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

[Trouble]

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 I guess you think the child is best with a woman who sold herself as an incubator for 9 months rather than a man who seriously wanted a child and who is genetically linked to the child. Sorry, although I seriously question the issue of using a surrogacy, am with those who would go first with a person who went to the trouble of doing this and has a DNA link to the child. I could understand this if the woman who provided the egg was contesting the issue but not an incubator who, if my memory serves me correctly, has other children. She did it for the money and that along makes me question her motives.

[pmk1000]

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.

How can you say this is not about money, how do you know for sure, do you know her personally? it may have been convenient for her to use this as a good excuse to extort more money. I find it hard to believe that she is one of a few people that do not think being Gay is acceptable. In a recent survey a staggering 40 percent of men and 30 percent of women in Thailand said that bisexuality was acceptable. Poor judgement by the father come on, like so many other couples in the world they are desperate to have a child i also think that the woman had a moral responsibility and demand a full history check criminal financial and otherwise on who the father/couple was in the first place. The law should include this as a matter of course, he/they could have been doing this for child trafficking or God knows what!

[pmk1000]

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.

If this is the case, then the Lawyer who drew up the contract should be disbarred, the woman locked up and the men to face trial in the USA and locked up as well for what they have done to this poor child!

[onetime]

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.

He should have written into the contract that any attempt on her part to violate the terms of said contract, or keep the baby, will result in a legal battle that requires her to pay for the attorneys of the aggrieved party; him.

I little forethought usually beats a gold digger.

[Brigante7]

More like the homophobic comment of the week.

And there it is, disagree with a homosexual and you're "homophobic"

Grow up.

[Jingthing]

More like the homophobic comment of the week.

And there it is, disagree with a homosexual and you're "homophobic"

Grow up.

Not really. But, if you post jokes with themes that gay people are somehow LESS than fully human and aren't capable of understanding basic human things then yes, you have posted homophobic content.

[Brigante7]

More like the homophobic comment of the week.

And there it is, disagree with a homosexual and you're "homophobic"

Grow up.

Not really. But, if you post jokes with themes that gay people are somehow LESS than fully human and aren't capable of understanding basic human things then yes, you have posted homophobic content.

Show me where I said homosexuals were LESS than fully human?

[Jingthing]

I wasn't referring to you. Obviously.

[farcanell]

More like the homophobic comment of the week.

And there it is, disagree with a homosexual and you're "homophobic"

Grow up.

Lol.... Exact same comment in a different thread... Can't be bothered going back to check, but was that you as well?

Trolling for anti homophobic bites

[jsflynn603]

"...claiming the American was a human trafficker and had hired one of them as a surrogate mother."

Hmm...last knew human traffikers don't "hire...," that's what makes them human traffikers.

[Brigante7]

More like the homophobic comment of the week.

And there it is, disagree with a homosexual and you're "homophobic"

Grow up.

Lol.... Exact same comment in a different thread... Can't be bothered going back to check, but was that you as well?

Trolling for anti homophobic bites

Probably was me, it's called having an opinion and having the freedom to express it. I never have, and never would, advocate violence against homosexuals, but I have a right to my opinion and I also have a right to express them just you have the same right's to disagree with me.

[farcanell]

More like the homophobic comment of the week.

And there it is, disagree with a homosexual and you're "homophobic"

Grow up.

Lol.... Exact same comment in a different thread... Can't be bothered going back to check, but was that you as well?

Trolling for anti homophobic bites

Probably was me, it's called having an opinion and having the freedom to express it. I never have, and never would, advocate violence against homosexuals, but I have a right to my opinion and I also have a right to express them just you have the same right's to disagree with me.

Good one... I agree 100%

I've been reading TV for yeas, but not posting.... And now, With more practice I learn more about how this should be done

[Jingthing]

An interesting precedent relating to this case, but in NEPAL, not Thailand:

http://www.advocate.com/families/2016/1/11/gay-couple-must-return-surrogate-child

That seems fair enough if changing the law.

Nepal's Supreme Court recently banned foreign surrogacy saying the procedure exploits poor women. Children conceived prior to the court ruling may still be claimed by their parents.

[PeVee1st]

In Thailand law at the time, the baby is hers as she is the birth mother until she signs over her rights.

[dageurreotype]

First off, no one should be allowed to go to some third world country and rent somebody's womb/buy a kid (news has it Jolie back in Cambodia adopting seventh kid, who knows? It might not end up fcked up).

Secondly, Thai courts always want people to talk nicely to each other over a 'settlement'. IF the insanely low settlement, never mind the lack of the criminal being brought to book is not agreed upon, the court, aka the judge will feel free to 'negotiate' on his own personal behalf. TURD WORLD.

[saakura]

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 I guess you think the child is best with a woman who sold herself as an incubator for 9 months rather than a man who seriously wanted a child and who is genetically linked to the child. Sorry, although I seriously question the issue of using a surrogacy, am with those who would go first with a person who went to the trouble of doing this and has a DNA link to the child. I could understand this if the woman who provided the egg was contesting the issue but not an incubator who, if my memory serves me correctly, has other children. She did it for the money and that along makes me question her motives.

I feel that a child is only bonded to a person who has nurtured it in her womb for 9 months from the time of conception to birth. Not to someone who shops around and buys the cheapest womb he can in some poor country and throws some money at her. If money was her only motive, why would she not just give it away and be rid of it? Like the egg donor who probably just sold the egg?

[dageurreotype]

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 I guess you think the child is best with a woman who sold herself as an incubator for 9 months rather than a man who seriously wanted a child and who is genetically linked to the child. Sorry, although I seriously question the issue of using a surrogacy, am with those who would go first with a person who went to the trouble of doing this and has a DNA link to the child. I could understand this if the woman who provided the egg was contesting the issue but not an incubator who, if my memory serves me correctly, has other children. She did it for the money and that along makes me question her motives.

And to hell with the kid who will eventually ask about it's heritage, right. 'Daddy, where did I come from? Well Son/princess' me and your other dad couldn't have kids so we went looking for some country where the women are poor and ready to hold babies in their tummies (okay okay), and you are one of those'. 'So, daddy, who is my real mom/mum?' Well, that's a tough one son/princess, but we're sure you won't have any lifelong issues (as is the norm) wondering 'who?'