Skip to comments.Biological Mom Kept From Child in Lesbian Legal Case
Posted on 01/05/2012 6:36:12 AM PST by Former Fetus
Tina's biological daughter turned 8 this week, but she has not seen the girl since Dec. 22, 2008, because of a custody fight with her former lesbian partner. The partner is unrelated to the child, but gave birth to her.
"I thought I'd have her back on her birthday," said Tina, a law enforcement officer, whose name was never on the birth certificate and who has been denied parenting rights under Florida state law.
For 11 years, the Brevard County couple forged a committed relationship, living together, sharing their finances and raising a daughter. Tina's egg was fertilized with donor sperm and implanted in her partner's womb.
But when their romance fell apart when the child was 2, the Florida courts had to decide, who is the legal parent, the biological mother or the birth mother who carried the unrelated child for nine months in her womb?
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Wow! It seems to me that Paul had hit the nail on the head.
I do not envy the courts in this case. That’s a tough decision. One woman provided the egg, the other provided blood and nourishment and gave birth. I might have sided with the birth mother too. I don’t know.
Clear cut case. The bio-mom donated her eggs to the other woman. The other woman is the legal mother of the child conceived from donated eggs.
To decide otherwise would invite chaos as women who donated eggs to infertile couples could declare custody of children not born to them.
How many men have been kept from their biological children? Split up a lezzie relationship and the court has to determine which one is more butch so they can shaft her.
Gawd how complicated these people make their lives, and we all have to suffer for it.
I think the courts made the best decision, the ‘birth mother’ gets custody, not the ‘donor’. Imagine if all egg donors could now claim custodial rights to children they had provided eggs for..........
Welcome to reality be-ich....
She should be force to provide child support as well....
Seems simple enough. If we're supposed to believe that "Heahter has two Mommies" then no matter which one gets custody, Heather stays with Mommie.
Freak show. American culture is under assault from all sides.
WOW! Describes the world we’re living in.
Along with your post, my grandson tells me the girls in school are horrible. No such thing as learning to be a lady. They now take pride is being Nasty.
Human eggs and sperm are soon to be fungible commodities traded on the exchange.
No price too high or ethics too low - for buyers and sellers.
Have we come this far? Yup - this is where we are.
Pray for all those children who have been, and are yet to be ‘produced’.
the womb mother may have the girl for now but someday she’ll come looking for her biological mother
as Mom of an adoptee, I know
Bio Mom must be really screwed up for the courts to not have at least given her visitation, aka “daddy” privilgegs
The abnormal acquisition of offspring, (similar to Michael Jackson’s) is nothing but flagrant human trafficing.
So is one woman a "donor" or was the other woman a "surrogate"?
They've been encouraging stuff like this for years and their TV dramas generally hand-wave this stuff away, as if to say, oh, it won't be a problem, we'll all be reasonable and besides that one is evil and will die in 23 minutes anyway.
My use of the word "surrogate" reminded on one show where they went to court because the surrogate changed her mind and wanted to abort the baby. The judge at first cited "roe v wade" and was challenged by the contract that the woman voluntarily entered into, followed by a half hour of "gripping drama" and then they hand-waved the whole thing citing "roe v wade" again.
I was thinking the same thing, but didn’t post it. The child will one day search for the bio mom, and may not be happy that the birth mom kept her from bio mom.
Sad that they couldn’t work it out for the child’s sake.
Actually, there is case law on this point, with surrogate mothers, and the courts have generally found that the biological mother wins over a surrogate mother.
Whether it is different here because the surrogate had not contracted to give up the child or not is a legal matter in and of itself, but the biological question does seem to favor the actual biological parents, not the vessel that carried the baby to term.
What’s “abnormal” about an egg being fertilized by a sperm? Yes, it was done in vitro, but that doesn’t mean that it’s abnormal. Atypical, yes.
There is nothing wrong with IVF but in the wrong hands it can result in tragedy, just as we see here. These two women had no business creating this child to purposely doom her to life without a father.
Blaming IVF for this mess is like blaming guns when criminals use them.
But imagine if all surrogate mothers could claim custody of children they were carrying for biological parents?
The only true connection is the biological connection. And yes, that holds true even if you use a sperm donor and an egg donor — the child you bear can be yours emotionally, but not physically. The child bears the genes of the biological parents, and to the degree biology makes any difference, that is where the connection lies.
There is a reason that adopted children tend to seek out their biological parents, although we deny it because it doesn’t fit our modern culture — biology matters, we are connected to our biological parents in a way that is not fully understood.
That sentence makes my head hurt.
Both! That's what makes this such a crazy story. The reporter, obviously, had a time making it clear, thus comments like " The partner is unrelated to the child, but gave birth to her"
Regarding “daddy rights,” I thought so too at first but the bio-mother’s name was not on the birth certificate, so she has no legal parental rights. She’s trying to get those rights. However, she wants the court to say that she is the mother rather than simply add her name to the birth certificate as co-parent.
