The Plain Dealer

Interesting case.
This is kidnapping.

The surogate mom has no right to the DNA provided by other donors. She is not related to the the three boys she gave birth to.

If they do not allow her possession of the kids, then it reduces the argument that “its her body” as a legitimate claim to what happens in the womb. Basically, she is a storage unit/reaction chamber only – with no genetic link to the kids.

Interesting case.
This is kidnapping.

The surogate mom has no right to the DNA provided by other donors. She is not related to the the three boys she gave birth to.

If they do not allow her possession of the kids, then it reduces the argument that “its her body” as a legitimate claim to what happens in the womb. Basically, she is a storage unit/reaction chamber only – with no genetic link to the kids.

This is absurd. While its nice that the Ohio judges recognized that at least under some circumstances women are obligated to abide by a legal contract, why in the #$%@ doesn’t she have to abide by the part about custody. This is the one and only method I have seen whereby a father can rely on permission from the government to raise his own children, and now that appears to be shot to hell too. Get a vagina in a courtroom and make a decision over child custody, and judges forget contract basics, now apparently to include contracts other than marriage. Are the judges calling for the legislature to take action so that the rent-a-womb in question doesn’t have superior rights based on genitalia, or is it because we have a rare exception to the vagina-in-the-room being able to use children as cash cows?

This is absurd. While its nice that the Ohio judges recognized that at least under some circumstances women are obligated to abide by a legal contract, why in the #$%@ doesn’t she have to abide by the part about custody. This is the one and only method I have seen whereby a father can rely on permission from the government to raise his own children, and now that appears to be shot to hell too. Get a vagina in a courtroom and make a decision over child custody, and judges forget contract basics, now apparently to include contracts other than marriage. Are the judges calling for the legislature to take action so that the rent-a-womb in question doesn’t have superior rights based on genitalia, or is it because we have a rare exception to the vagina-in-the-room being able to use children as cash cows?

I wouldn’t be too hard on the judge. I think he dis as much as he falt the law allowed him.

The problem, I think, is that Ohio’s laws don’t address surrogacy. In that case, without any legal recognition of the origin of the zygote, custody would automatically revert to the only “mother” that the law recognizes, i.e., the woman who bore the child. I don’t believe there is any standing under Ohio law for the father to even sue for custody.

But he COULD sue for damages, and that’s what he did, and what he won. He was also relieved — and this is extremely important — of any child support obligations, and was refunded monies already paid in that regard. The travesty is that he was required to pay any child support at all before this decision, but again, the law doesn’t distinguish between a biological father who became such because of misbehavior, and one who has entered into a legitimate contract and been defrauded.

That he has been relieved of any obligation to support the children is key, as it recognizes that once she violated the surrogacy contract, his paternity amounted to that of a sperm donor in an artificial insemination procedure, and such fathers are never required to support the products of conception. I think that under the circumstances, the judge felt he’d done as much as the law allowed him to provide the father some relief.

Under the right circumstances he might have been able to do more, however, though as I’m not a lawyer, my opinions aren’t authoritative. For starters, he might have been able to request the state’s attorney to bring fraud charges against the woman, if it were apparent that she had never intended to abide by the contract. Similarly, if the law allows appeals courts to do so, he might have awarded punitive damages as a discouragement to other women who might consider such a fraud. But without trial transcripts, there’s no way to assess whether either was appropriate in this case.

I wouldn’t be too hard on the judge. I think he dis as much as he falt the law allowed him.

The problem, I think, is that Ohio’s laws don’t address surrogacy. In that case, without any legal recognition of the origin of the zygote, custody would automatically revert to the only “mother” that the law recognizes, i.e., the woman who bore the child. I don’t believe there is any standing under Ohio law for the father to even sue for custody.

But he COULD sue for damages, and that’s what he did, and what he won. He was also relieved — and this is extremely important — of any child support obligations, and was refunded monies already paid in that regard. The travesty is that he was required to pay any child support at all before this decision, but again, the law doesn’t distinguish between a biological father who became such because of misbehavior, and one who has entered into a legitimate contract and been defrauded.

That he has been relieved of any obligation to support the children is key, as it recognizes that once she violated the surrogacy contract, his paternity amounted to that of a sperm donor in an artificial insemination procedure, and such fathers are never required to support the products of conception. I think that under the circumstances, the judge felt he’d done as much as the law allowed him to provide the father some relief.

Under the right circumstances he might have been able to do more, however, though as I’m not a lawyer, my opinions aren’t authoritative. For starters, he might have been able to request the state’s attorney to bring fraud charges against the woman, if it were apparent that she had never intended to abide by the contract. Similarly, if the law allows appeals courts to do so, he might have awarded punitive damages as a discouragement to other women who might consider such a fraud. But without trial transcripts, there’s no way to assess whether either was appropriate in this case.