Judge Awards Legal Status to Surrogat...

Judge Awards Legal Status to Surrogate of Gay Couple's Kids

There are 8 comments on the www.edgesanfrancisco.com story from Dec 31, 2009, titled Judge Awards Legal Status to Surrogate of Gay Couple's Kids. In it, www.edgesanfrancisco.com reports that:

One high-profile surrogacy in New York brought twin bundels of joy to Matthew Broderick and Sarah Jessica Parker; but another, in New Jersey, has the potential to redefine surrogacy law A New Jersey gay couple has lost a court case, with the surrogate mother of their twin daughters being named as the legal mother despite the fact that the surrogate has no genetic relation to the girls.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.edgesanfrancisco.com.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#1 Dec 31, 2009
I don't see how surrogacy is that much different than giving a child up for adoption. Ms. Robinson is also the biological mother according the article but Mr. Hollingsworth is the biological father. Doesn't he have rights to the child too then? How was she forced into surrogacy? She didn't have to do it if she didn't want to? Was she blackmailed or threatened or something? I would find that a bit far fetched. I think she bonded with the children and realized she didn't want to be separated from them. I don't see why the three of them cannot share custody that way the girls would have a maternal influence and their biological mother in their life as well. When it comes to a friend or relative being a surrogate/sperm donor I think it's in the best interest of the child for the birth mother or sperm donor to be part of the life of that child too.
Mandy

Dayton, OH

#2 Dec 31, 2009
The problem with that is that she is not the girls' biological mother. The egg came from a donor. Ms. Robinson has zero biological or genetic connection to these girls. She is legally called the mother because she gestated them. With the growing use of surrogacy, the law needs to keep up with the change in the definition of a parent. I think a legal parent should be considered one who has a genetic connection to a child or who has adopted him. In other situations, such as stepparents, foster parents, or surrogates, they should be considered in loco parentis and they should not get precedence over biological or adoptive parents unless those parents are unfit (and being gay does NOT make you unfit!)

“Sotomayor TheNewFace of Racism”

Since: Apr 09

Angier, NC

#3 Dec 31, 2009
equalityboy81 wrote:
I don't see how surrogacy is that much different than giving a child up for adoption. Ms. Robinson is also the biological mother according the article but Mr. Hollingsworth is the biological father. Doesn't he have rights to the child too then? How was she forced into surrogacy? She didn't have to do it if she didn't want to? Was she blackmailed or threatened or something? I would find that a bit far fetched. I think she bonded with the children and realized she didn't want to be separated from them. I don't see why the three of them cannot share custody that way the girls would have a maternal influence and their biological mother in their life as well. When it comes to a friend or relative being a surrogate/sperm donor I think it's in the best interest of the child for the birth mother or sperm donor to be part of the life of that child too.
She is not the biological mother; she is the gestational surrogate. The egg came from another women. This is a miscarriage of justice that comes from erroneously extrapolating precedent from surrogates that are the biological mothers. This case does not reflect well on individual freedom because the decision imposes the state into individuals' right to create their own family how they see fit. Talk about judicial activism.

“Sotomayor TheNewFace of Racism”

Since: Apr 09

Angier, NC

#4 Dec 31, 2009
Mandy wrote:
The problem with that is that she is not the girls' biological mother. The egg came from a donor. Ms. Robinson has zero biological or genetic connection to these girls. She is legally called the mother because she gestated them. With the growing use of surrogacy, the law needs to keep up with the change in the definition of a parent. I think a legal parent should be considered one who has a genetic connection to a child or who has adopted him. In other situations, such as stepparents, foster parents, or surrogates, they should be considered in loco parentis and they should not get precedence over biological or adoptive parents unless those parents are unfit (and being gay does NOT make you unfit!)
I like the way you think

“IBM had it right: "Think"”

Since: Mar 07

SF Bay Area Suburbs

#5 Dec 31, 2009
This has to fail on appeal under contract law and NJ non-discrimination law.

I find it odd that the article has no discussion of the Gay couple.

“Sotomayor TheNewFace of Racism”

Since: Apr 09

Angier, NC

#6 Dec 31, 2009
Gary47 wrote:
This has to fail on appeal under contract law and NJ non-discrimination law.
I find it odd that the article has no discussion of the Gay couple.
The fathers being gay is irrelevant and as such needs not to be discussed; however you do make a good point about contract law. The article did however briefly discus the application of contract law in regards to traditional surrogacy.

the 1988 ruling wrote:
"The surrogacy contract is based on principles that are directly contrary to the objectives of our laws," the 1988 ruling said. "It guarantees the separation of a child from its mother; it looks to adoption regardless of suitability; it totally ignores the child; it takes the child from the mother regardless of her wishes and maternal fitness."
However I guess it can be argued that entering into a surrogacy agreement is a contract to put a child up for adoption; thus the Justice reasoning "it takes the child from the mother regardless of her wishes and maternal fitness." is incongruent with the fact that entering into a surrogacy contract is the wish of the mother. In this regard the it is safe to say yes you right that the state is over stepping its authority.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#7 Dec 31, 2009
censoredagain wrote:
<quoted text>
She is not the biological mother; she is the gestational surrogate. The egg came from another women. This is a miscarriage of justice that comes from erroneously extrapolating precedent from surrogates that are the biological mothers. This case does not reflect well on individual freedom because the decision imposes the state into individuals' right to create their own family how they see fit. Talk about judicial activism.
I don't see this so much as judicial activism, but more as a complete lapse in judgment. With the reasoning issued here, they could have just as easily granted "maternity" to the test tube where sperm first met egg. Stupid, horribly bad, just plain awful ruling that deserves to be overturned at the earliest opportunity. I feel sorry for the parents of these two girls, I can't imagine how sick to their stomachs they had to feel when this load was dropped on them....

“Sotomayor TheNewFace of Racism”

Since: Apr 09

Angier, NC

#8 Jan 1, 2010
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I don't see this so much as judicial activism, but more as a complete lapse in judgment. With the reasoning issued here, they could have just as easily granted "maternity" to the test tube where sperm first met egg. Stupid, horribly bad, just plain awful ruling that deserves to be overturned at the earliest opportunity. I feel sorry for the parents of these two girls, I can't imagine how sick to their stomachs they had to feel when this load was dropped on them....
It can argued that the "laps in judgment" is due in part or in its entirety on the judge's political views thus leading to my statement about "judicial activism". You could be right that it is poor reasoning skills.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Sarah Jessica Parker Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Kim Jong-un claims five million people are read... Sep '17 YouDidntBuildThat 1
News Men aged 18 to 30 are taking Viagra to keep up ... (Jun '08) Oct '16 richardnames 14
News Sarah Jessica Parker hints at possible Sex And ... (Oct '16) Oct '16 richardnames 1
News Paparazzi - April 1st, 2014 (Apr '14) Jul '15 Taylor Fan 4
News Bright lights, big city, that's Dubai (Feb '15) Feb '15 freethinkradio do... 1
News Bollywood Boom Continues (Jan '10) Sep '14 Rama sirke 4
News First Lady: Malia Will Be Driving This Summer (May '14) May '14 Imagine That 1
More from around the web