetus has already been created.

Xenia the family are crowdfunding to pay for the funeral. Does'nt that make you uncomfortable?

In the UK one or both of the intended parents must have a genetic connection to the baby. So the egg must have come from the woman who is going to raise the baby, or the sperm from the man who is going to raise the baby, or both. Otherwise they'd have to adopt, with all the additional scrutiny that entails.

If I make an agreement to get pregnant by random donor sperm and give the baby to someone else in a surrogacy arrangement, neither social services or the court need to be involved. And the indended parent does not need to be vetted

Wouldn't the independent parent have to adopt the baby though? So the same process would have to occur, otherwise, in law they would never be recognised as the parent. They wouldn't be on the birth certificate for example

Unless the donor sperm was from the "someone else" in the arrangement so that there is a genetic link you cannot just give a baby away in the UK.

If the baby is being looked after by its genetic father then that is no different from any other situation where a child lives with only 1 parent-although that does not remove the other parent from having responsibilities.

@NotBadConsidering

I totally agree that the difficult questions should be discussed. The application forms of the reputable organisations are too lengthy to post here, but are easily found online. They cover expectations, family support, expenses, amount of contact, beliefs and preferences, medical info, criminal record checks, and to attend an info/advice session.

The surrogate and intended parents should take time to get to know each other well. It shouldn't feel rushed, or transactional. If it turns out they disagree on something fundamental or just don't feel it's the right relationship, they need not work together.

When they're ready to begin, the organisation arranges an agreement session for all involved, where all the "what happens if..." questions are discussed in detail.

Additionally, if a clinic is used, the clinic provides an implications counselling session for the surrogate, and separately for the intended parents.

The surrogate and intended parents have access to a supportive community online and in person, so can talk with others in similar situations or who've completed a surrogacy arrangement.

There are other groups and individual arrangements who may do things differently and no-one would deny that problems can occur at times. But there are many in the reputable groups who work hard to uphold positive and ethical surrogacy.

If I make an agreement to get pregnant by random donor sperm and give the baby to someone else in a surrogacy arrangement, neither social services or the court need to be involved.

No, that isn't true. After the birth in a surrogacy arrangement, a Parental Order is required for legal parenthood to pass to the intended parents. This is granted through the Family Court. Additionally, in a surrogacy arrangement, at least one of the intended parents must be genetically related to the child.

I assume DNA tests aren't standard, though, so what's to prevent all parties concerned lying?

"In the UK one or both of the intended parents must have a genetic connection to the baby."

I mentioned this upthread: the new proposals are to remove this requirement. I think it should be kept. I thought the point of surrogacy was for at least one of the intended parents to have a genetic link. If there won't be a genetic link they should adopt.

She wasn't selling (unless it was her egg). It's more like renting. She was selling her effort and her time - literally her labour. Same as a an office worker or a Brickie or a prostitute.

Yeah, being a prostitute is not like being a bricklayer or an office worker.

I assume DNA tests aren't standard, though, so what's to prevent all parties concerned lying?

Because the birth certificate will state, at the very least, who the mother is.

How can the people raising the child do anything official if they don't have legal parental responsibility?

Even if the father is the genetic father and is recorded on the birth certificate his partner won't have parental responsibility unless they go through a formal process.

I don't see how anyone can lie about the mother on a birth certificate.

How can the people raising the child do anything official if they don't have legal parental responsibility?

People who want a child to love and raise will do whatever officialdom requires of them to cement their legal parenthood.

People who have more nefarious intentions will be able to acquire a newborn, facilitated by the hospital and disappear into the night with it.

I posted this link up thread but it discusses some shocking cases involving people trafficking.

I think there are massive safeguarding concerns about surrogacy. I believe it would be embarrassingly easy for a pregnant woman to sell her baby to a stranger, fobbing off the hospital that it is a surrogate arrangement.

https://www.actlawsociety.asn.au/documents/item/3222

I can't see how that can possibly happen in the UK unless the pregnant woman receives no ante natal care, delivers at home without assistance and then the child is never registered, never goes to school, drs etc.

In the UK one or both of the intended parents must have a genetic connection to the baby.

Ok I didn't know that, it makes more sense then re: the difference in rules for adoption and surrogacy.

Personally I feel whether there is a genetic link or not, surrogacy shouldn't be allowed. Paying a woman to gestate and birth a baby then removing it from its mother at birth, is not the same as a normally conceived child living with its dad rather than its mum - which still only really happens if the mum can't look after the child or the dad is an abusive prick.

