Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

Can surrogate mother be held financially liable for twins?

By patxxoo     May 16, 2007 in Health
If the child in question has a genetic connection to a father but not the surrogate mother, can the surrogate mother be held liable for that child's support? Find out what happened in this Maryland "groundbreaking" case.
Just a little information to make this clear. I use the word carrier instead of mother to make a differentiation on purpose, as this woman was not the babies mother in any sense.
A man wants to have a child, but he does want to have a mother for said child.
What does he do? Go to an egg donor? Does he do what more and more women who feel they don't want a father for their child do? Go to a sperm donor?
The answer in this case is yes, he uses an egg donor. Then he finds a woman who agrees to be the surrogate baby carrier. A woman who does not want her name on the birth certificate of the baby (or in this case babies as she had twins.) And the father also does not want a mothers name listed on it as well. So they are in agreement in this.
Due to an egg donor being used, the surrogate has no actual genetic tie to the babies.
In a groundbreaking decision today the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled 4-3 that the babies do not have to have a mothers name on the birth papers.
Although it is not uncommon for a surrogate mothers names to not be listed in these cases, it is the first time any state Equal Rights Amendments have been used to made to the decision.
As an example: a case such as a woman taking a man to court for paternity and finding through DNA testing that the child is not his genetically and so he can be ruled not the child's father.
In a 56-page decision, the majority argued that a man who can prove he has no genetic relationship to a child can be ruled not to be its father, so a woman should have the same ability.
"The methods by which people can produce children have changed," Chief Justice Robert Bell wrote in the decision. "... The paternity statute, clearly, did not contemplate the many potential legal issues arising from these new technologies, issues that will continue to arise unless the laws are rewritten or construed in light of these new technologies."
Of course not all the judges agreed. Judge Dale Cathell argues that the father had the twins "manufactured" and then didn't want them have a mother's name listed.
Yes, I believe that was the fathers idea. Sounds like he did his research before going into fatherhood.
"The majority, in essence, holds that if you do not intend to be the mother, you should not be responsible as a mother," Cathell wrote. "There are probably tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of fathers (and certainly mothers as well) who did not intend to be parents at the time of the actions that led to conception, who have been judicially determined to be responsible for the support of the child they did not intend to conceive."
But he is sidestepping the whole issue in this case. A donor egg was used, the surrogate carrier had no genetic ties to the babies. And both parties were in agreement before proceeding and after the babies birth for that matter. In the role she was to have in the lives of these children.
That is a totally separate matter then oooops the condom broke, or I don't like to use condoms. Or oh by the way did you use any birth control last week? Or how about getting wasted and sleeping with what appeared the most gorgeous person in the place. (That is until you woke up later and realized the ??? sleeping next to you only vaguely appears human.)
Sorry that is mixing genes in the truest sense. Not the same thing at all.
Planned vs not planned. That is only one of the many differences in this particular case.
More about Surrogate mother, Genetic, Egg donor
Latest News
Top News