And I mean nobody. Some of you may be familiar with the procedure known as "surrogacy," in which an infertile couple hires a surrogate to have a baby. This arrangement is enshrined in law and usually goes well. What usually happens is that either the egg or the sperm is implanted in the surrogate's uterus, where the fetus grows and the baby is delivered.
Now, this Florida couple had a successful surrogacy already - they had a boy born of a surrogate mom. So they tried again. And look what happened.
In a nutshell, the surrogate didn't sign the papers, didn't give up the baby, and is now suing the couple who hired her, for child support.
Can you believe that? Here's the story.
Birth Battle: Couple Says Surrogate Mom Won't Give Up Baby
By Grayson KammJACKSONVILLE, FL -- A couple paid a First Coast woman to have their child because they couldn't conceive on their own. Now, they say she won't give them the baby.
The Lamitinas say they had a great experience having a surrogate mom give birth to their two-year-old son TJ, so they were thrilled to try it again. Through a website, they found and hired a surrogate mother from Jacksonville.
But they say this fairy tale turned foul.
Last year, the couple says it signed a "surrogacy contract" with the Jacksonville woman. But they say since they trusted her, they never checked to see if she signed the document.
Then, two months into the pregnancy, the family says their surrogate started asking strange questions. "Personal questions, like how much money I made doing this, doing that. And then how much money I made at the end of the year," Tom remembered. "My first surrogate never asked me how much money I made."
And then, a letter arrived from the surrogate mother's lawyer.
It says this case is now a "child support issue."
"We didn't think anybody would be that low to use a child as a way to scam people out of money. That's pretty -- I mean -- I just didn't think anybody would be that low," Tom said.
We went to the mother's home in Argyle Forest looking for answers. As we did, a woman sped away. In the back of her minivan was what looked like the handle of a baby's car seat.
At the doorstep, a hand reached out from inside the house and stuck a sign on the front door. It said "No comment," and suggested we contact the surrogate mother's attorney.
So we did.
The surrogate's lawyer, Kelly Hampton, declined an on-camera interview, but said over the phone, "Under the laws of the State of Florida, surrogacy is like adoption. The surrogate mom has the option to keep the baby."
We asked, "Is she asking for child support?" The attorney said, "I'm not going to answer that."
Both sides agreed to a DNA test. A document provided to First Coast News by the Lamitinas showed the test was performed by a company on the First Coast and that the test determined a 99.9999 percent probability that Tom Lamitina is the baby's father.
Tom says the surrogate did cash their $1,500 deposit check.
But still, the couple says the surrogate, who provided the egg, never signed that contract. To them, the motive's clear.
"Fraud. Very fraudulent," Gwyn said. "It's almost like extortion... I have the baby, and you have to do what I want."
The Lamitinas' attorney says he plans to go to court soon, filing a suit to give the family full custody of the baby.
Every day, more and more people learn the hard way about the fucked up laws governing child support and custody.
UPDATE May 26, 2007: http://www.news4jax.com/news/13386918/detail.html
"Here is a clip that updates the situation. She has filed for full custody of the baby and is asking for child support, life insurance, health insurance and stating that the father would not provide a safe environment. What a load. They are awesome parents. Apparently, she had the baby 2 weeks ago and she named her. That is hard because they gave her a different name then what the IP's are referring to her as. Of course she would not use the same name but it just makes this all the more terrible and heartbreaking."
From the article: "They would have to balance the best interest of the child and decide where the child goes, but whoever doesn't have the child the other party is going to have to pay child support," Shorstein said.
Here is another similar story...
ReplyDeleteA signed contract is really worth very little in most states.
We had a signed contract and when our son was three days old our TS decided she needed more time to say goodbye, according to her husband. In reality over the next week she tore up the original birth certificate, changed our son's name then lied, listing her DH as the father!
Our court case is still not finalized. Our son is 11 years old! We pay his medical and child support and have done so since the DNA testing that proved he was our son!
Surrogacy can be the most incredible thing in the world but if you pick the wrong TS, you can really get a lifetime of heartache!
What is really needed are laws to protect the children and families of the children born through surrogacy. These laws need to be standard throughout the US, at the very least!
I feel very sorry for these parents. Their child will most likely never know their love. Custody laws in most states side with the biological mother. Her mental status, criminal background or ability to care for a child seldom enter into the decision!
~ Kim
At first I thought the woman was just a surrogate mother. She is not - she is the mother of this child, because it is her egg.
ReplyDeleteSo she has all rights a mother has.
The problem could only come up, because such "surrogate mothers" are allowed by law. They should not.
This woman is the child's mother. She has more rights to it than the wife of the father.
ReplyDeleteThis problem could only emerge because women are not forced to marry the child's father and egg donors are allowed.
An egg donor is a mother, and a sperm donor is a father.
Just when you think women can't hit a new low, they surprise you.
ReplyDelete-Dick
Thanks for the comments all, and mikeray I'm checking out that forum. Its really sad that the wife of the father probably has more rights than the actual father even though she isn't genetically linked to the child.
