UK court lets surrogate mother keep baby girl

[mr friendly guy]

linky

UK court lets surrogate mother keep baby girl

# January 23, 2011 9:39AM

A BRITISH judge has ruled that a surrogate mother can keep her baby girl after she changed her mind about an agreement to hand the baby over to a childless couple.

The welfare of the six-month-old girl, known only as T, "requires her to remain with her mother", said Mr Justice Baker, explaining the decision he has made following a hearing in Birmingham last month.

"In my judgment, there is a clear attachment between mother and daughter. To remove her from her mother's care would cause a measure of harm. It is the mother who, I find, is better able to meet T's needs, in particular her emotional needs," Judge Baker said.

The judge said the risks of entering into a surrogacy agreement are "very considerable".

"In particular, the natural process of carrying and giving birth to a baby creates an attachment which may be so strong that the surrogate mother finds herself unable to give up the child."

The mother met the couple, Mr and Mrs W, over the internet in 2009 and agreed informally that the mother would be inseminated by Mr W, and hand the baby over after the birth, the judge said.

During the pregnancy, however, she changed her mind, and at T's birth refused to hand over the baby as agreed. The mother has two older children.

Mr W is a chef and he and Mrs W were married in 2005. After Mr and Mrs W were married, they tried to have a baby themselves, but their attempts resulted in a series of miscarriages, which led them to consider surrogacy.

It was agreed that the mother would act as a surrogate for the Ws, using Mr W's sperm, and she became pregnant, but at some point during the pregnancy, relations between the parties deteriorated.

The child was born on July 16, and Mrs W went to the hospital, but says she was made to feel unwelcome by the mother's friends and family members. Her husband began legal moves a week later, and another judge appointed a woman as the child's guardian.

Judge Baker said: "At the date of the hearing before me, T was five months old. The evidence from the guardian is that she is thriving in her mother's care."

I am no legal expert, but I am pretty sure this flies in face of previous precedents, namely the so called Baby M case. It doesn't take a genius to work out that this will have a negative impact on people seeking surrogacy, since the surrogate could keep the child, why seek surrogacy? Also those surrogates who made some money carrying someone else's baby may lose out. I guess this just reinforces that episode of Picket Fences where scientists figure a way for a cow to carry the surrogate kid, and one of the reasons given was that a cow won't fight for custody of the child.

[Chaotic Neutral]

Did she end up getting the money for the pregnancy, or is she footing her own bill?

[mr friendly guy]

Well since the UK has socialised health care, I imagine the surrogate doesn't need to foot the bill. In regards to your other question, its unknown whether she received payment for the pregnancy, but I am guessing not since she broke the contract.

[cosmicalstorm]

I don't think that is strange at all. Of course if they have some kind of agreement where the mother gets X amount of money for doing it, I would think it was reasonable for that money to be withheld. But if she wants to keep the baby, she gets to keep it. You have to resort to a surrogate mother because you cannot get a baby any other way? Tough luck for you, life is unfair. As the judge says, that's a risky deal to make.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The distinction here is that the surrogate mother was nothing of the sort. She was the genetic mother of the child. This isn't a case where she was implanted with an embryo, rather, she contractually agreed to have a baby with this other woman's husband who was genetically her own, and then hand that baby over to the couple.

[Chaotic Neutral]

The distinction here is that the surrogate mother was nothing of the sort. She was the genetic mother of the child. This isn't a case where she was implanted with an embryo, rather, she contractually agreed to have a baby with this other woman's husband who was genetically her own, and then hand that baby over to the couple.

So you have to pay extra for an unnecessary artificial insemination, just to guarantee your contract is upheld?

[K. A. Pital]

I have an extremely low opinion of people who use other people as surrogate childbearers, unable to cope with their own genetic deficiency, for the same reasons the judge has listed. In fact, I am not fond of the very concept of surrogacy for these reasons. However, I am also not supporting those women who enter an agreement to become surrogates (unless it is extreme need which forces them to enter such an agreement).

Truly, surrogacy is one of those things that the world would be better off without. Rights of the childless couple or childless woman to use any methods to get a baby? Fine! Do whatever you want with your own bodies. Artificial insemination, IVF, ICSI, whatever. Use another person for that, risking gross psychological damage to said person? No. There should be limits to what can be bought and sold.

