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

[farcanell]

This practice of surrogacy is becoming common, because, as I understand it, adoption options in the USA are becoming harder to acheive.

This is not because the prospective parents are gay... That in itself is common enough nowadays, it because there's not enough babies to go around... Again, as I understand it

Couples desperate for a baby ( including M/F couples) are seeking surrogacy as a solution, and Thailand authorities allow this, therefore along comes the " business"... Cold but true, it's a business deal

In this case, the incubator seems to be in contravention of the terms of the contract... So... Mummy can't be trusted... And the daddies are determined to prosecute the case, because they are in the right and have a working moral compass

And let's face it... In which country and family would the child be more likely to prosper.... This needs inclusion when considering the case too ( I'm assuming only, that the egg was provided to the men by a friend from America)

[pmk1000]

This is such a sad story! The Thai legal system will suck the American men for as much money as they can, and will drag the case out as long as possible, as do all legal systems worldwide! The Surrogate should be in jail rather than have custody of the child, she will also try to drag it out as long as possible to extort as much money as humanly possible! Meanwhile the child is suffering everyday, unsure future, the stress of this will effect her for her entire life. She should be home in her fathers arms at Christmas as part of a loving family! I don;t post often, but this hurts to see stories such as this! I truly hope although it will never happen that the Surrogate gets locked up, one thing is for sure the Universe/karma will pay her back in time!!!

[phantomfiddler]

I,m sure a little (more) "fragrant grease" would solve the situation

[Lenscraft]

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

Actually, if it's surrogacy, the contract is to carry a child. The child contains no DNA of the person paid to carry it. The mother, technically, is the person who donated the eggs.

[Lenscraft]

possetion is nine tenths of the law

Actually, no, "possession is nine tenths of the law" is a common misconception, but it's absurd. If I were to drive away with your car, does 9/10 of the law support my right to keep your car? Of course not. See the discussion on Quora here.

[Colabamumbai]

How much money is she demanding? That is the bottom line.

[tom21]

it makes no difference who supplied the egg or sperm,. it is the law in Thailand that matters so I be interested in the result.

[ravip]

......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...

Oooooh these poor, innocent, suffering, grieving foreigners...

[ravip]

This is such a sad story! The Thai legal system will suck the American men for as much money as they can, and will drag the case out as long as possible, as do all legal systems worldwide! The Surrogate should be in jail rather than have custody of the child, she will also try to drag it out as long as possible to extort as much money as humanly possible! Meanwhile the child is suffering everyday, unsure future, the stress of this will effect her for her entire life. She should be home in her fathers arms at Christmas as part of a loving family! I don;t post often, but this hurts to see stories such as this! I truly hope although it will never happen that the Surrogate gets locked up, one thing is for sure the Universe/karma will pay her back in time!!!

^^

Very strange pattern of thoughts.

Why not do all these at home so that the love will stay at home at Christmas?

Why do all these in an undeveloped, 3rd world country?

Universe/karma sure will have it's way...

[connda]

TIT: Show me the money ฿a฿y .

Edited December 22, 2015 by connda

[Monomial]

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

Actually, if it's surrogacy, the contract is to carry a child. The child contains no DNA of the person paid to carry it. The mother, technically, is the person who donated the eggs.

Unfortunately only for your particular definition of mother is that true. The Thai legal definition of mother in this case is the one who gave birth to the child.

The problem here comes down to one of definitions, and people's beliefs. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with surrogacy per se. In the view I hold, which I believe is logically consistent, giving an embryo to a surrogate to be cared for is no different than giving a newborn baby to a nanny to be cared for. The only difference is one of degree and the effort and intimacy involved in the nurturing task. So I would agree that the surrogate should not be considered the mother, and it is ridiculous in my opinion to call this "selling a child".

However, under the Thai law that existed at the time of this contract, the woman who carries the baby is the legitimate mother, and she has every legal right to the baby the same as the father on the birth certificate. Moral judgements and definitions aside, that is the reality, and thus the quagmire that the court is going to be forced to sort through.

