When fertilization techniques first were developed, concern was expressed about humankind messing around and creating situations that had no good ending possible. Here’s one
Situation: Two women use the services of the same fertilization clinic. Through some error, one of the women has not only her own eggs implanted, but eggs belonging to the other woman. Only one of the two women becomes pregnant.
However, at birth, Woman A gives birth to two children - one black, one white. It becomes very clear that the one child was not from her egg/sperm set and it traces back to the clinic and they identify the correct biological parents.
family B is now raising their biological child, as is Family A raising theirs.
Family A goes to court to seek visitation for the child the woman carried, claiming that since she carried the child for the gestation period, placing herself and her own child at risk, she deserves to have visitation. Note, she’s not asking for custody, visitation. Her request was denied, the appelate courts have refused to hear the case.
I have to admit I’m conflicted here. I can see the position of the family who, unbeknowingly, ‘hired’ a surrogate, as well as the position of the woman who carried a baby to term, believing that she was going to be blessed with twins, only to find out that “oops” not quite.
Hoping the collective wisdom here will help sort this out.
Oh, these poor families! How awful for them. My knee-jerk reaction to this situation is for both families to sue the fertility clinic that messed up in the first place so they’ll try to ensure that it doesn’t happen again. But they probably won’t because that will only just be even more hassle that they have to deal with on top of the visitation issue.
Back to the OP, so you’re saying should the court grant the unwitting surrogate mother A the right to visit the surrogate black child she bore?
Well, it’s difficult to say because the article doesn’t say how old the children are, how long the surrogate mother had the surrogate son, or how long the biological family has had custody of their biological son. I’m not sure what “visitation” means in this context either. Is it that the mother A can come over to family B’s house to see the surrogate child for a few hours a week, or is it that family A wants to have the surrogate child come over to their place and stay for a few days a month, or is it that family A wants to have partial custody and perhaps some say in how the child should be raised? If it is the first, depending on the age of the child and how well-established he is with his biological family, I see no problem with it just so long as there is clear communication and consent between both families about it. In terms of establishing visitation, why can’t family A’s biological son and the family B’s son be friends? When the surrogate mother A brings her son over to visit the surrogate son B, she also can visit with the surrogate son B and his family and get to know them better. Likewise, the surrogate son’s family B can do the same.
If it is the middle or the latter, then, yes, there’s a problem. The child legally and biologically does not belong to family A so they cannot order family B to let them see the child at all. Just because she bore the child doesn’t give her automatic rights to it if it is not biologically hers. Actually, the more I think about this the more I question the motivation of mother A. Is she having trouble letting go of the child? If so, then cutting off all access to the child, this includes visitation rights, is the right way to go. I think that if mother A really cared for the “surrogate” child, she would back down and give family B the chance to make up for the time they lost getting to know the child while she had it.
If this lawsuit hadn’t already taken place, I don’t think there would have been anything wrong with mother A visiting the kid once the biological family B has established ties with the child and had some time to put the trauma of discovering they have a son behind them, and family A has had time to adjust to the fact that they only have one child not two. Once that readjustment period was over, then both families could have met to talk about the logistics of visitation. If they could not agree on how the visitation should be done, then the surrogate mother A should then just back off. But that isn’t likely to happen now.
Not knowing the details, I’m going to base my answer on a lot of assumptions just like celestina.
One would hope that Family B would be reasonable and cooperative in such a matter. Perhaps they are, but not to the degree that Family A would like. But basically it’s Family B’s call and Family A should back off, get over it and move on with their own child. In time a relationship with the other child will probably be established in a natural and non-letigious way, but if not then they should just realize that they were dealt another one of life’s bad hands.
This situation was actually made a whole heck of a lot easier due to the fact that the birth mother was pregnant with a child of her own (genetically, that is). She went to the clinic to have a child that was genetically hers, and that’s what she got. The extra, non-genetic baby was something she didn’t count on, and didn’t go through too much extra trouble to bear. Since Mom A’s additional “investment” was small and she got the Kid A that she was after in the first place, I’d say the Appellate Division correctly decided that fairness supported Mom B getting Kid B without restrictions. If she hadn’t also borne a child that was genetically hers, this would have been a much tougher case.
It seems clear to me that since a lawsuit was filed, family B was not desiring any type of contact between family A and their child.
Some things I’m clear on - family B has sole legal parental rights -that is, deciding how the child should be raised etc. That it would be gracious indeed for them to allow some contact between their child and the woman who carried him to term. That the lab screwed up quite a bit. That family B owe the woman in family A a big debt of gratitude - to put it in minty’s terms, they contracted for an infant, got an infant and, as a bonus didn’t have stretch marks (only sort of joking - yes pregnancy bonding time yadda yadda yadda but there is a plus to not having to go through labor & delivery).
In a perfect world, (of course this wouldn’t have happened but anyhow), it would be very gracious indeed for family B to allow for the other woman to be included. But to mandate that, I’m not so certain it should be done.
However, I’m not quite at the ‘oh, no problem’ phases that minty is in - to carry two babies vs one increases risk to maternal health, as well as increases the possability of early delivery etc. So, she (unknowingly) took on risks for this other family.
still don’t see a ‘good way’ out of this one at all. Thanks for the feedback, all.
What the hell is wrong with everyone? Why in the world, out of respect for humanity, didn’t the two women and families just become good friends over this? Why the courts? Why the problems?
My wife and I are going for IVF soon, and if it so happened someone else carried our baby (or vice-versa), we’d ALL share a special bond. If they wanted to come visit, what the hell would I care? It would have to be at everyone’s convenience, but come on! Can’t we just be reasonable?
Damn, am I sounding a little too much like an after school special?
Considering that millions of children in America spend time with 2 families under joint custody agreements I fail to see any problem here. Seems like we are making mountains out of mole hills. Of course we could just fall back on the old tried-and-true bibilical method. Let’s see where did I put that sword.