Frankly, if this case discourages people from turning to surrogacy, I am only glad to hear that.

[Alyeska]

What brought that up? What is fundamentally wrong with surrogacy? We have technology, why not use it?

[K. A. Pital]

What brought that up?

Probably a bit of news which was relevant to a position I hold.

What is fundamentally wrong with surrogacy?

What is fundamentally wrong with prostitution? They're doing it for money, right? Except there is a problem - usually prostitution is connected with abuse - if not physical, then more often than not psychological. Same here, albeit to a lesser extent.

We have technology, why not use it?

Because the use of this technology is creating psychological trauma to people? I mean, I don't give a fuck if they consented to that beforehand. You should know humans are biochemical pots which are stupid and easily influenced by the chemical reactions within our bodies. The mere fact that so many surrogates sue to keep their child indicates that their mental state changes after giving birth, and whereas prior to that they may not have realized just what the fuck they are doing, kinda like someone who tries heroin the first time, they do realize it post-facto. And their perception changes as well. It is a technology which, sadly enough, forces humans into psych trauma for money. I do not feel this is a good practice.

That's like saying we should let people sell their organs for money if they consent. Except newsflash, some people are too dumb to realize the full extent of the consequences that occur after losing internal organs. And we have legislation to protect these people from themselves, don't we? So why not view surrogate mothers the same way? Or are you really thinking that there's nothing wrong with the situation?

[Shroom Man 777]

Da, Stas has point. There are physiological and psychological changes that happen to a person who is undergoing pregnancy. Hormones change, the whole body changes, everything, and this does affect how the person perceives things. It's okay for a non-pregnant person to consent to surrogacy beforehand, but after months of carrying a baby inside, having it grow within the person? After becoming pregnant and seeing the baby he/she has nurtured inside his/her womb for the whole time, a person may end up changing his or her mind afterwards, y'know.

Because people and their perceptions are affected by the things they experience, and pregnancy is quite an experience.

EDIT:

And even if the surrogate follows through with the deal and gives up the child, and the "plan" goes accordingly, who knows how that will psychologically affect the surrogate? Normal pregnancy and childbirth can already cause stuff like postpartum depression and whatever. Surrogacy won't be easy for the surrogate, especially when he/she is experiencing it. It may sound easy beforehand, before the surrogate has gotten pregnant and whatever, but afterwards? After all that? Man.

[Chaotic Neutral]

What is fundamentally wrong with prostitution? They're doing it for money, right? Except there is a problem - usually prostitution is connected with abuse - if not physical, then more often than not psychological. Same here, albeit to a lesser extent.

That is because it is illegal, so prostitution rings are led by criminals. Countries here it is legal don't have nearly as many problems with it.

Come to think of it, that probably a good reason for keeping surrogacy legal.

That's like saying we should let people sell their organs for money if they consent. Except newsflash, some people are too dumb to realize the full extent of the consequences that occur after losing internal organs. And we have legislation to protect these people from themselves, don't we? So why not view surrogate mothers the same way? Or are you really thinking that there's nothing wrong with the situation?

Organs kill you if you don't have them. Children don't.

[Shroom Man 777]

You're neglecting the psychological impact it has on the person who has nurtured the child in the womb, and who may have developed an attachment to the infant which he/she did not consider prior to his/her pregnancy when he/she agreed to surrogacy.

Turns out mothers may develop attachment to children and may come to value babies more than organs like kidneys?

[Chaotic Neutral]

You're neglecting the psychological impact it has on the person who has nurtured the child in the womb, and who may have developed an attachment to the infant which he/she did not consider prior to his/her pregnancy when he/she agreed to surrogacy.

Turns out mothers may develop attachment to children and may come to value babies more than organs like kidneys?

So the question is whether or not someone should be legally allowed to sign themselves into possible mental problems.

[Alphawolf55]

What is fundamentally wrong with prostitution? They're doing it for money, right? Except there is a problem - usually prostitution is connected with abuse - if not physical, then more often than not psychological. Same here, albeit to a lesser extent.

That is because it is illegal, so prostitution rings are led by criminals. Countries here it is legal don't have nearly as many problems with it.

Come to think of it, that probably a good reason for keeping surrogacy legal.

