Out of court surrogacy talk between American father and Thai surrogate mother enters litigation

[webfact]

Out of court surrogacy talk between American father and Thai surrogate mother enters litigation



BANGKOK: -- An out of court mediation to end the dispute between a Thai surrogacy mother and her American hirer failed to reach agreement when the mother insisted to hold the baby.

The dispute now will enter litigation when the American father also insisted to take the baby back home.

A case of a commercial surrogacy which involved two foreign male couples and two Thai women has entered into litigation after court sponsored negotiations between the two parties collapsed.

The foreign couple said they will file a legal suit against the women for libel and violation of the Computer Act of Thailand after she refused to hand over custody of baby ‘Carmen’ to them.

The Criminal Court yesterday arranged an out of court meeting in an attempt to reconcile a case involving a suit filed by American Gordon Allan Lake against Panitta Kusonsrang and Wiruthai Maneenutnet for libel and violation of the Thai Computer Act.

The suit came about after the women gave an interview to a TV program on July 21 and 22, 2015 claiming the American was a human trafficker and had hired one of them as a surrogate mother.

The negotiation lasted almost four hours but produced no agreement with Ms Panitta insisting she would not give up the child and intended to raise baby ‘Carmen’ herself.

Her insistence has upset the American father who declared to seek court justice to claim the baby.

As the talk failed, the Criminal Court then said it will hold a preliminary hearing of the case later in the afternoon.

Mr Gordon said that he was greatly aggrieved and was very upset but confirmed that he was still willing to negotiate.

His lawyers however stated that the case will now be pursued under the judicial system.

Ms Panitta was hired as a surrogate mother by American Gordon and his male companion but after she gave birth to baby ‘Carmen’ refused to hand over custody to her clients.

Gordon then had no choice but to file a complaint with the Central Juvenile and Family Court to ask for custody of baby ‘Carmen’ in accordance with the statutes of the Child Protection Act concerning children conceived under Assisted Reproductive Technology Law of 2015.

Ms Panitta refused to sign over custody to the American couple which effectively meant that travel documentation could not be arranged for the child.

The Criminal Court later set arraignment date for March 23-31 next year in 2016 to hear charges of libel and violation of the Computer Act of Thailand which were formally filed against the women.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/out-of-court-surrogacy-talk-between-american-father-and-thai-surrogate-mother-enters-litigation


-- Thai PBS 2015-12-22

[Bluespunk]

"The negotiation lasted almost four hours but produced no agreement with Ms Panitta insisting she would not give up the child and intended to raise baby Carmen herself."

You can't.

She's not yours.

[optad]

"The negotiation lasted almost four hours but produced no agreement with Ms Panitta insisting she would not give up the child and intended to raise baby Carmen herself."

You can't.

She's not yours.

Classic response on a seriously complicated issue.

These topics should be allowed in the sandpit with the children

[Bluespunk]

"The negotiation lasted almost four hours but produced no agreement with Ms Panitta insisting she would not give up the child and intended to raise baby Carmen herself."

You can't.

She's not yours.

Classic response on a seriously complicated issue.

These topics should be allowed in the sandpit with the children

She has no DNA link to the child.

It is not hers in any way, shape or form.

She was paid to carry it and that's it.

Now as to whether paid surrogacy is right or wrong is another issue. I have my doubts about the morality of it but that's not the issue here.

She may want the child but she's not hers to raise.

She may have feelings for the child, sorry but that's not enough to claim parentage.

She was a paid surrogate and that's all.

The child is not hers.

[Ichabod]

The contract is effectively to sell a child, therefore unconscionable and unenforceable. A mother's claim has priority over all other claims.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Ichabod

[optad]

^ bluespunk

The issues are not just about DNA, they morph into so many areas. The rights of the child generally come last here but you also have the biological arguments, 'moral' maternity of the carrier, tort laws according to numerous jurisdictions, marriage law, legislature of all domains concerned, international treatises......and it goes on.

