The Third Party: Olympia: Surrogate Mothers Are Not For Sale

The Third Party: Olympia: Surrogate Mothers Are Not For Sale

Mom says church threatened to kick her out over "gay" blog post

Her son? He's five years old.

A mom blogger knows as "Cop's Wife" posted a picture of her son and wrote about how she decided to allow her 5-year-old son to dress as his favorite cartoon character, Daphne from Scooby Doo.

She even went on the Today Show to talk about the decision. This was last fall. Now she writes in her blog:

"I cannot tell you the betrayal I feel. The church, or at the very least Pastor is trying to bully me into shutting up, and I find that so disheartening. I am floored by the fact that they’ve gone to so much trouble regarding a post that discusses love and tolerance that was posted 3 months ago. I am shocked that they do not see the hypocrisy of what they are saying to me. I am in complete disbelief that this has been handled in the way it has. I have never felt less welcome in a church. This is not the church that I grew up in. This is not the God that I know."

I doubt we have heard the last on this issue so stay tuned and fee free to comment.

Belgium Gay Couple's Son in Ukrainian Orphanage

What a sad story for this couple, Laurent and Peter, a gay couple from Belgium who decided to have a child through surrogacy, in part because it is very difficult for a gay couple to adopt a child in their country.

The unfortunate part is they chose Ukraine for their surrogacy and now, 2 1/2 years after their child's birth, the baby languishes in a Ukrainian orphanage. The reason: the child is not a citizen of the Ukraine so that country will not issue legal papers, including a passport and nor is the child a citizen of Belgium because that country, while not having any laws for or against surrogacy, will not issue legal papers.

No matter what you think of the couple, no child should suffer like this.

I received a desperate call last summer from a couple who had a newborn daughter born via surrogacy in India. The husband's country, Spain, was refusing to issue a passport. I was able to connect them to an experienced surrogacy attorney in India and fortunately the mother was American and after 3 months they were finally able to leave that country.

Another Sperm Donor fighting to become "Dad"

Another gay sperm donor is fighting for parental rights in the U.K. While the lesbian couple, Stacey Cassin and her partner, Kate, claim they had a "gentlemen's agreement" with Mark Hartill that he could see the child, they state they all agreed he would have no parental rights. In other words, no legal contract between them.

But the couple told The Sun that he had become “besotted” with the baby girl after seeing her several times and now wants weekly access to the child and to be recognised as a parent.

Stacey claimed he had broken their “verbal agreement." She added: ”We are determined to fight this through the courts, though we never wanted it to come to this.”

The couple found Mr. Hartill through a gay magazine where they state he said he wanted very little involvement with the child.

Recently, a British court ruled that a gay sperm donor could spend 152 days with his children. This donor also said in his ad that he wanted very little involvement with his children; however, the court ruled:

But the Appeal Court was told that the father now played a central role in the children's lives, including taking them to doctors' appointments and paying their school fees.

Obviously, both these cases highlight the need for experienced legal counsel. In the second case, I'm not sure a legal agreement would have protected the couple, as by his very actions, the sperm donor became a parent, which can legally occur wether their is a genetic link to the child or not.

Working with a known donor can be a great way to have your family. Just speak with an experienced attorney first about all the legal possibilities.

What say you?

Ireland's High Court rules IVF children not owed duty of care after mix-up

The High Court in Ireland ruled that not only were the children not owed a duty of care but they were not entitled to damages. The judge also stated the children had no other legitimate expectation other than to be born healthy and well.

Their parents, sued an unnamed Health and Social Services Trust for alleged negligence in the insemination.

They claimed the mix-up, led to racial taunting and emotional distress.

A judge also ruled they were not entitled to an award for damages.

Mr Justice Gillen said the children, who cannot be named for legal reasons, also had no legitimate expectation other than being born healthy and well.

Instead of using a white donor as desired, the mother's eggs were inseminated with sperm labelled Caucasian (Cape coloured) - a label given to a mixed-race community in a South African province.

One potential implication is that a child born to a white person from such a donor may go on to have different skin-coloured children themselves if they have a mixed-race partner.

After hearing the case in private Mr Justice Gillen said: "The court is thus being asked to venture into the complexities of the creation of life, involving a unique physical and scientific process and to develop the law to deal with an instance where harvested eggs were fertilised with that which has been termed inappropriate donor sperm."

He said it was for parliament "to grasp the nettle" of whether a duty of care ought to be owed in circumstances such as the case before him.

"Absent the imprimatur of parliament I am not content to find that these plaintiffs have sufficient status to be owed a duty of care," the judge ruled.

The mother of the children had issued claims for personal injuries, loss and damage against the trust who provided her IVF treatment.

The court heard the children are darker in complexion than their parents and of different skin colour.

Their colour was also said to be markedly different from each other.

It was claimed they have been subjected to abusive and derogatory name calling from other children, and comments about the difference between them and their parents.

It even led to the children questioning whether they were adopted.

The trust stated that sperm used in the case was not mislabelled, but that a correct label was misunderstood by a staff member.

'Sympathy and concern'

In his ruling, Mr Justice Gillen acknowledged the authority has already admitted liability to the parents and is willing to negotiate settlement.

He also stressed that their current circumstances "could not fail to engage both sympathy and concern".

But despite the perception of how their children had suffered, the judge said: "The presence of persons sufficiently misguided and cruel as to issue racist comments directed to these children is no basis for a conclusion that they are somehow damaged.

"I have therefore come to the view that these children have not suffered any legally recognisable 'loss or damage' connected to the alleged breach by the defendant."

After dismissing the parents' claims, the judge ruled that anonymous details of the case could be published.

"I believe the issue of IVF - a subject on which differing views are held by the public at large - and the general context of what has happened in this instance, are matters of general public interest on which I should give effect to the right of the press to freedom of expression," he said.

"Ordering that the court file be sealed and that there should be no publication of any account of the pleadings or the determination of this case would be a step too far.

"I am not persuaded that general discussion of the issues in this case will afford any disturbance of confidence in the IVF service or lead to irresponsible investigative journalism."