Surrogate Abortion Case Raises Concerns About Enforceability of Surrogacy Contracts

A recent and tragic fight between concerned biological parents and a protective surrogate mother made national headlines after it was discovered that the child had serious health defects. The couple wanted their surrogate to have an abortion; a plan she initially agreed to but then had a change of heart. The surrogate then decided to flee to a different state that did not acknowledge surrogacy contracts so that she could have the child and put it up for adoption. The parents then launched a suit to get control of their child. A complicated and emotionally exhausting custody fight that touches on important concerns for those with fertility problems.

The case began when the couple was introduced to Crystal Kelley. Kelley needed money and was happy to have a child for the couple who were looking for their fourth after the wife had fertility problems. Though things started well, it was quickly discovered that the baby Kelley was carrying had severe disabilities. Doctors said the baby would be born with a cleft palate, brain development problems and serious heart defects. Multiple surgeries would be required and even then, the child was given only a 25 percent chance of leading a normal life.

The worried couple, who had already raised several premature children, decided to offer Kelley $10,000 to abort the baby and spare it from a life of pain. The woman initially agreed to do it for $15,000 but when the couple balked, changed her mind entirely and said her religion would not allow her to go through with it. The couple then sued to enforce the original surrogacy contract.

The original agreement specifically stated that the woman would agree to an abortion if the fetus had a severe abnormality, something Kelley later decided not to follow through with. Rather than stay and lose the inevitable case, she picked up and moved to Michigan where surrogacy contracts are not considered valid.

The surrogate eventually gave birth to the girl who suffered from even worse problems than were feared. Severe physical and brain deformities were present as well as serious developmental abnormalities. Kelley located a woman who was willing to adopt the child but still had the couple’s custody suit to contend with.

Several weeks after the birth, the couple relented to the adoption and agreed to give up their rights if they were allowed to maintain some kind of contact with the girl. The good news is that the young girl is now alive and living with her new adopted mother. The biological parents have visited the girl several times, despite the devastating custody battle.

Though this represents one family’s tragic struggle, it also sheds light on larger issues about what can happen when a surrogacy situation goes awry. As more and more couples suffer fertility issues and consider nontraditional ways of having a family, the case shows how much couples need to plan ahead and attempt to plan for a host of unknowns.

If you find yourself facing the prospect of complicated divorce and have questions about your rights and options, contact an experienced Ohio family law attorney who can help guide you through the difficult process. Count on the expertise of Twinsburg family law attorney Carol L. Stephan.

Source: “Surrogate mother refused abortion: Right? Wrong? Damned to hell?,” by Aly Neel, published at WashingtonPost.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Family Law Fails to Keep Pace With Modern Families

Mom and Dad (and Mom): Florida Judge Approves Unconventional Family

Family Law Fails to Keep Pace With Modern Families

Though researchers tell us everyday that Americans increasingly resemble the families seen on “Modern Family,” our judicial system in many ways appears stuck in the time of “Leave It to Beaver.” Gay rights and gay parenting have changed by leaps and bounds over the past few decades. A whopping 41% of all new births are among single women. The idea of what a family is has changed a lot in the minds of many, but our legal system has been slow to warm to the changes.

A good example of the gap between modern realities and the legal system is occurring right now in New York. A state seen as quite progressive is stuck with outdated family law ideas. The New York Times discussed the case of a man named Jonathan Sporn, a pharmaceuticals exec living in Manhattan.

Dr. Sporn filed a petition last month saying that he and his then girlfriend, Leann Leutner, had a baby boy last summer. The couple had conception problems and used a sperm donor. The two had been dating for a number of years and had been living together since 2010, but after having each been divorced once before, the two decided to raise the child as a non-married couple.

The problem arose in December when Leutner, a lawyer with a prominent New York firm, took the child and left the apartment she shared with Sporn for a new apartment in New Jersey. Only a few days later Leutner killed herself. The death was shocking, but not totally out of the blue. She had suffered from psychological problems off and on for years and they were made worse due to her severe postpartum depression.

