Do you think a surrogate mother has the right to keep the babies?

I just saw a thing on Dr.Phil about a surrogate mother who decided to keep the babies she had for someone else. The real mother and father wanted to keep the babies, and they even hired an attorney but apparently they lost their babies. I don't know much about how the surrogate thing goes, but isn't the REAL mothers egg and the fathers sperm put together and then put in the surrogate woman? If that's right then I think the woman has no right to take away the parents baby. Opinions?Do you think a surrogate mother has the right to keep the babies?
First off, NO the surrogate mother should not have any right to keep the baby.



This is rare that they do and I guess my first thought is where is the agency and the counselling this SM was suppose to get? Most surrogate experiences from people I talked to are positive and the SM does not feel maternal attachments or like they are giving up "their baby". Especially if they are a gestational surrogate as this woman is (not her egg). My first thought when I see a case like this is it is some sort of scam for additional dollars.



Many states and countries (even if it is a traditional surrogate, meaning the SM eggs) go by intent. WHO are the parents that intended to have the pregnancy. Who are the ones with the initial intent to raise the child. Basically meaning the intended parents have the legal rights.
I also have issues with my mother. I posted my question on wish123 and got an answer from an expert who solved my problems. Highly recommend the website.Do you think a surrogate mother has the right to keep the babies?
In this situation, the intended parents actually used an egg donor and sperm donor (rare to use both). The babies did not biologically belong to any of the 4 people. And this surrogacy took place in Michigan, notoriously one of the absolute worst states your could be in for surrogacy. (Most states would not have allowed the surrogate to take home the babies.)



I have been a surrogate mother twice. The problem with this situation took place long before the birth. The surrogate had a responsibility to find out all information from her intended parents that she needed to before getting pregnant, simply to protect herself and her own family.



She was wrong to keep the babies, and she was wrong not to give them back on yesterday's show. If she felt they were in danger, the correct procedure would have been to alert the authorities. She had no right to take those babies, but unfortunately, since they decided to pursue surrogacy in MI, the law is unrightfully on her side.
This is the legal risk of surrogacy, particularly when it is done in a state without laws that can enforce the contract. State laws are not keeping up with technology and new laws need to be written. No one thinks it is important until something like this happens. There are a lot of risks in surrogacy: medical, financial, emotional and legal. I'm unsure of the particulars of the case you are talking about, but I personally believe it is not right for anyone to back out of the contract after a pregnancy has occurred. It happens both ways, surrogates want to keep the child(ren) and intended parents who decide that they do not want the child(ren).



I was a surrogate and the lawyer called my intended parents while I was pregnant to say that there was another pregnant surrogate and did they want to adopt the child. The intended parents split up while she was pregnant and no one wanted to pay the medical costs, comp fee or legal fees. They also didn't want the baby anymore. My intended parents declined to get into that mess. I have no idea how it turned out.