Another surrogacy gone wrong - New Zealand

[OhHolyJesus]

So the newspaper said they kept names anonymous and didn't contact the surrogate mother which I think leads to an incredibly biased article with no right of reply from the other side.

It was a 'home job', no clinic, the surrogate mother is the legal mother and genetic and biological as it was her egg. No reason given as to why she changed her mind, only a mention of her feeling stupid to have agreed in the first place.

NZ media gearing up for the NZ consultation on reform, with the Labour rep submitting it as biased as she has a son through surrogacy. Nice and neutral then.

www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/surrogacy-horror-kiwi-parents-are-having-to-share-custody-with-surrogate/QC6U4F6MYIL3KUZR7RMUGQXGIE/

That is an excellent point, @Sittinbythetree. It would be good to re-distribute the linguistic weighting to better reflect reality, but that horse has probably bolted.

The OP's article was appalling. I'm actually shocked that NZ has such a thoughtless approach to surrogacy. My mother's a Kiwi, and in general they're very common-sensical and clear-sighted - clearly not on this issue tho.

SorryPlease
Yes...thank you for reminding me...the commissioning mother who will raise the child...

I DO have a lot of sympathy for many of these mothers, who often choose surrogacy after years of painful infertility. I don't see them all as evil, but with legal surrogacy, it makes deeply disappointed would-be parents think, "how could this be wrong if it's legal?"

IRL, I have an acquaintance who did just this, using a surrogate, a donated egg and her husband's sperm. She's a lovely mother, a kind person, but despite her good heart, I can't see that she did the right thing. Her children are still pretty young (not yet teens), so I am not sure how they will handle it as they grow up. In many ways, this woman was a product of a sexist world. She desperately wanted to please her husband and give him biological children of his own. When this option came up, she took it. If the option hadn't been there, I'm sure this couple would have adopted...and still had the joy of being parents.

Sometimes but very rarely - not really realistic, but the God complex scientists are working on it - there could be...

A women's egg nucleus - commissioning mother
A women's egg - egg's donor - do we like 'egg sharer'?
A surrogate mother
A man's sperm - commissioning father

All theoretically possible with gene editing...

www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00673-1

"Woman keeps her baby shocker"

What a dreadful situation this is for everyone.

Women can't win can we?

On reclaiming language, this podcast from Renate Klein is very good. She is very blunt. I can't remember exactly what she calls the intended parents but it's something like 'purchasers' and she insists on calling the surrogate mother regardless of whether there is a genetic relationship.

www.feministcurrent.com/2020/05/11/podcast-surrogacy-a-human-rights-violation/

It's illegal in this country to have a baby and give it to someone else to raise. It's illegal to lie on birth certificates about parentage

Erm, adoption? You have a baby and give it to someone else to raise. They get a new birth cert saying the adoptive mother is the mother. Neither is illegal.

@Fufumuji

It's illegal in this country to have a baby and give it to someone else to raise. It's illegal to lie on birth certificates about parentage

Erm, adoption? You have a baby and give it to someone else to raise. They get a new birth cert saying the adoptive mother is the mother. Neither is illegal.

Adoption is regulated Giving a baby to someone else to raise unofficially is not legal Adoption is a process that is legally regulated and official. An adoption certificate is not a birth certificate. It doesn't lie about parentage. Different things, see?

Yes, this is something I can't wrap my head around. A couple - or even a single person - rock up to the maternity ward and say "we are the parents" and the midwife is expected to just hand the baby over to them? I realise there's a bit more to it than that, presumably they will have been named and visited at some antenatal appointments, they and the surrogate mother might even flash a contract or something at one of the antenatal appointments but as those aren't legally binding...
And with no evidence of any checks of suitability etc. Especially in these DIY "traditional" cases. The mother, the actual mother is announcing this couple are having the baby and handing it over to them.

I've no idea what goes on in reality and no doubt it varies from one hospital to another but my inclination would be to call safeguarding pronto.

What would happen, I wonder, if a woman announced "yeah, it was a one night stand and I don't really want to keep it but the father wants it, so he's taking it home and keeping it. Here he is. Give it to him".

Which technically is pretty much the same situation as a DIY "surrogacy" albeit, presumably without the sex.

I also have sympathy for women (and men) who desperately want a child and I can understand why they go the surrogate route. I am guessing they do a lot of rationalising in their own minds of why it is ok, which is why the language around surrogacy has to be dehumanising of the birth mother, so that they don't feel like they are actually buying a baby or exploiting another human being.
Equally with prostitution, there are lots of men who tell themselves that the prostitute they go to likes them and doesn't mind helping them and that their inability to get sex elsewhere constitutes an actual need and justifies them using another persons body.
I can also see why someone in a desperate situation would be willing to do other unethical things, like pay for an organ donation to save their child.
That's why we need to have regulations in place to stop unethical practices.

It's the surrogates genetic baby so that means they are the mother, end of. Most surrogacy pregnancies are using an embryo that's either the intended parents or a third party donor. The situations are not the same.