Like many I have been following this case for awhile, and I don't believe this is a case of extortion. The problem occurred when the surrogate found out the couple was gay, and she voiced a moral objection to releasing the baby to a gay couple. Despite the armchair lawyers here on TV, this is not about money. If it was that simple, the problem would likely already have been resolved. The real unfortunate part is that the father and his partner apparently concealed the fact that they were a gay couple from the surrogate when the contract was made. In retrospect, that was a huge mistake, and the beginning of the problem. I hope the father at least recognizes that his poor judgement in this respect is at least partly to blame for this incident.

Sadly, both the Thai mother and the foreign father believe they are acting in the best interests of the child. We can all have our personal opinions, but the judge is going to have a tough time of it. I wouldn't want to be the guy sitting on the bench who has to choose.

[Dumbastheycome]

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

Actually, if it's surrogacy, the contract is to carry a child. The child contains no DNA of the person paid to carry it. The mother, technically, is the person who donated the eggs.

Unfortunately only for your particular definition of mother is that true. The Thai legal definition of mother in this case is the one who gave birth to the child.

The problem here comes down to one of definitions, and people's beliefs. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with surrogacy per se. In the view I hold, which I believe is logically consistent, giving an embryo to a surrogate to be cared for is no different than giving a newborn baby to a nanny to be cared for. The only difference is one of degree and the effort and intimacy involved in the nurturing task. So I would agree that the surrogate should not be considered the mother, and it is ridiculous in my opinion to call this "selling a child".

However, under the Thai law that existed at the time of this contract, the woman who carries the baby is the legitimate mother, and she has every legal right to the baby the same as the father on the birth certificate. Moral judgements and definitions aside, that is the reality, and thus the quagmire that the court is going to be forced to sort through.

Like many I have been following this case for awhile, and I don't believe this is a case of extortion. The problem occurred when the surrogate found out the couple was gay, and she voiced a moral objection to releasing the baby to a gay couple. Despite the armchair lawyers here on TV, this is not about money. If it was that simple, the problem would likely already have been resolved. The real unfortunate part is that the father and his partner apparently concealed the fact that they were a gay couple from the surrogate when the contract was made. In retrospect, that was a huge mistake, and the beginning of the problem. I hope the father at least recognizes that his poor judgement in this respect is at least partly to blame for this incident.

Sadly, both the Thai mother and the foreign father believe they are acting in the best interests of the child. We can all have our personal opinions, but the judge is going to have a tough time of it. I wouldn't want to be the guy sitting on the bench who has to choose.

Touche'

[Mudcrab]

Interesting that all the "legal" comments come from men.

Did you ever stop and think that it was this woman's body that carried and nurtured the developing child for nine months? And they now expect her to give up her baby?

I guess from a mans point of view this is simply a business transaction.......but from a woman's POV....I doubt it.

Do you really think that an emotional bond wouldn't form?

I guess the gay dudes didn't.

Then again ...why would they?

How could they?

Better off sticking to raising Jack Russell terriers.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Mudcrab

[alex8912]

Interesting that all the "legal" comments come from men.

Did you ever stop and think that it was this woman's body that carried and nurtured the developing child for nine months? And they now expect her to give up her baby?

I guess from a mans point of view this is simply a business transaction.......but from a woman's POV....I doubt it.

Do you really think that an emotional bond wouldn't form?

I guess the gay dudes didn't.

Then again ...why would they?

How could they?

Better off sticking to raising Jack Russell terriers.

CONGRATS!!!!

You just won the LOTY contest! No more voting necessary.

[Mudcrab]

Interesting that all the "legal" comments come from men.

Did you ever stop and think that it was this woman's body that carried and nurtured the developing child for nine months? And they now expect her to give up her baby?

I guess from a mans point of view this is simply a business transaction.......but from a woman's POV....I doubt it.

Do you really think that an emotional bond wouldn't form?

I guess the gay dudes didn't.

Then again ...why would they?

How could they?

