Surrogate who kept baby gets $785 a month from would-be parents

Tralee Pearce

Globe and Mail Blog
Posted on

It's not uncommon for a would-be surrogate mom to back out of an arrangement and decide to keep the baby. But a case in Britain is raising eyebrows because a couple is also being asked for child support for the baby they never got to take home.

The couple, known as Mr. and Mrs. W at the moment, have been ordered to hand over more than £500 (about $785) a month for the now-eight-month-old child by the government's Child Support Agency, according to the Daily Mail. Mr. W is technically the father, since his sperm was used in the insemination. But Mrs. W’s eggs were not used. The couple had already allowed the surrogate, known as Miss N, to keep the £4,500 they had given to her for expenses when she told them of her decision.

“She cannot say, 'I am keeping your child and now you must pay for it,’ ” Mr. W told the paper.

At first glance, the couple seem like the clear victims here, but as blogger Carolyn Castiglia notes, in Britain, surrogacy agreements are not legally binding in court, even with a formal written contract.

The baby's father says he now suspects that this may have been the surrogate’s plan all along – to have a child with a wealthy man and claim child support, she reports.

“I’d feel more sympathy for the father in this case if he didn’t seem so arrogant, suggesting that ‘he would feel more comfortable paying for vouchers which could be redeemed on food and clothing than money which would not necessarily go toward the child,’ ” she writes, quoting from the Daily Mail article.

The case may resonate in Canada, where so-called “traditional surrogacy,” involving only the insemination of the would-be father’s sperm, is considered by many to be a legally risky undertaking.

“Few physicians will inseminate a woman knowing that she intends to give up the child and few lawyers would choose to act on behalf of either party given the unreliable result,” according to Sherry Levitan, a Toronto lawyer “focused on third party reproductive technology,” according to her website.

“Traditional surrogacy has become a self-help remedy and rarely involves a medical facility. With or without a surrogacy agreement, it is impossible to adequately safeguard the rights of the intended parents,” she writes. “The lower costs associated with traditional surrogacy make it an attractive option to some, but it carries tremendous legal risk.”

So, then, is it right that the couple end up with no baby but with support payments? Caveat emptor?



Commentary by the Ottawa Mens Centre

Every Man especially in Canada needs to know that this gigantic scam goes on every day to the point that a significant percentage of births are the result of fraud.

The most common is a woman seeks to gain a large additional tax free income each month
simply by convincing a man to have sex with her while telling him "she cannot conceive" or, tell him what he wants to hear, that she wants to start a family but without telling him, that he will never have any other role than to pay, pay and pay for the next 25 years.

The women who do this seek out "the right income", "the right genetics",
Men are treated as walking fresh S-PERM Donors.

On many occasions, women even choose to forgo the extremely large "free cash for life"
by not even telling the father he is a father.

Another standard play is to have a High income earning "partner" and obtain the S-perm of another man who has more suitable genetics to become pregnant. The real father is not told at first he is the father. The husband is encouraged to treat the child as his own, he does and once the relationship is established she separates, gets half of the home he owned before meeting her, and pays support, all the child's life.

Once she has the order issued from the former husband, she then goes after the biological father. This way she gets TWO lots of child support being paid by TWO different fathers for life

Then she 'remarries" and number 3 father comes into the picture, as soon as she has evidence that he has acted as a father, she gets rid of him and gets support from yet a third man at the SINGLE CHILD RATE.

ALL the child support is tax free. Eventually, the woman move in with another woman who has a similar history.

Our feminist judiciary say all of this is fine and dandy.

There are numerous essential laws that need to be changed and introduced to end these crimes against children by selfish mothers.

A legal presumption of equal parenting- note all out politicians have ignored this issue, fathers in Canada just don't work hard enough to make their local MP aware of the problems.

A change to the child support guidlines that at present are nothing but a wealth transfer and an economic weapon to stop children having relationships and parenting with fathers.

A real police for our man hating corrupt vile child abusing judiciary.