And how is this any different than if the poor Thai woman had a given birth to a Downs kid conceived through regular knocking booties sex. Once the surrogate refused to have an abortion, the fetus became her problem. And if she knew she couldn’t financially provide for the baby once born, orphanages do exist for such cases.
Read a few history books. Kids as Commodities has been the cultural norm for almost all of human history. It’s only in the late twentieth century that child worship started to take hold.
http://news.msn.com/world/thai-surrogate-says-unaware-twin-had-down-until-late-in-pregnancy
In this article the surrogate mother says the bio parents and the doctors knew in the fourth month that Gammy was a Down’s Syndrome child, but that she wasn’t informed until the seventh month, when she was asked to have Gammy aborted, and she refused.
Again, just want to remind as the thread gets longer that abortion is illegal in Thailand. Unless the Aussie couple were willing to get the surrogate a passport and take her somewhere else to have the abortion, she was being required to commit a crime.
The Thai government has now outlawed commercial surrogacy, which leaves at least 50 surrogate pregnancies in legal limbo.
Which is to say, the outrage over the white couple leaving their baby behind may force 50 other white couples to leave their babies behind.
How did they get the twin sister back then? I have Western friends living here who just register their child’s birth at their respective embassies, but I don’t know how it works when you’re just on vacation somewhere and happen to give birth. And I certainly don’t know how it works in cases of surrogacy. What would the Aussie couple have said to Australian Immigration when they flew in with a new baby?
tldr
parents knew at 4 months, surrogate not until the 7th.
Thai surrogate says unaware twin had Down until late in pregnancy
http://news.msn.com/world/thai-surrogate-says-unaware-twin-had-down-until-late-in-pregnancy
Even better: the parents didn’t know the second child existed.
The surrogate has said she never met the parents. At this stage, the most likely explanation is that the Thai agency had been telling different stories to different parties, telling the parents only about the healthy child and telling the surrogate the parents disowned Gammy. It’s just that the fundraising has now brought discrepancies to light and someone will be in serious trouble because of this.
I’d be inclined to believe, with absolutely no evidence to back me up, that the Aussie parents(at least the father) are not telling the truth about being unaware a disabled baby was being carried.
I don’t know–I can imagine the agency wanting to protect their reputation for delivering healthy babies, and so they just tried to hide the fact that the child even existed.
With the passport for her that they would have applied for through the Australian Embassy in Thailand.
Nuthin’. She has a passport.
Well, it’s interesting because the gestational carrier is deemed the legal mother under both Thai and Australian law. Nonetheless, you’re right that there seems to have been a regular practice of Australia accepting these children as children of the intended parents, without the need for an adoption order.
A child born outside Australia as a result of a surrogacy arrangement is eligible for Australian citizenship by descent if, at the time of their birth, they had a parent who was an Australian citizen. Source: Department of Home Affairs
In international surrogacy cases where the intended parent is a biological parent, and is also an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen, a Child (subclass 101) visa is the relevant visa for the child. Eligibility requirements for this visa are available on the department’s website. In most cases a DNA test will be requested as evidence of a biological link between the child and the sponsoring parent.
See: Child (subclass 101) visa Source: Department of Home Affairs
You seem to be confusing surrogacy with sperm donation. This was an IVF implant.
I don’t know under what law you’re the legal mother if you’re the surrogate; and no need to adopt when the kid is biologically yours. There is no “regular practice of Australia accepting these children” - it’s legal.
And what Eliahna said.
I can certainly imagine the Thai agency lying. After all, this is Thailand. But I wouldn’t be surprised about the parents lying either.
Patty Nowakowski was a surrogate mother who gave birth to a perfectly normal girl and boy back in 1988. The couple only took the girl, as if they were taking one puppy from a litter. The Nowakowskis ended up raising both children.
As for adoption, not ever woman is capable of carrying a child for nine months and then handling the babe over to strangers like a sack of potatoes.
I can’t say that I’ve looked at all states, but for surrogacy procedures taking place in most Australian states, the gestational carrier has parental rights at birth, and a subsequent parentage transfer order (i.e., an adoption) must be entered. New South Wales. Victoria. Queensland. Tasmania. Note too that at least in NSW, if the surrogate is married, her husband is the legal father at birth (this is the old common-law rule for a child born to a married woman) and must also get changed in the transfer order.
Eliahna’s cite makes my point. The Australian federal government seems to be saying that in international surrogacy cases, the intended parents are recognized as having parental rights without the need for an adoption order – in other words, parentage under international surrogacy is treated differently from parentage under a domestic Australian surrogacy.
Oh the other hand, Siam Sam’s article cited below says that NSW and some Australian states will prosecute overseas commercial surrogacy criminally, so parentage may not be the only legality problem.
I can’t read Thai law myself, but the MSN article cited below says that at least until the military government’s recent order banning commercial surrogacy, there was no Thai law governing surrogacy arrangements. In that circumstance, presumably there wouldn’t be any law establishing the intended mother as the mother rather than the gestational carrier.
Latest local story. Excerpt, to confirm the above:
“It is illegal to pay a surrogate mother in Australia and in some states, excluding Western Australia, it is also illegal to pay a surrogate living overseas. An Australian woman can act as a surrogate for free, but also has a right to keep the child rather than hand it over to the biological parents.”
That’s my US-centric ignorance fought, thank you.
I’d be inclined to believe, with absolutely no evidence to back me up that the agency withheld the DS result and lied to the parents in hopes they’d either return for another surrogacy or recommend the agency to others, exploiting the surrogate’s ignorance of legal and genetic issues. They may have told both parties to communicate only through the agency, using fear of prosecution or financial loss to control them. They don’t care about putting healthy children into their parents’ arms, only about getting money and repeat business.
Corrupt surrogacy agencies here in the US are rare but they when they go bad they tell a lot of lies and steal a lot of cash. When prosecuted they’re rarely jailed, usually they pay fines and walk, then start over again.
And in yet another turn to this story, it seems the father has convictions (and has served jail time) for indecently assaulting a 13yr old child in 1998.