Custody battle for twins delivered by Ypsilanti surrogate tests surrogacy regulation
A Michigan custody battle for twins delivered by an Ypsilanti surrogate is testing the bounds of the legal rights of both the surrogate and the intended parents.
The New York Times reported this weekend that Grand Rapids couple Amy Kehoe and her husband Scott, who were struggling with infertility, selected an egg donor who was a pre-med student at the University of Michigan.Â
They picked a sperm donor from a California company, hired IVF Michigan as their fertility clinic and arranged for Laschell Baker of Ypsilanti to act as their surrogate.
“We paid for the egg, the sperm, the in vitro fertilization,” Kehoe told the Times. “They wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for us.”
But shortly after twins arrived, the couple lost custody to Baker when she pursued a court order to retrieve the children. Baker became concerned upon learning Kehoe was being treated for a mental illness, the Times reported.
Michigan law does not uphold surrogacy agreements and offers a strong legal case to the woman who gives birth if she chooses to keep the babies.
"I couldn’t see living the rest of my life worrying and wondering what had happened, or what if she hadn’t taken her medicine, or what if she relapsed,” Baker, who has four children of her own, told the Times.
Comments
pamela macphee
Tue, Dec 15, 2009 : 1:41 a.m.
Well, I am a surrogate mom. Like most surrogates, as is true in this case, the baby I carried was of not genetic relation to me. I can tell you that a surrogacy is the most amazing experience in the world, and I can tell you that as a surrogate you are not the baby's mother. You are the baby's caretaker for nine months, and while it is natural for there to be some connection with the baby you carry in a surrogate pregnancy, it is not a mother-child bond. A surrogate baby's parents are the ones that set out to bring her/him into the world. I strongly disagree with the surrogate's action to take it upon herself to deem the the twins' mother unfit, and take her babies away from her. If doctors have declared her capable to be a fit mother, then why should the surrogate have the right to take those babies back. They are not her babies, they never were.
Tom Bower
Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 5:21 p.m.
Yes, read the entire story in the NYTimes (12-13-09). But, why did I read about this local story first in the NYTimes rather than in my local "paper?" This is just another example of the erosion of local reporting and why I and many others stopped subscribing to A2.com. Please, will someone please provide a real daily newspaper for this area.
mrshicks1223
Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 3:41 p.m.
There are over 2,000 kids in the state of Michigan alone waiting to be adopted....why pay thousands of dollars to have a baby via surrogacy with essentially "unknown" parents when you can do the same thing with children that are available now for adoption for a LOT less?? I just don't get it. Besides...none of us know the entire story with this case. Let's not speculate on anything unless we know the facts.
djm12652
Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 3:34 p.m.
All of this hullabaloo about maternal instincts...she's given up other babies, did she not bond with them as well? All of the references to children as a commodity isn't really that far from the truth when it comes to infertility. People pay vast amounts of money to have a child through surrogates...because they want children...so surrogacy babies are just that...a commodity one can love. It's sad all around. I just hope the surrogate can offer a life to the babies comparable to that of the denied parents. Oh wait, that's right...4 other kids...can't wait for Michigan's own Octomom to happen.
girlChris
Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 1:48 p.m.
The NYT coverage on this story outlines the inadequate provisions for surrogacy in most states all over the country. The gestational surrogate has no genetic ties to these children and the Kehoe's made all the arrangements and paid all the costs involved. It would make far more sense for the state to set up laws and regulations allowing for surrogacy and even surrogacy for payment beyond medical bills and associated costs then tax it as a profession. While I agree the question that if the Kehoe's also have no genetic connection to the children then why didn't they just adopt is valid, adoption can be just as sketchy depending on the states and families involved. Did you know you could adopt a child from California whose parents have given up parental rights and up to SIX years later they can rescind that decision and fight to take the child back from his/her adoptive family?
annarbor28
Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 1:34 p.m.
Thank you for clarifying that the mother who cooked the babies is not a premedical student. I was wondering when she had time to study with having 9 babies, and I think she may now be raising 6 of them? Bet we are supporting these babies with welfare, Medicaid, WIC, etc etc, so the government should have the choice. Isn't there a process whereby an independent examiner decides about the fitness of a parent (called protective Services)? Women and men with well-controlled mental illness can certainly be good parents. Women who keep cooking babies for themselves and others are not the final authority on mental fitness. She is not cited as a mental health authority, just a baby-bearer. And she has NO genetic link to the babies. She made an agreement. What a tragedy.
Tina Reed
Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 1:24 p.m.
To make sure it is clear, the medical student referenced was only the egg donor - not the surrogate. The Ypsilanti woman became a surrogate through in vitro fertilization using both an egg and a sperm from other donors arranged by the Grand Rapids family. As the New York Times article put it, there were five people involved in making this baby. In case you did not see the link in the story, you can find the article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/us/13surrogacy.html
millermaple
Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 1:05 p.m.
you really should read the NYT story, not just the annarbor.com snippet. There is much more to the story, the surrogate has had 9 babies so far & the eggs came from a UM premed student
spm
Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 12:40 p.m.
I just read the NY Times article. Very interesting. The surrogate mother is already in the process of adopting the twins. Here's the link. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/us/13surrogacy.html?_r=1&em
ferdcom
Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 12:37 p.m.
The Kehoes bought the eggs, bought the sperm and rented the womb. They have no biological link to the babies. Why don't they just adopt?
tdw
Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 11:26 a.m.
djim12652 Although I find your analogies a little weird I think you hit the nail on the head
OneSmVoice
Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 11:09 a.m.
This is certainly a complicated issue, but the surrogate (Baker) was compensated for her biological assistance. Ms Baker provided the womb in which the babies grew - but everything else was provided by the Kehoe's. This is a tragedy on both sides and the children will most likely end up losing.
TrappedinMI
Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 10:48 a.m.
Yikes! This is really going to stir up a hornet's nest of debate!
djm12652
Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 10:35 a.m.
So if I get my car fixed, I pay for all the parts and the mechanic's labor...if someone at the autoshop thinks I MAY NOT be a safe enough driver, after I've paid for all the repairs, they have the right to keep my car out of concern? Horse puckies! Unless the surrogate is a licensed diagnostician...she needs to give those babies to their rightfull parents. All she was in this was the oven...to bake the buns.
emu2009
Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 9:40 a.m.
That's it? No information on the when and where the trial is taking place? No information on any precedents? Seems to me there is a lot more reporting to do on this story, even it came from another paper.