ReplyDeleteAnyone wanna bet that if she were to divorce, the courts would give custody to her automatically? The courts are hypocrites - they will cry fairness and responsibility when it comes to men, and the opposite when it comes to women.
Well, the biological parents of the baby are the husband and the surrogate but the surrogate has to hand over the baby to the couple.
ReplyDeleteThe surrogate is simply providing a service to the couple and she will be getting paid for it. Agreed that she is attached to the baby which is biologically hers too, she cannot renege on the deal with the couple.
If the surrogate wanted a baby for herself, she could have done it with her husband/boyfriend. Why go about using another man's sperm, then keeping the baby for herself and suing for support?
This woman appears to have planned the whole fraud for a long time - she checks out the couple's finances and she doesn't sign the contract - and she knows the law is on her side, she can claim 18 years of child support.
Amazingly, some other people are starting to figure out our court system. This comment is from later in the same thread that Pete discusses:
ReplyDelete"This story depresses me. I just don't see much hope for them getting their baby. From what I've seen, bio. [biological] moms pretty much have it in the bag, no matter the situation. I've seen some wretched, rotten, god awful bio. moms get to keep their kids (or get them back from foster care, etc.) because courts seem to think that biology trumps all."
Not to mention being of the female gender. That trumps all, too.
And mark my words: the closest male equivalent, that of being a sperm donor, is under attack from several quarters. Britain ended the practice of anonymous sperm donors last year, following much of the rest of Europe, and Virginia in the US proposed—but did not pass—a similar end to anonymity. There is a strong movement in Australia to end it on the grounds of the human right to know one's bio-parents, not simply to find out potential genetic medical issues (this would affect adoptions as well).
Two recent cases involving child support decided by the Pennsylvania state supreme court pose a potential danger to even anonymous donors if the principles spread—as they might. They do establish precedents that others can now cite. Other forums have covered these decisions well enough that I won't here.
The thrust of all this is eventually to require sperm donors, even anonymous ones, to pay support. Why else would governments end anonymity? And as the governments begin compiling a DNA databank to include everybody, anonymity will be a moot issue anyway. Pay up, chump! That's your DNA!
One of the undercurrents in the debate is the notion voiced by many women that anonymous sperm donors are somehow getting away with something—i.e., not supporting their offspring—even though the stated purpose behind donation has always been to help infertile couples conceive. You should see the comments some women make on threads discussing recent court cases and other news about sperm donation. They really seem to think that donors to sperm banks should face paying child support.
You're asking, "Okay, K-Dog, you're babbling about sperm donors, and the story is about surrogate mothers. What's your point?" This: a surrogate mother can demand support after keeping the baby, in violation of a contract she was supposed to sign—but a male sperm donor might eventually face having to pay support for offspring he never intended to know and might not be allowed to see, in violation of a contract he did sign. Bio-"moms" get all the benefits, even if they break a contract, but bio-"dads" get to pay, even if they signed a contract. Same old story, same old song and dance.
The quote I used is from the thread that MikeRay links to, not Pete's. My bad.
ReplyDeleteIt is the mother of the child. No one can force her to give up her baby to some other woman.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteIt is the mother of the child. No one can force her to give up her baby to some other woman.
May 27, 2007 4:45 AM
So explain the following...
-> Since she knew that she would have to give up the baby after birth, why did she choose to be a surrogate if she didn't intend to respect the deal?
-> If she wanted a baby so bad why doesn't she have one with her husband/boyfriend ? Why go about using another man's sperm ?
-> Why is she suing for custudy and child support ?
-> Why did she cash the $1500 cheque ?
Are you trying to say that a surrogate can keep the baby for herself and sue for child support and it is justified ? That this surrogacy practice is a way for women to cheat couples ?
Well, you just insulted the other good women who helped out couples to start a family.
"Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"It is the mother of the child. No one can force her to give up her baby to some other woman."
That exemplifies the attitude from the thread I quoted:
"From what I've seen, bio. moms pretty much have it in the bag, no matter the situation. I've seen some wretched, rotten, god awful bio. moms get to keep their kids (or get them back from foster care, etc.) because courts seem to think that biology trumps all."
Surrogacy is a contract, like it or not. MikeRay raises the questions I would ask, so there's no need to repeat them here.
The attitude Anonymous above has is the very reason that couples cannot trust the adoption process in the US any more. Too often the birth mother changes her mind and goes through legal proceedings to get "her" child back—and she now typically succeeds. New arrangements such as "open" adoptions, in which the birth mother maintains contact with her offspring while the naive adoptive parents bear the time and expense of actually raising it, will eventually facilitate bio-mom taking her child back when she's ready, possibly several years later. Of course, the couple will be out all the resources they spent on the adoption and child raising—but we must allow bio-mom to have her rights. After all, as Anonymous would say, it's her child and she can't be forced to comply with an adoption contract she signed of her own free will. As with marriage, an adoption or surrogacy contract in the US is valid only until the woman changes her mind. And we all know how often a woman changes her mind.