My post was atesting to TV inability to consider this issue in proper balance given the limited reporting above. For example you cite information not present in that webfact. I am not even clear as to what kind of surrogate the "mother" is. Was it her ovuum or IVF, what is the status of the ovuum? . What is "two foreign male couples" anyhow and what constitutes an "American hirer" and then ipso facto, what exactly is the corollary status of, the "hiree/".

Frankly my view is that if this very example cannot be done back in home country, under domestic laws in should not be condoned. Too many lassitudes and too many poor examples.

Better yet adopt. But that is my view on the problems because of so many botched surrogacy stories like this one. Phluckin selfish at heart.

[Bluespunk]

^ bluespunk

The issues are not just about DNA, they morph into so many areas. The rights of the child generally come last here but you also have the biological arguments, 'moral' maternity of the carrier, tort laws according to numerous jurisdictions, marriage law, legislature of all domains concerned, international treatises......and it goes on.

My post was atesting to TV inability to consider this issue in proper balance given the limited reporting above. For example you cite information not present in that webfact. I am not even clear as to what kind of surrogate the "mother" is. Was it her ovuum or IVF, what is the status of the ovuum? . What is "two foreign male couples" anyhow and what constitutes an "American hirer" and then ipso facto, what exactly is the corollary status of, the "hiree/".

Frankly my view is that if this very example cannot be done back in home country, under domestic laws in should not be condoned. Too many lassitudes and too many poor examples.

Better yet adopt. But that is my view on the problems because of so many botched surrogacy stories like this one. Phluckin selfish at heart.

I am very familiar with the case as it has been running all year.

The woman carried the child.

The egg was not hers. The sperm was the fathers.

She has no DNA link to the child. The father has.

She was paid as a surrogate.

That is all.

The child is not hers.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Bluespunk

[Bluespunk]

The contract is effectively to sell a child, therefore unconscionable and unenforceable. A mother's claim has priority over all other claims.

Nobody sold the child. It was conceived via IVF. The carrier was paid to carry the child. That was her only role. The only person involved in this sad dispute with any genetic link to the child is the father. The child should be with him.

[optad]

Like i said earlier. No-one is equipped with the intimacies to really comment on this case. Just laddened with poor ethical structures or none at all. This entire practice should just cease and desist globally.

[Bluespunk]

Like i said earlier. No-one is equipped with the intimacies to really comment on this case. Just laddened with poor ethical structures or none at all. This entire practice should just cease and desist globally.

If you are talking about commercial surrogacy I agree. I have serious doubts about this practise.

However in this case the father is the only person involved who has a genetic link to the child.

The surrogacy has happened and the child should be with him.

[optad]

Like i said earlier. No-one is equipped with the intimacies to really comment on this case. Just laddened with poor ethical structures or none at all. This entire practice should just cease and desist globally.

If you are talking about commercial surrogacy I agree. I have serious doubts about this practise.

However in this case the father is the only person involved who has a genetic link to the child.

The surrogacy has happened and the child should be with him.

"should" and anything to do with this topic are just crap statements.

You are conflicted naturally by having knowledge or knowing the parties, I come from an ethical social welfare pov where it is easier to lay broad statements down because of problems at eh other end. I deal with those.

I hope the result is best for the child.

[Bluespunk]

Like i said earlier. No-one is equipped with the intimacies to really comment on this case. Just laddened with poor ethical structures or none at all. This entire practice should just cease and desist globally.

If you are talking about commercial surrogacy I agree. I have serious doubts about this practise.

However in this case the father is the only person involved who has a genetic link to the child.

The surrogacy has happened and the child should be with him.

"should" and anything to do with this topic are just crap statements.

You are conflicted naturally by having knowledge or knowing the parties, I come from an ethical social welfare pov where it is easier to lay broad statements down because of problems at eh other end. I deal with those.

I hope the result is best for the child.

So do I. I hope she is allowed to leave with her father.

[seajae]

The contract is effectively to sell a child, therefore unconscionable and unenforceable. A mother's claim has priority over all other claims.

she is not the mother, the fertilized egg was from another female donor, this woman has no biological connection to the baby at all, she is not the mother all she did was carry it for nine months as an incubation chamber, that is what she was hired to do.