Better off sticking to raising Jack Russell terriers.

CONGRATS!!!!

You just won the LOTY contest! No more voting necessary.

Thank you...I feel honoured.

[Jingthing]

More like the homophobic comment of the week.

[Mudcrab]

Or just an honest observation.

Having been married and raised my own children I am very aware of the emotions involved.

No homophobia intended. Just personal comment.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Mudcrab

[Jingthing]

Or just an honest observation.

Having been married and raised my own children I am very aware of the emotions involved.

No homophobia intended. Just personal comment.

Whatever your intentions, your comment come off as a projection that you're a superior human being because of majority sexual persuasion and insult all gay people in the world of being less a human than you. Are you so clueless as to think gay people don't know about motherhood, families, etc.? Dude, do you think we all came from Mars?

These surrogacy legal controversies involve both gay and straight surrogacy clients. But this case is especially interesting to people who harbor obvious anti-gay bigotry in their hearts.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Jingthing

[Mudcrab]

Or just an honest observation.

Having been married and raised my own children I am very aware of the emotions involved.

No homophobia intended. Just personal comment.

Whatever your intentions, your comment come off as a projection that you're a superior human being because of majority sexual persuasion and insult all gay people in the world of being less a human than you. Are you so clueless as to think gay people don't know about motherhood, families, etc.? Dude, do you think we all came from Mars?

Oh dear!!!!

You poor thing.

Seems to me that you will always find an excuse to claim the minority status no matter what and whine about it.

How you read my comments is a matter entirely up to you.

If you came from Mars, Venus or indeed Uranus...I have little concern and lesser interest.

I do recall the thread was about a surrogacy issue and indeed that is what I commented upon.

Suggest you stay on topic.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Mudcrab

[Jingthing]

Not a poor thing and not your dear. Hetero people who express anti-gay bigotry often think they are superior, just like racists think they're superior to other races. But, it's more of a sign of inferiority than superiority to express bigotry. Not interested in letting anti-gay bigoted comments be taken as normal and acceptable. Bigotry is bigotry.

No, you can't undo what you said. You suggested gay people are only good for raising DOGS.

As far as this case goes, the assertion that the Thai surrogate's objection was really about the same sex thing isn't actually something that has been proven in any court. It could just be an excuse to further some other motivation which it doesn't take a lot of imagination to think of.

Is this fundamentally a surrogacy legal conflict? Yes, it is. But because the clients are same sex, the gay angle does always emerge in these discussions and that's a fact.

So now I'm off topic because I challenged a homophobic joke? So was the homophobic joke on topic? Is that what you're going with?

Edited December 22, 2015 by Jingthing

[ClutchClark]

Or just an honest observation.

Having been married and raised my own children I am very aware of the emotions involved.

No homophobia intended. Just personal comment.

Whatever your intentions, your comment come off as a projection that you're a superior human being because of majority sexual persuasion and insult all gay people in the world of being less a human than you. Are you so clueless as to think gay people don't know about motherhood, families, etc.? Dude, do you think we all came from Mars?

I have met some people that are so sensitive that my saying, "Hello", is misinterpreted as my insulting their sexual preference.

When the fact is people could care a less what mine, yours or anyone elses' sexual persuasion is.

[ClutchClark]

More like the homophobic comment of the week.

As someone here recently commented, "Bigotry is bigotry", and you, Sir, appear to be exactly what you keep accusing everyone else of.

You are a Bigot against anyone who is not of your same sexaul persuasion.

Nobody cares who you sleep with, can you just participate in a thread without always waving your personal sexual preference around ? You would then encourage others to appreciate your view rather than constantly offend.

[JoeInSurin]

Surrogacy is not legal to gay couples in thailand. Anyone providing surrogacy to gays is subject to arrest. Sounds like the gays have an illegal contract.

[Mudcrab]

Not a poor thing and not your dear. Hetero people who express anti-gay bigotry often think they are superior, just like racists think they're superior to other races. But, it's more of a sign of inferiority than superiority to express bigotry. Not interested in letting anti-gay bigoted comments be taken as normal and acceptable. Bigotry is bigotry.