This is why adoptions of foreign children have dramatically increased in the US in recent years: once the child is stateside, the birth mother can't just pop up and demand "her" child back.
This goes to show, however, that many of these methods to help couples conceive are half-witted at best. We already have too many people and too many children who need homes, so we should discourage surrogacy, sperm donation, in-vitro fertilization, etc., in favor of pushing couples to adopt. (I would go so far as to forbid fertility treatment.) But to do this, we must go back to making adoptions final and sealing the records until the child reaches the age of majority. Fat chance as long as the fembots running this system favor the bio-mom's rights.
They did not just rent a womb but they wished to take her eggs, too. And the pretty straneg situation emerges that a completely foreign woman who happens to be the wife of the father wants to have more rights to the child than his mother.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they signed a contract maybe not. In any case such a contract has no legal binding, simply because it would mean human trafficking: 1500$ for another woman's child.
The legislative bodies failed to make such trafficking illegal and have the mess now.
The situation though is easily resolved: they pay child support and can be happy not to land in jail for the evil acts of wanting to buy of the cild of a mother.
It is sad though that the poor child will not see his fatehr but this is entirely the fault of the couple who planned from the beginning to take it away from his mother.
All furtehr discussion is useless. An infertile woman has no right to the eggs of another woman. It will nver be her child, even "adopted".
Adoption should be allowed only when born and abandoned but not before birth and as a part of human trafficking.
It is shocking to see that such things are allwoed.
If the woman had just rented her womb she would not be the mother, but this is not the case.
She is the mother as if the father had commited adultery.
Simple. Assess the father the child support. Then assess damages against the surrogate for fraud, in at least an equal amount.
ReplyDeleteIf the couple were at fault here for trying to buy a child, the surrogate was equally at fault for contracting to sell one.
She's even more at fault, for she is actually making money off this child.
Richard
The "Baby M" case nearly 20 years ago involving a surrogate mother, Mary Beth Whitehead, who wanted to keep the child, should have provided ample reason to ban this back then. Now we have this new case involving the surrogate keeping the child and demanding child support. I would say that a case such as this was inevitable. So: Why do we still allow surrogacy? Why hasn't it been banned?
ReplyDeleteAfter you ask that, another question follows. I posted above about the potential future risks to sperm donors being demanded to pay child support, both because of recent court decisions and the trend toward ending anonymity in donating. (Note that the sperm banks do keep full records on donors, even with anonymity.) Why do we continue to allow sperm (and egg) donation?
The technology has outstripped the ethics. And though I disagree with Anonymous above about enforcing the surrogacy contract, that person does raise a point: isn't surrogacy a fancy name for baby trafficking?
It really is time to take a long, hard look at fertility treatments that involve third parties. As I noted above, infertile couples should be discouraged from such "solutions" and, with proper reform of adoption rules, strongly encouraged to adopt instead.
Just looked on Google, and 20 years has passed since the Baby M case. The girl was born in 1986, and the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its ruling giving custody to the Sterns but allowing Whitehead visitation in 1988. Time flies.
ReplyDeleteIf Wikipedia is correct, the girl severed her ties with Whitehead upon turning 18 in 2004. Clearly the arrangement wasn't the child's cup of tea as she got older.
Here was a bad joke from the time:
Q: What are N, O, and P?
A: Mary Beth Whitehead's next three kids!
I know of 3 other cases where the surrogacy went through without a hitch and the children severed their ties with the family that raised them and have integrated into their mothers' families because, evidently, being separated at birth from their natural mothers and siblings just wasn't their cup of tea, either.
ReplyDeleteI should mention that one of those "children" is me.
"mikeray said...
ReplyDeleteWell, the biological parents of the baby are the husband and the surrogate but the surrogate has to hand over the baby to the couple.
The surrogate is simply providing a service to the couple and she will be getting paid for it. Agreed that she is attached to the baby which is biologically hers too, she cannot renege on the deal with the couple.
If the surrogate wanted a baby for herself, she could have done it with her husband/boyfriend. Why go about using another man's sperm, then keeping the baby for herself and suing for support?
This woman appears to have planned the whole fraud for a long time - she checks out the couple's finances and she doesn't sign the contract - and she knows the law is on her side, she can claim 18 years of child support.
May 26, 2007 7:02 PM "
In this case, the Surrogate did not have a baby with her husband/boyfriend because she is in a lesbian relationship. Funny coincidence, isn't it?
Indeed, a very funny coincidence indeed.
ReplyDeleteHello !.
ReplyDeletemight , probably very interested to know how one can reach 2000 per day of income .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may begin to receive yields with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.
AimTrust is what you need
The firm incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.
It is based in Panama with structures around the world.
Do you want to become really rich in short time?
That`s your chance That`s what you really need!
I`m happy and lucky, I began to take up income with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. If it gets down to choose a correct partner who uses your savings in a right way - that`s it!.
I take now up to 2G every day, and my first investment was 500 dollars only!
It`s easy to join , just click this link http://jacazave.freewebportal.com/ilywizih.html
and lucky you`re! Let`s take our chance together to become rich