# Who ultimately has responsibility in a surrogate baby case? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 15, 2009, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-ultimately-has-responsibility-in-a-surrogate-baby-case/521293 "2009-12-15T00:29:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2009, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-ultimately-has-responsibility-in-a-surrogate-baby-case/521293/21 "2009-12-19T01:06:08Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > It hideous to give someone a bunch of bio-material and they create a living child to then take that child from her. Even if that was the agreement from the start, because a child ‘began’ and the mother bonds to that child, that bond didn’t exist before the child was created. Is it hideous if she’s okay with it and agrees to it? Or only if she decides she wants it? > [@Yllaria](#): > > Since Michigan has a law/regulation stating that surrogacy agreements are unenforcable, the surrogate is the default mother of the child. This is true even when the baby would otherwise be given to its married, picket fence, biological parents. The article says that it’s not guaranteed that the surrogate will win in a dispute, only that she’d have the stronger case. I guess they’re leaving open the possibility that the surrogate would not be a fit parent. So even in the case where a couple donates _their own sperm and egg_ to make their own baby, and the only role of the surrogate is to carry it and then give it back to the parents who are related to it, even in those cases legally the surrogate is the default mother? Because it came out of her? Just making sure. I mean, I get it. It’s just messed up that gestation means so much under the law. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-ultimately-has-responsibility-in-a-surrogate-baby-case/521293/22 "2009-12-21T18:16:00Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Other than the fact that she gestated the baby she has no tie to it. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the show? I’d consider that a pretty substantial tie, myself. Hell, I’d personally go against the nomenclature operating in this thread and call her the ‘bio-mother’ since she’s the one who performed all the biological functions of a mother over the (conception, birth] interval, being directly biologically connected to the child for that period. I would call the (anonymous, in this instance) contributors of the egg and sperm something like ‘gene mother’ and ‘gene father.’ That’s the sum total of their contribution. I’d call the Kehoes the ‘money parents,’ since that’s _their_ principal contribution. ISTM that what we have here is essentially a private adoption without any of the paperwork. Especially given Michigan’s law declaring surrogate parenting contracts to be unenforceable. The Kehoes’ mistake, IMHO, was to fail to treat it as such, and as a result, they have no adoption paperwork, and apparently no standing. All they have is 30 days of babysitting an infant, and the bio-mom’s initial willingness to hand it over to them. > [@](#): > > It’s just messed up that gestation means so much under the law. Well, that’s your opinion. I don’t think it’s messed up at all. Even in instances where the gene-mom and gene-dad and the money parents are the same two people, at the time of birth, the bio-mom has had by far the longest and most intimate contact with the child. While I don’t expect that everyone will ascribe as substantial a weight to that as I do, I don’t see how that can be brushed away as a triviality. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-ultimately-has-responsibility-in-a-surrogate-baby-case/521293.md?page=1)