The correct term for Hagar (as well as for Bilhah and Zilpah, the mothers of four of the sons of Israel) is “slave concubine.”
That term doesn’t fit the mother in this case, because she didn’t have sex with the man. I think “baby seller” would be an accurate description, except that she did not, ultimately, sell her child. I guess that makes her an “unmarried mother.”
I wonder if she had to give the money back. She was paid for her “expenses” and her “pain and suffering,” it being illegal to outright buy a child by plain contract ... but on the other hand, she’s in breach of contract.
Maybe further litigation will sort it all out.
Most states have some statutes that deal with expenses in adoption cases. So if they are applying adoption law to this maybe they will apply that part of the adoption law that covers birth mother expenses. Father better hope that birth mom had medical coverage of some sort.