As a side note, I don’t believe states should have to put gay couples names on birth certificates if they do not permit same-sex marriage. But LA was recently forced to do just that for a New York adoption by a gay couple.
Yeah, it kind of is.
That’s interesting. I’ll have to think about that aspect.
It has happened and the 'birth mother' won...................
I wonder what happens with the birth certificate in those legally contracted surrogate cases. Who is listed as mother? I bet the biological mother and father are listed and that is stipulated in the surrogate contract.
That’s what the issue is here. There was no contract that stipulated which woman’s name was listed, so the one who gave birth to the child was listed and the other woman went along with it. Now she wants to change the rules and be the one listed as mother with full legal custody.
But in this case the donor donated the egg to her own partner, not another infertile couple. She never intended for the child not to be hers.
“Gawd how complicated these people make their lives, and we all have to suffer for it.”
Not nearly as much as that little girl. I always feel so sorry for these kids raised in homosexual households. There were a couple in my kids’ school, and every last one of them had emotional issues, and only to satisfy the selfish desires of the two adults.
I get that it’s both. But the judge has to decide that one was more of the label and less of a “mom”. (Hell, I can’t even capitalize that word in this context.)
“But in this case the donor donated the egg to her own partner, not another infertile couple. She never intended for the child not to be hers.”
Yes, I’m surprised the courts didn’t at least split custody, since they were a “couple” at one point (ugh), but as another poster pointed out- there must be some reason she wasn’t at least made to pay child support!
But I’m glad that the court didn’t set a precedent by granting biomom custody just because she donated an egg that resulted in a baby.
The only true connection is the biological connection?? Not sure what you mean here.
Yes, biology does matter. And that is why open adoptions are so popular now, children deserve to know their heritage. But that in no way negates the adoption connection. Once a parent adopts a child, that child is theirs just THE SAME as a birth child.
That is an emotional connection, not a physical connection. As such, and unfortunate as this sounds, it can be broken, just as the marriage connection can be broken, friends can fall apart, and lovers turn to enemies.
Biology is biology. You can’t “un-make” the biological connection. You have the genes of your biological mother, and biological father. Nothing you do will ever change that. IT’s not something you choose, you can’t “unchoose it”. It’s not emotional, it’s not something that will ever go away. You will ALWAYS be the biological product of your biological parents.
That is what I mean by “the only true connection”.
You could argue that the mere act of raising a child from an infant is likely to create an emotional bond that “cannot” be broken, but there is no way to know that. What we do know, anecdotally, is that adopted children tend to seek out their biological parents, and often talk about the “bond” they feel on first meeting those parents.
But that is just feeling; the biological connection itself is the reality. The question is whether there is something inherent in humanity that makes the biological connection also an emotional one. Does the wiring of the brain as controlled by your genetic structure make you predisposed to relate in a special way to your biological parents? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t rule it out.
More anecdote in place of evidence... When we hear of parents abusing their children, we are often less shocked when we learn that the children were adopted. Somehow, we just “suspect” that biological parents would be less likely to abuse their own children than foster or adoptive parents would. Moreso step parents, which we often suspect first when there is some abuse.
There is something “special” about the biological connection, especially between a mother and her daughter — that thing which would make the mother lay down her life for her daughter. I suspect, but cannot prove, that if you had 100 biological mothers, and 100 surrogates, and told the 200 of them that because of problems with pregnancy, they would die in childbirth, and to choose whether to accept that or abort, that most of the 100 biological mothers would choose to die, and most of the 100 surrogates would choose to abort.
Less likely, but still I suspect — if you had 100 10-year-olds, and asked the same question, I would expect more biological mothers to be willing to die for their children than non-biological mothers. But that is pure speculation.
Anyway, that’s what I mean. I find that when I discuss this, adoptive parents, including parents who used sperm or egg donors, often get upset at my assigning them “second class” status. I’m sorry, but I can’t argue that this is not exactly what I am saying — the biological bond I believe IS the most natural, best parentage for a child, and all other arrangements are less desirable to one degree or another, no matter how well they may work in specific instances, or how often you find exceptions where biological parents are evil.
This is why they prefer women who donate eggs to already have at least one child of their own so they know what they are doing....
I said “acquisition”, not “conception”.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
There is no "right" in this case. Every side is wrong. There is no good or just outcome. Twistedly evil. The homosexual agenda is all about trying to overturn Natural Law, which is created by God alone. They can sort of twist Natural Law, but it will always snap back like a coiled spring and deliver a sharp and hard blow. Either singly, or when many people engage in war against Natural Law, en masse.
Disagree.. There is 1 right thing to do in this situation.. get the kid far away from those 2 mentally limited people (and their ilk) as possible...
Other than that, I agree 100%..
Actually, that would be best. But an 8 year old child is already attached to the person she calls “Mom”. IVF is an attack against Natural Law, in itself. And using IVF to allow homosexuals to “have children” is an abomination.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure...