I think that the idea that in surrogacy it is the egg that defines the biological mother is very strange, as the same does not apply in other situations of egg donation.

On the one hand, if a surrogate is carrying a baby where the egg came from the commissioning mother she should have no right to the baby when it is born and it obviously belongs to the commissioning mother as it is her egg. Motherhood is only about the genetic material and carrying the baby for 9 months has nothing to do with it.

On the other hand, if an infertile woman is pregnant using a donor egg the baby obviously belongs to the pregnant women, the egg donor has no claim to the baby and the child has no right to know the egg donor. The genetic material is completely irrelevant and it is the process of carrying the baby that makes the mother.

Different things, see?

Didn't say they weren't The point was that its illegal to give someone else a baby to raise (it isn't, even informally), and that its illegal to lie on a birth cert, (it isn't, adoption does that, regulated or not was not the pint made).

If you want to discuss important legal matters, your terminology matters, The point made was wrong.

Also, what do you think happens after the surrogacy? The new mother just takes the baby and no-one says anything? No, you have to go to court to secure your legal position as a parent. Otherwise you aren't one.

Also again, surrogacy IS regulated.

But the application for a parental order doesn't happen for some weeks or months after the commissioning parents have gone home with the baby. Meanwhile the baby is being handed over to strangers more or less on a verbal say so, albeit the birth mother signs it over, not sure what paperwork is used, I would expect it would be different for each hospital.

One of them is usually the biological parent, so why shouldn't they?

I think that the idea that in surrogacy it is the egg that defines the biological mother is very strange, as the same does not apply in other situations of egg donation.

Thank you for pointing that out! It seems to change w/ the desires of the commissioning parents as to who the mother really is. I equally wish egg donation was banned along w/ surrogacy.

Yes, and in adoption, the mother who gave up her baby, especially under duress is generally pitied, and there is much research about the primal wound of the baby that is removed. And yet in surrogacy the mother is congratulated for denying her biological instincts, insisting she is happy to give up the baby and everyone is happy! (No mention of what the baby thinks about it all obv).

One of them is usually the biological parent, so why shouldn't they?

No, for a parental order there is always a genetic to the child, otherwise it is adoption which is an entirely different process, and when it is for a baby born of a so-called surrogacy arrangement it is different again as it is not placing a child who has been abused and/or neglected with a new family but arranging parental rights for a child commissioned but without a genetic connection to the commissioning parents.

Custody as Fanny rightly points out is immediate as the surrogate mother may hand over the baby off hospital grounds or in the car park but she (and maybe her husband or partner) don't take the baby home with them, though during the pandemic lock downs with travel bans sometimes they had to and those maternal bonds that had been fought against for 9-10 months took over.

That is a shockingly biased article - really awful.

I'm not trying to be flippant but there's a well worn trope in comedy sketch shows of a very solemn interview of usually a couple telling the terrible tale of something terrible which has happened to them.

The joke being that the terrible thing either isn't terrible at all or it was terrible for someone else and just a minor irritation for them and that far from being victims deserving sympathy they are just awful people. That's what the article reminded me of.

What would happen, I wonder, if a woman announced "yeah, it was a one night stand and I don't really want to keep it but the father wants it, so he's taking it home and keeping it. Here he is. Give it to him".

Well no one would say that in front of the midwives but in the UK if the parents registered the birth together then the one night stand father is a parent with parental rights and responsibilities. There's no reason why the mother can't disappear into the sunset never to be seen again leaving the baby with its father. She would still have rights and responsibilities but she can ignore her rights and the father can ignore her responsibilities. Eventually his wife or partner could adopt the child.

I don't suppose it's a very common situation but I'm not actually seeing anything morally wrong in that situation. I suppose the difference would be the unplanned element- leaving a baby with a father who wants the child is surely better than an abortion or leaving the baby with a woman who doesn't want a child. It's the deliberate planning to take a child from its mother even before it's born which is wrong.

Indeed, I'm pretty sure I have read if a case where a woman didn't want an abortion and didn't want the baby so gave it up to the father. Obviously I was using a flippant wording. What I mean though is with regards to taking a newborn baby and handing it over to other people who claim to be the parents because surrogacy. It all goes in trust and there are no checks. The baby will be six months old by the time of the parental order and the relevant checks that entails. I don't believe a midwife/hospital would just hand a newborn to a man claiming to be the father if the mother said she didn't want it but was letting the father gave it. I'm quite sure social services/safeguarding would be called. Although as you say, if she took it home, and they both registered the birth that would be different.

I think all babies in surrogacy should be DNA tested to establish that there is a genetic connection to one of the parents.

I think all babies in surrogacy should be DNA tested to establish that there is a genetic connection to one of the parents.

I think blood tests are done and are submitted as some kind of evidence (though not a criminal trial obvs) to prove parentage for a parental order to be considered.

Oh thanks OP. I didn't know that.