[MobileContent]

Its a das story really but I find in that Thai woman a gold digger who wants to have her 1 minute fame and on the end a big cheque.

[soalbundy]

"The negotiation lasted almost four hours but produced no agreement with Ms Panitta insisting she would not give up the child and intended to raise baby Carmen herself."

You can't.

She's not yours.

possetion is nine tenths of the law

[MadDog2020]

Its a das story really but I find in that Thai woman a gold digger who wants to have her 1 minute fame and on the end a big cheque.

I agree and here in lies the problem with most Thai people and companies that I have worked with. They never will honor an agreement or contract and always wish to renegotiate or change the agreement after it was made.

The woman agreed to carry the baby to birth. It's done and over. Time Hand over the baby to the father(s) and go on with your life. Live up to you agreement like any honest and honorable person would do.

[ClutchClark]

^ bluespunk

The issues are not just about DNA, they morph into so many areas. The rights of the child generally come last here but you also have the biological arguments, 'moral' maternity of the carrier, tort laws according to numerous jurisdictions, marriage law, legislature of all domains concerned, international treatises......and it goes on.

My post was atesting to TV inability to consider this issue in proper balance given the limited reporting above. For example you cite information not present in that webfact. I am not even clear as to what kind of surrogate the "mother" is. Was it her ovuum or IVF, what is the status of the ovuum? . What is "two foreign male couples" anyhow and what constitutes an "American hirer" and then ipso facto, what exactly is the corollary status of, the "hiree/".

Frankly my view is that if this very example cannot be done back in home country, under domestic laws in should not be condoned. Too many lassitudes and too many poor examples.

Better yet adopt. But that is my view on the problems because of so many botched surrogacy stories like this one. Phluckin selfish at heart.

Optad,

Your post shows far too much intellect for the TV Forum.

I bet you will quit frequenting here before you even reach 1,000 posts.

Edited December 22, 2015 by ClutchClark

[Bluespunk]

"The negotiation lasted almost four hours but produced no agreement with Ms Panitta insisting she would not give up the child and intended to raise baby Carmen herself."

You can't.

She's not yours.

possetion is nine tenths of the law

no it's not.

[catman20]

"The negotiation lasted almost four hours but produced no agreement with Ms Panitta insisting she would not give up the child and intended to raise baby Carmen herself."

You can't.

She's not yours.

Classic response on a seriously complicated issue.

These topics should be allowed in the sandpit with the children

She has no DNA link to the child.

It is not hers in any way, shape or form.

She was paid to carry it and that's it.

Now as to whether paid surrogacy is right or wrong is another issue. I have my doubts about the morality of it but that's not the issue here.

She may want the child but she's not hers to raise.

She may have feelings for the child, sorry but that's not enough to claim parentage.

She was a paid surrogate and that's all.

The child is not hers.

agreed BUT its the same old thing with these Thais no sense of morals or integrity it a poker game she is playing, she just wants to move the goal posts to get more money out of him, if he has the balls to leave her with the baby she will be back on the phone in a few months asking when he can collect the baby

[darren84310]

There are plenty of orphans out there.... This practice should be banned... when profiteering comes into these things, it's bound to end badly.

[optad]

^ bluespunk

The issues are not just about DNA, they morph into so many areas. The rights of the child generally come last here but you also have the biological arguments, 'moral' maternity of the carrier, tort laws according to numerous jurisdictions, marriage law, legislature of all domains concerned, international treatises......and it goes on.

My post was atesting to TV inability to consider this issue in proper balance given the limited reporting above. For example you cite information not present in that webfact. I am not even clear as to what kind of surrogate the "mother" is. Was it her ovuum or IVF, what is the status of the ovuum? . What is "two foreign male couples" anyhow and what constitutes an "American hirer" and then ipso facto, what exactly is the corollary status of, the "hiree/".

Frankly my view is that if this very example cannot be done back in home country, under domestic laws in should not be condoned. Too many lassitudes and too many poor examples.

