capricorn Posted March 11, 2009 Report Posted March 11, 2009 A Quebec woman has no legal right to the child she paid a surrogate to carry for her, a judge has ruled, leaving the child without a legal mother.--- After the child was born, the surrogate gave up her legal claim to the baby. The couple went to court to adopt the child, admitting that they had given the surrogate a payment for her service. Judge Michel Dubois ruled in Quebec court on Jan. 6 that only the man has a legal claim because his sperm was used to inseminate the surrogate's egg. --- The ruling leaves the child with no legal mother. Philippe-André Tessier, president of the Young Bar Association of Montreal, said the decision was not in the best interest of the child. "It leaves this child in kind of a limbo. If the father dies this child is then an orphan being raised by a stranger," he said. Section 541 of the Quebec Civil Code states that any agreement involving a woman who becomes pregnant for another person is null and void. University of Sherbrooke law professor Michel Tétreault said the judge had no choice but to send a message. "You cannot, by going through an adoption, bypass what is illegal. The end doesn't justify the means," Tétreault said. However, he added, the law on surrogacy needs clarification. Under federal law, the practice is legal but with some restrictions. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/090311/cana...baby_quebec0311 The way to get around the law as it is presently constructed under the Quebec Civil Code is for all parties to lie in the adoption process. This couple told the truth, i.e. they paid a surrogate mother $20,000.00 to carry a baby. As was agreed, the surrogate gave up her legal rights to the child. This, and as a consequence of the judge's decision, the child is left without a legal mother. The woman, who is raising this child with her husband, will have no say in medical treatment of the child, can't apply for a passport on behalf of the child, won't be allowed to register the child in school, or make other important decisions on the child's behalf. All parental rights are granted solely to the father because he was the sperm donor. Although turning to surrogate mothers is not all that common, I think the present Quebec law making it illegal should be reviewed. It is not in the best interest of a child to be left without a legal mother (or a father). La Presse reports that it has found 10 entries on the web of couples looking for surrogate mothers. La Presse rapporte ce matin qu’il est impossible de quantifier le phénomène, mais que sur le web, on trouve environ 10 couples désespérés pour une mère porteuse potentielle. http://blogues.cyberpresse.ca/mere/?p=469 Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Oleg Bach Posted March 11, 2009 Report Posted March 11, 2009 Product that comes from the body of an individual belongs to that person - The sperm doner has legal and biological rights under natural law - the out of luck mother - Is not the mother - this kind of arrangement is dellusional - The offspring did not even in part spring off and out of her body. She has no claim. I could see it now - the "mother" going on about how she doled out good hard cash for the kid...to bad - babies are not for sale...I agree with the pragmatic and logical thinking of the judge. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted March 11, 2009 Report Posted March 11, 2009 Product that comes from the body of an individual belongs to that person - The sperm doner has legal and biological rights under natural law - the out of luck mother - Is not the mother - this kind of arrangement is dellusional - The offspring did not even in part spring off and out of her body. She has no claim. I could see it now - the "mother" going on about how she doled out good hard cash for the kid...to bad - babies are not for sale...I agree with the pragmatic and logical thinking of the judge. Also: The modernist that use the term biological mother or father make me sick. The only definition of mother or father is the natural one... If these people were honest the wanna be "mother' would have allowed the husband to physically have sex with the surrogate - who knows - they might have fallen in love and all would be well - then simply get rid of the barren woman...give that useless bit of scared womb and ovaries the boot - who needs her ---but of course people who can not breed think they can simply buy a human being - I don't like this person already. Quote
Melanie_ Posted March 14, 2009 Report Posted March 14, 2009 So, the biological father of the child has custody, because the biological mother has relinquished all rights to the child. Couldn't the biological father's wife then adopt the child as her own? Once the child is in the home of the couple, there shouldn't be any impediment to having the adoptive mother gain legal guardianship. Quote For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. Nelson Mandela
capricorn Posted March 15, 2009 Author Report Posted March 15, 2009 Also: The modernist that use the term biological mother or father make me sick. The only definition of mother or father is the natural one... Oleg, in my experience the biological parent of a child is sometimes referred to as the natural parent of the child. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
capricorn Posted March 15, 2009 Author Report Posted March 15, 2009 So, the biological father of the child has custody, because the biological mother has relinquished all rights to the child. In that particular case, yes. Couldn't the biological father's wife then adopt the child as her own? The judges' ruling, as I understand it, is that the wife cannot adopt the child because (1) using surrogates is illegal in that province, therefore (2) the contract with the surrogate is void in Quebec. I found it interesting that the judge said that the best interests of the child could not override the illegalities he found in the arrangements between the couple and the surrogate. As per the link in my opening post: "University of Sherbrooke law professor Michel Tétreault said the judge had no choice but to send a message. "You cannot, by going through an adoption, bypass what is illegal. The end doesn't justify the means," Tétreault said." Once the child is in the home of the couple, there shouldn't be any impediment to having the adoptive mother gain legal guardianship. The judge's ruling is that an adoption cannot proceed. Obviously, the law making surrogates illegal in Quebec did not make provisions to cover such situations. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Melanie_ Posted March 15, 2009 Report Posted March 15, 2009 It seems to me that this judge isn't taking the best interests of the child into account. The adoptive mother will raise the child, care for it, be its mother in every sense, so denying the child a "legal" mother is counterproductive. I understand the issue, and there obviously needs to be some thought to how to prevent the "selling" of babies, but surrogates are a viable option for people who are unable to conceive naturally. Quote For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. Nelson Mandela
Oleg Bach Posted March 15, 2009 Report Posted March 15, 2009 It seems to me that this judge isn't taking the best interests of the child into account. The adoptive mother will raise the child, care for it, be its mother in every sense, so denying the child a "legal" mother is counterproductive. I understand the issue, and there obviously needs to be some thought to how to prevent the "selling" of babies, but surrogates are a viable option for people who are unable to conceive naturally. Real = real mother. Surrogate = surrogant, not real mother. "Best interest of the child" - that's the great war cry of all the well meaning social engineers...If I was an infant, and I could go forward in time and decide what was in my best interest..would I choose the adoptive mother who say had money - or my own mother rich or poor or even poorly behaved - I would want to be with mummy Those people who can not concieve are not meant to bear children...whether damaged via genetic distortions- disease or injury..that's just the way it is...sorry in my books...reminds me of a couple of looser cave people wandering about the barrens with a barren woman ( so politically incorrect)...and they are scouting about to snatch someones baby...well in privmative times they would not give a damn if they were childless...but NOW - its about some fanceyful dream - status the satisfaction and fun of raising children - all artifical wants and superfical needs...no kids - so what. Quote
Argus Posted March 15, 2009 Report Posted March 15, 2009 It seems to me that this judge isn't taking the best interests of the child into account. The adoptive mother will raise the child, care for it, be its mother in every sense, so denying the child a "legal" mother is counterproductive. I understand the issue, and there obviously needs to be some thought to how to prevent the "selling" of babies, but surrogates are a viable option for people who are unable to conceive naturally. What is wrong with "selling babies" anyway? I mean, provided the state looks at the new "parents" and decides they are fit. What exactly is the problem here? Is it some kind of knee-jerk socialist reaction to people with money buying something they need? Because clearly I don't share that concern. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.