I would have expected the burden of proof would have been on the people wanting the baby. No signed surrogate mother contract - not surrogate mother.
On the other hand if the mother is capable of having her own children she should have been very suspicious of in vitro. But if she isn't - that would be all the more reason why she would have expected the children should be hers since that is one way some women who can not otherwise have children do so.
Honestly it's just hard for me to believe it got this far without some sort of paperwork one way or the other.
Well, there was a story earlier this year about a woman who was tricked into getting pregnant and then signing her rights to her new born away. The "father" was secretly married to a woman who couldn't have children and he and his wife created the scheme together. Right after giving birth, the birth mother was asked to sign papers that would give him rights, but really it just made it able for the guy's wife to adopt the baby. the birth mom found out, took measures to prevent the adoption and the "father" and wife filed an appeal and denied everything (and while waiting for their appeal were allowed to keep the baby).
Here is a link to that storylink I haven't found an update.
So yes, this stuff happens (some blame the restrictions and protocols for legal surrogacy or adoption plus the expense within the country). I think there needs to be a law where a woman can't sign papers 24 hours after giving birth, especially legal documents. While yeah, I think there were red flags there needs to be some protection from fraud.
Recently I did some research on adoption for another purpose. At least in WA state there are provisions to void an adoption when fraud was done. Of course, the women in your example was probably trying to prove fraud. Fraud can work both ways since some women agree to be a surrogate mother then change their minds.
True, I've heard of cases where the same "baby" was "promised" to multiple families and even cases where there was no child or no family for the surrogates' unborn child. (I don't actively research this stuff btw, it just pops up on the news randomly when I watch).
While obstetrics and gynecology aren't my fields of study, I actually do have a medical background and continuing medical education. But thanks for assuming I'm younger. It's flattering.
While having pregnancies in your late 30s/early 40s is certainly not an end of the world experience, it is still risky. They're not termed high-risk pregnancies for nothing. Go look up the wealth of documented evidence. Just because your mother was fine does not instantly hold true for everyone else.
This is Gaia. Quite frankly statistics say you should be in their age demographic. Hence the younger assumption. I'm not in their age demographic, but then again, I've been a member since I was. So I know there is an older audience here. But it would be idiotic of me to assume you were one of the outliers straight off the bat.
No, I know one does not equal the majority, but I'm just saying 3.33% doesn't seem very high risk.
That's just one of the most horrid things you can do someone. It's like kidnapping a mother's children in plain sight and getting rewarded for it by the law by not only keeping the stolen children but being able to legally taunt the mother with them with their close proximity. Without paperwork or proof they should not be able to get away with it.