Better yet adopt. But that is my view on the problems because of so many botched surrogacy stories like this one. Phluckin selfish at heart.

Optad,

Your post shows far too much intellect for the TV Forum.

I bet you will quit frequenting here before you even reach 1,000 posts.

Actually, 400 could be tough . I think a ban may come today. See elsewhere... POTY

[SOTIRIOS]

......another conniving b*tch that had someone 'whisper something in her ear'....

...step 1 slander the foreigner.....

...step 2 reap all the benefits after you have done with him....

....'greed conquers all'.....

...this has nothing to do with love....

...but she will hide behind it.....a woman......Thai.....

...renege....steal the guy's sperm.....call him a 'human trafficker....

...<deleted> you you dirty conniving c*nt....looking to be set up for life...

...same with my wife and so many others......

...get some laws in to protect foreigners from these predators in disguise...

[MadDog2020]

There are plenty of orphans out there.... This practice should be banned... when profiteering comes into these things, it's bound to end badly.

This isn't about orphans or the practice. The practice was (is) legal and sanctioned.

This is about someone trying to use a child that us not even hers as property. She should be brought up on as many criminal charges as possible then have as many civil suits against her as possible for breach if contract.

Thai people need to understand that as part of the rest of the world (and ASEAN) they are expected to act as grown ups (in the rest of the world) and live up to the agreements that they have made.

Stop acting like spoiled little brats.

[mrwebb8825]

Does he have a contract translated into thai? If so, demand a refund, threatening to sue the entire family and try again.

Personally I find it a little off that 2 gay men would want to buy a baby from a thai in the first place. It's a strange, strange world these days.

Also would like to know why Liable and Slander charges weren't added to the list of possible offenses after naming him as a human trafficker on tv.

[Brigante7]

"The negotiation lasted almost four hours but produced no agreement with Ms Panitta insisting she would not give up the child and intended to raise baby Carmen herself."

You can't.

She's not yours.

Yes she is, she is 1 of the childs parents, the other being the American male.

[Brigante7]

The contract is effectively to sell a child, therefore unconscionable and unenforceable. A mother's claim has priority over all other claims.

Wrong.

Both parents claims are equal and therein lays the problem.

[Bluespunk]

"The negotiation lasted almost four hours but produced no agreement with Ms Panitta insisting she would not give up the child and intended to raise baby Carmen herself."

You can't.

She's not yours.

Yes she is, she is 1 of the childs parents, the other being the American male.

No she isn't.

It wasn't her egg that was fertilised.

[Bluespunk]

You might want to do some research on DNA before posting. Once an egg is fertilised and a foetus has begun to develop it does not take on DNA from the womb it is in. DNA comes from the sperm and egg.

"The negotiation lasted almost four hours but produced no agreement with Ms Panitta insisting she would not give up the child and intended to raise baby Carmen herself."

You can't.

She's not yours.

Classic response on a seriously complicated issue.

These topics should be allowed in the sandpit with the children

She has no DNA link to the child.

It is not hers in any way, shape or form.

She was paid to carry it and that's it.

Now as to whether paid surrogacy is right or wrong is another issue. I have my doubts about the morality of it but that's not the issue here.

She may want the child but she's not hers to raise.

She may have feelings for the child, sorry but that's not enough to claim parentage.

She was a paid surrogate and that's all.

The child is not hers.

Edited December 22, 2015 by seedy
Quote hidden post

[Ulic]

This has gone on long enough, she needs to be charged with extortion.

[LukKrueng]

The contract is effectively to sell a child, therefore unconscionable and unenforceable. A mother's claim has priority over all other claims.

I agree with you that surrogacy is wrong in many ways, but that's not the point here. The surrogate mother signed into this deal and accepted the payment for delivering a baby to the paying party. If the father(s) were wrong buying the service, the woman was wrong for accepting the deal in the same way. Is she willing to give back all amounts paid to her and all the expenses of the "ordering party"? The OP doesn't mention anything about that but I seriously doubt she ever considered that option.