Think that’s stupid... try this...
A judge rules their child’s birth certificate should list both women as legal parents.
Make no mistake, the homos and deviants expect to have full access and ownership of other people’s kids. One step at time and ultimately we will be told Mr. Sandusky is a hero for helping young boys.
All I can say is that I am thankful that God doesn’t have the same opinion as you. He is the originator of the concept of adoption.
“Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God..” 1 John 3:1
ps: I hope your sons, if you have any, don’t read your spiel about the connection between a mother and her daughter. You would lay down your life for your daughter but not your son?? Sheesh.
Good catch. I don’t know why I emphasized mother and daughter, because it would apply equally well to mother and son. I’d like to include fathers in there, but I don’t have sufficient anectdotal evidence to suggest that the biological bond works the same way with fathers.
It could well be true, but it might also be that a non-biological father would be no different from a biological father. It does seem that biological fathers have a much easier time walking away from their children than biological mothers do.
I guess I should also note that since it’s all anecdotal anyway, it’s probably hard to distinguish whether the connection between mother and child is due to the biological connection, or because of the 9 months of attachment. There just aren’t enough surrogates around to make even anecdotal claims.
Beyond that error on my part, your response is about what I am used to. I feel there is a fear many have that granting a superiority to one relationship necessarily implies not just an inferiority, but a flaw in other relationships.
This generally is manifested in moves to stop grading people, or calling winning teams “winners” because of negative connotations if you don’t have the highest grade, or weren’t on the winning team. Like we can’t say one student had a perfect score, because it would make other students feel like something was wrong with them.
As I try to explain, but it never seems to take, one can support adoption, and see it as a good and healthy thing, without denigrating the superiority of the biological connection. I think we do a disservice if we try to pretend that there is nothing special about biology, just because we want adoptive parents and adopted children to feel better about themselves.
I am adopted in God’s family, but I don’t feel slighted that I am not therefore identical to the Son of God, who was not adopted but who instead is the “biological child”. I don’t feel less loved because God is perfect and will perfectly love all his children, and for the most part adoptive parents can likewise love their adopted children as if they were their biological offspring — especially when they could have no biological offspring, but even when they can.
But the biological connection is special. Just as a loving, two-parent home with both biological parents is the “best” situation for a child, even though if that isn’t possible, a step-father or step-mother is better than not, and an adoptive family is better than a foster family, and a foster home is better than a group home.
It’s much easier to get agreement on this argument if I just say that a two-parent opposite-sex married couple is better for a child than a same-sex couple. But it’s all part of the same argument.
“As I try to explain, but it never seems to take, one can support adoption, and see it as a good and healthy thing, without DENIGRATING THE SUPERIORITY OF THE BIOLOGICAL CONNECTION”
That’s your opinion and as it seems you have your mind made up, so I do not wish to discuss this further with you. I just feel sorry for any adopted children who may exist in or may enter into your extended family in the future. Obviously you are one of those people who feel that bio kids are superior to adopted children. I’ve heard it before. Sad.
How could a biological “kid” be superior to an adopted “kid”? They are both biological — we don’t create kids any other way.
But clearly the biological family is superior to the adopted family. In both cases, you have two loving parents and a loved child. SO in that way they are equal. But in addition to that commonality, the biological family has the biological connection, which the adopted family does not.
So unless you believe the biological connection is meaningless, or inferior, it is simple logic that a family that includes both the love of parents for the child, AND the biological connection, must be superior to both the families that have no biological connection, and more clearly with the families that have ONLY the biological connection but have no love.
Your confusion between the relationship and the individuals in the relationship is a common problem with getting people to understand or to even discuss this issue without getting rude or indignant.
As my brother has two adopted children, I guess you may feel free to feel sorry for them.
Boo hoo, I’m crying my eyes out for these rebellious women and their callous decision to use test tubes to create a child for their own pleasure. Selfish beeyotches. Neither one has my sympathy. That poor child.
Absolutely true. No one seems to be thinking of the child when they make these self-gratifying decisions to create a child where nature could not -- and should not.
If only our courts would recognize that our founders intended for us not to adulterate the laws of "nature and nature's God."
The proliferation and profiteering surrounding artificial unions and test-tube inseminations violates the intentions of our Founders set forth in the Declaration.
It is an act of mercy for adoptive parents to love a child in need, and the best case scenario for genuinely orphaned children to be adopted and cherished. But I also believe that our traditional Judeo-Christian standards of sexual morality are best for society -- that marriage and commitment to raising children are a rite of passage to adulthood and the foundation of strong communities and nations; and that traditional, heterosexual marriage is the only licit venue for sexual activity.
That's not what he is saying. He is speaking in abstractions about what is best for society overall, and what our laws about childbearing and rearing should reflect. He is not rejecting or denigrating the individual contributions of adoptive parents, nor the status of individual adoptees.