That's the whole point Hearhooves
The woman would have antenatal care. Then the baby would be handed over to the commissioning parent/s with the hospital's blessing. Then the commissioning parents (whose identity is unlikely to have been checked or established by the hospital) disappear with the child. Maybe to sell on. Whatever. I'm not suggesting someone who wants to enroll the child at their local school etc is likely to do this. I think it would be very easy to do.

As a mother herself, how would she have explained these pregnancies to her children, resulting in no brother or sister. Terrible to lose their mother, but to die in a business transaction, how to make sense of that.

Lots of her body, her choice comments on this thread, but can a baby incubating business be ethical or healthy?

FannyCann

How can that happen in the UK though? The birth mother would be recorded on the birth certificate, even if the father was registered as the father the other partner would never have parental responsibility and that would be an issue going forward plus the midwives and health visitors I'm sure would raise alarm bells if they never saw the child again after it leaves hospital.

I just don't believe that you could have a baby in hospital in the UK and make it just disappear without someone asking questions.

Fictional example.

Anne and Bill want a newborn baby to be their child, but they both have fertility problems. They either don't want to adopt or wouldn't be approved for adoption, or just don't want all the red tape.

Cassie agrees to help them. Cassie becomes pregnant. The embryo has been conceived using a donor egg and donor sperm, both picked to Anne's and Bill's specification at an overseas clinic. There is no genetic connection to Anne or Bill.

When the baby is born, Cassie registers the birth. She says she is the mother and Bill is the father. This is not true, but without DNA testing, who's to know? Bill and Anne get a parental order, and the child is theirs.

Here's a page with a link to the form Cassie would have to fill in. It's one page long and basically says 'I sign my rights away'. There doesn't seem to be any requirement for proof of anything she says or Bill says. www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-a101a-agreement-to-the-making-of-a-parental-order-in-respect-of-my-child-section-54-of-the-human-fertilisation-and-embryology-act-2008

Here's an overview of how to get a parental order. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/843890/Surrogacy_guidance_for_intended_parents_and_surrogates.pdf It says it's done in the magistrates' court usually. Does anyone with experience know if this is a rubber stamping exercise, or is there some discussion? I see a social worker is involved.

The whole thing seems wide open to abuse to me. I see a recommendation in the UK government guidance to go through an agency, but how reputable are the agencies? I assume they're not charities but businesses, so what ethical framework do they work under, if any? Are they primarily looking out for the intending parents or the woman who's going to go through the pregnancy? I can't see how they can do both.

Sorry to link to The Guardian, but here's Julie Bindel on womb trafficking

www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/apr/01/outsourcing-pregnancy-india-surrogacy-clinics-julie-bindel

At least Anne and Bill want a baby to be their child.

If you had opened the link I posted Hearhooves you would have seen this opening paragraph.

"The trafficking of new-borns has evolved in sophistication with the ease of travel and medical advances in technology. The Peter Truong case graphically illustrates the terrible consequences for new-born babies of an unregulated market where new-borns are no more than tradeable commodities. In that case, a new-born boy was trafficked into the custody of two men, Peter Truong and Mark Newton, who smuggled him into America and legally adopted him. From the age of 21-months to 6 years, the boy was sexually abused and groomed to perform sexual acts, not only on his two parents, but also on scores of men they organised to meet around the world."

If a woman claims her pregnancy is a surrogate arrangement, privately arranged with home insemination and this man is the father who checks the veracity of any of that? What checks are in place to ensure this man is suitable? Determined criminals are very good at exploiting weak links where benign trust and goodwill are the order of the day.

Another case from Australia.

www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/may/19/man-who-sexually-abused-surrogate-twin-baby-daughters-jailed-for-22-years

That's absolutely horrifying

FannyCann

The document that you linked to was Australian though, hence why I've been repeatedly asking about the UK.

As with Anne and Bill though the case goes to court and a social worker is involved. It really isn't as simple as a woman just handing a baby over as they leave hospital, in the UK.

Obviously in the rest of the world things are likely to be very different but then I suppose many areas relating to children are likely unregulated so anyone wanting to do harm quite probably wouldn't need to go to the trouble of surrogacy.

Because her own two children have been left motherless so I assume you're mad at the lady who was acting as a surrogate, for risking leaving her children motherless for the sake of someone else's desire to have children for her own financial gain?