That's like saying we should let people sell their organs for money if they consent. Except newsflash, some people are too dumb to realize the full extent of the consequences that occur after losing internal organs. And we have legislation to protect these people from themselves, don't we? So why not view surrogate mothers the same way? Or are you really thinking that there's nothing wrong with the situation?

Organs kill you if you don't have them. Children don't.

Well you can die from childbirth the chances of dying in both cases actually from my memory aren't that different (for organs specifically kidneys it's 1 in 3000) In fact organ donation organizations claim that those who do donate, live longer then those who don't.

Granted the argument you two are saying, shouldn't people be not allowed to donate organs in general?

[K. A. Pital]

That is because it is illegal, so prostitution rings are led by criminals. Countries here it is legal don't have nearly as many problems with it.

So you don't think it creates psychological problems even if it's legal? The problem with getting rid of prostitution is that prostitution is extremely easy and does not require any special facilities - hence, easier to legalize than to push underground and allow pimps to dominate the business. Surrogate childbirth requires extremely advanced medical facilities. The two are not the same.

Come to think of it, that probably a good reason for keeping surrogacy legal.

Except it's not, see above. You obviously understand that organ theft has been good enough of a reason for some nations to ban organ donations, no matter how beneficial they were. This is a good illustration of how adverse consequences can outweigh the benefits offered.

Organs kill you if you don't have them. Children don't.

Actually, you can live with one kidney. Except the life would be hard, and gross negative consequences will manifest later in life. Hey, maybe life might be hard for a person who had to give up her child after nurturing it? Sure, you can say "let's punish the stupid - she should never have agreed to it in the first place". In this case I should ask, do you support punishing junkies with the same level of severity as drug dealers? After all, the junkies consent to drugs before they know what they are, right?

So the question is whether or not someone should be legally allowed to sign themselves into possible mental problems.

Exactly. Which is not an issue as clear-cut as "we have the tech, let's use it wohoo!" It doesn't work that way with complex questions.

[Keevan_Colton]

Here's another point to consider against the notion of surrogacy, the number of children in need of fostering or adoption already around in the world. Why add more children when there's already a glut of them in need of love and care?

[K. A. Pital]

Oh, and the aforementioned Baby M case? IIRC, Baby M case also declared the surrogacy contract null and void, it was more like a dispute between biological father and biological mother, and the court ruled in favor of the father, contract regardless. In fact, the Baby M case and this case both nullified the surrogacy agreement.

Also, as I see, there was no formal contract in the case mentioned here - commercial surrogacy is illegal in the UK, isn't it?

Personally, I like how some nations in Europe deal with surrogacy - no to commercial surrogacy, only idealistic. And strict criteria, health check-ups (which I presume include mental condition) before any such agreement is concluded.

[Shroom Man 777]

So the question is whether or not someone should be legally allowed to sign themselves into possible mental problems.

Exactly. Which is not an issue as clear-cut as "we have the tech, let's use it wohoo!" It doesn't work that way with complex questions.

Not necessarily mental problems. But potentially psychologically and emotionally difficult events. Normal pregnancy and childbirth is already tough enough as it is.

[Serafina]

I have an extremely low opinion of people who use other people as surrogate childbearers, unable to cope with their own genetic deficiency, for the same reasons the judge has listed. In fact, I am not fond of the very concept of surrogacy for these reasons. However, I am also not supporting those women who enter an agreement to become surrogates (unless it is extreme need which forces them to enter such an agreement).

Truly, surrogacy is one of those things that the world would be better off without. Rights of the childless couple or childless woman to use any methods to get a baby? Fine! Do whatever you want with your own bodies. Artificial insemination, IVF, ICSI, whatever. Use another person for that, risking gross psychological damage to said person? No. There should be limits to what can be bought and sold.

Frankly, if this case discourages people from turning to surrogacy, I am only glad to hear that.

Stas, i agree with you - in cases where the couple seeking surrogacy could give birth on their own, where the female still has a perfectly functional womb.
However, there are a number of people who just can not have children any other way - there ARE women who can not get pregnant, whether due to healt hrisks or the organs being damaged, but still have egg cells that can be used for such a procedure. I see no reason to deny them such a procedure.