No, you can't undo what you said. You suggested gay people are only good for raising DOGS.

As far as this case goes, the assertion that the Thai surrogate's objection was really about the same sex thing isn't actually something that has been proven in any court. It could just be an excuse to further some other motivation which it doesn't take a lot of imagination to think of.

Is this fundamentally a surrogacy legal conflict? Yes, it is. But because the clients are same sex, the gay angle does always emerge in these discussions and that's a fact.

So now I'm off topic because I challenged a homophobic joke? So was the homophobic joke on topic? Is that what you're going with?

Wow!!

I believe I made the comment that the woman may have bonded with the child, growing and being nurtured within her for nine months and it should not be unexpected that she had formed an emotional bond and has now decided not to give up the child regardless of any contract that may have been drawn up.

The "parents" could be an infertile man/woman man/man woman/woman couple. The gay thing is irrelevant. Until you made it relevant.

[Jingthing]

Surrogacy is not legal to gay couples in thailand. Anyone providing surrogacy to gays is subject to arrest. Sounds like the gays have an illegal contract.

The law has changed since the contract was signed, so I don't your point is legally relevant to this case.

[Jingthing]

Not a poor thing and not your dear. Hetero people who express anti-gay bigotry often think they are superior, just like racists think they're superior to other races. But, it's more of a sign of inferiority than superiority to express bigotry. Not interested in letting anti-gay bigoted comments be taken as normal and acceptable. Bigotry is bigotry.

No, you can't undo what you said. You suggested gay people are only good for raising DOGS.

As far as this case goes, the assertion that the Thai surrogate's objection was really about the same sex thing isn't actually something that has been proven in any court. It could just be an excuse to further some other motivation which it doesn't take a lot of imagination to think of.

Is this fundamentally a surrogacy legal conflict? Yes, it is. But because the clients are same sex, the gay angle does always emerge in these discussions and that's a fact.

So now I'm off topic because I challenged a homophobic joke? So was the homophobic joke on topic? Is that what you're going with?

Wow!!

I believe I made the comment that the woman may have bonded with the child, growing and being nurtured within her for nine months and it should not be unexpected that she had formed an emotional bond and has now decided not to give up the child regardless of any contract that may have been drawn up.

The "parents" could be an infertile man/woman man/man woman/woman couple. The gay thing is irrelevant. Until you made it relevant.

So you didn't make the dog joke? Sure thing. People aren't that dumb.

[JoeInSurin]

Surrogacy is not legal to gay couples in thailand. Anyone providing surrogacy to gays is subject to arrest. Sounds like the gays have an illegal contract.

The law has changed since the contract was signed, so I don't your point is legally relevant to this case.

There was no law before so they will probably rule with the new law . Very relevant.

[Jingthing]

Surrogacy is not legal to gay couples in thailand. Anyone providing surrogacy to gays is subject to arrest. Sounds like the gays have an illegal contract.

The law has changed since the contract was signed, so I don't your point is legally relevant to this case.

There was no law before so they will probably rule with the new law . Very relevant.

You just made that up. It was a legal contract when signed and that is very relevant.

[JoeInSurin]

Surrogacy is not legal to gay couples in thailand. Anyone providing surrogacy to gays is subject to arrest. Sounds like the gays have an illegal contract.

The law has changed since the contract was signed, so I don't your point is legally relevant to this case.

There was no law before so they will probably rule with the new law . Very relevant.

You just made that up. It was a legal contract when signed and that is very relevant.

Can you give me a link where it has ever been legal in Thailand? What good is a contract not recognized by the law? Edited December 22, 2015 by JoeInSurin

[Jingthing]

Am I your link researcher? We've been over this same material for many months now. If it was as clear cut as your uninformed guess, then the case would already be over and the Daddies wouldn't even be fighting.

Yes indeed the law has changed LONG AFTER that contract was signed.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Jingthing