Again:
-If the couple seeking surrogacy could give birth on their own, i agree with you
-If the couple seeking surrogacy can not do that, i see no reason to treat surrogacy any different than sperm donors.

Yes, there are a couple of potential problems with surrogates. I am advocating that surrogate mothers should have a right to see their children despite not having any genetic relationship, and should preferably live close by in order to do so. It is also necessary to ensure that they know exactly what they will be doing, and that no financial incentive is pressuring them (which rules out most surrogates in the third or second world).
But a general ban for couples who have no other options? No, i am against that.

Here's another point to consider against the notion of surrogacy, the number of children in need of fostering or adoption already around in the world. Why add more children when there's already a glut of them in need of love and care?

This argument can be applied to ANY form of conception and birth - including completely natural conception and birth. "Why did you let your husband impregnate you, you could have adopted instead".

[HMS Sophia]

Just to add to the conversation on costs (rather than getting into the moral side):
As well as having social healthcare and welfare, I'm pretty sure it is illegal in this country to pay for a surrogate.
While the couple seeking one can provide living expenses, these have to be legally viewed as 'gifts', and are not something that the couple can force the surrogate to repay.

[mr friendly guy]

. The mere fact that so many surrogates sue to keep their child indicates that their mental state changes after giving birth, and whereas prior to that they may not have realized just what the fuck they are doing, kinda like someone who tries heroin the first time, they do realize it post-facto. And their perception changes as well. It is a technology which, sadly enough, forces humans into psych trauma for money. I do not feel this is a good practice.

Do we have any statistics on this? Because this type of thing makes the news when a court case like this is decided, but if it went off without a hitch it most likely isn't news worthy, so our recollections may be biased.

[Simon_Jester]

Personally, I like how some nations in Europe deal with surrogacy - no to commercial surrogacy, only idealistic. And strict criteria, health check-ups (which I presume include mental condition) before any such agreement is concluded.

So... is your problem with the idea of surrogacy, with the idea of commercial contracts for surrogacy, or both?

[Chaotic Neutral]

Here's another point to consider against the notion of surrogacy, the number of children in need of fostering or adoption already around in the world. Why add more children when there's already a glut of them in need of love and care?

This argument can be applied to ANY form of conception and birth - including completely natural conception and birth. "Why did you let your husband impregnate you, you could have adopted instead".[/quote]

Yeah, that's a good point too. It's not like the planet is lacking in people.

[Serafina]

Here's another point to consider against the notion of surrogacy, the number of children in need of fostering or adoption already around in the world. Why add more children when there's already a glut of them in need of love and care?

This argument can be applied to ANY form of conception and birth - including completely natural conception and birth. "Why did you let your husband impregnate you, you could have adopted instead".

Yeah, that's a good point too. It's not like the planet is lacking in people.

I was pointing out that, if you are using your argument "adopt before you make another child" it applies to every way to make a child, including the "man fucks woman until she is pregnant"-way.
If you want to use that argument, it's fine in principle (tough it ignores the wishes of parents and a lot more, but it's core proposition is correct), but if you are only applying it to artificial ways of making children (be in insemniation, IFV, surrogacy or something else) then you are hypocritical - there is no principal difference in outcome between artficially and naturally conceived children for the purpose of this argument: You still have one extra child on an overpopulated planet and one less adopted child.

[K. A. Pital]

Personally, I like how some nations in Europe deal with surrogacy - no to commercial surrogacy, only idealistic. And strict criteria, health check-ups (which I presume include mental condition) before any such agreement is concluded.

So... is your problem with the idea of surrogacy, with the idea of commercial contracts for surrogacy, or both?

I think with both (for reasons detailed above, it can cause trauma - and not to the whatever "majority" of surrogates who are altruistic blah blah blah and are duly motivated, etc., but to a percentage of more or less ordinary people who are changed by the pregnancy and later feel they made a wrong decision). But less so in case of idealistic surrogacy with strict observation. When money enters the equation, a lot more poorly thought-out agreements can be made without proper thinking on the surrogate's side, especially in the Second and Third World.

I don't really think overpopulation is a strong argument against surrogacy, but the fact that another person is used as a living carrier to deal with genetic deficiencies of someone strikes me as wrong. Even more so when it is done for cash. If you could implant embryos into cows, like in that anecdote - sure. However, another conscious living being? I am not really excited.