Since Leutner died, the baby has been with child protective services and is in foster care in New York City despite desperate pleas by Sporn to have the child returned to him. Leutner’s sister, who lives in Chicago, has also filed a petition asking for custody. The judge assigned to the case agreed that visits by social workers confirmed that either case would be an acceptable home for the child, yet the baby has not been given to Sporn because he is technically viewed as “destitute.” The term refers to those children with no known parents, a curious definition given that Sporn is alive and well.

The problem is that under New York law, Dr. Sporn has no real relationship to the child. He was never married to the baby’s mother and has no biological connection to the boy. He also had not yet taken any formal legal steps to adopt him. The case resembles many cases of gay parents who never formally adopted their children and then are thrown into custody cases when their relationships sour and are shocked to discover they have no legal parental rights.

Fifty years ago being an illegitimate child was a serious matter that came with lots of legal limits. The U.S. Supreme Court took action to protect the children of unmarried couples from legal harm but this and other recent cases prove that there is still a lot of ground yet to be covered. While we may enjoy Modern Family on television, our court system has yet to adapt to modern life.  

If you find yourself facing the prospect of complicated divorce and have questions about your rights and options, contact an experienced Ohio family law attorney who can help guide you through the difficult process. Count on the expertise of Twinsburg family law attorney Carol L. Stephan.

Source: “When the Law Says a Parent Isn’t a Parent,” by Gina Bellafante, published at NYTimes.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Mom and Dad (and Mom): Florida Judge Approves Unconventional Family

How to Establish Parental Rights for Unmarried Fathers in Ohio

Is The House Really Worth It?

Having to decide what to do with the marital residence is a common issue faced by many couples. Prospective clients want to know whether it’s worth fighting to keep the house for themselves or if they should instead be running the other direction. The answer is a complicated one and depends on a variety of factors. Some of the factors are emotional while others are objective and strictly financial.

First things first, if you’re considering keeping the house you need to ask and answer some crucial questions. How big is the property? How about the yard? How much is the mortgage? Can you afford the mortgage payments alone? How about with alimony? How much does it cost to maintain the house? The yard? Are you able to do the work yourself? Will have you to employ others to do maintenance and, if so, can you afford it? These might be uncomfortable questions but they are absolutely essential if you’re going to take the plunge of keeping the house by yourself.

It’s also critical that both parties understand keeping the house in one party’s name might be a decision out of their control. For instance, even if you decide that you’re emotionally and financially ready for the task, a bank may decide not to refinance a mortgage in only one person’s name. After all, your significant other is likely listed on the loan and a bank may not be willing to take the risk of losing the one income.

Another issue to consider is whether there are enough other marital assets that can be used to buy out the other spouse’s interest in the house. And if the house is upside down you have to decide which party will bear the burden of that and if there are enough other assets to fairly allocate the debt burden. Even if there are enough other assets, it’s important to consider whether such a large real estate investment is prudent. Though real estate used to be a sure fire way of minting money, that’s no longer the case. It might be better in some cases to hold on to a retirement account and watch that grow then cling to a money-losing piece of property.

Though most people are emotionally attached to their homes, it may not always be the right move to try and hold onto the property. The instinct is understandable, but it’s crucial that anyone going through a divorce thinks through all the issues raised by keeping the house and make an informed decision.

If you find yourself facing the prospect of complicated divorce and have questions about your rights and options, contact an experienced Ohio family law attorney who can help guide you through the difficult process. Count on the expertise of Twinsburg family law attorney Carol L. Stephan.

Source: “Keeping The House After Divorce,” by Kathleen Connell, published at HuffingtonPost.com.  

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Some States’ Laws Consider Advanced Degrees Marital Assets

Ohio Launches Pilot Program Tying Child Support to Visitation Rights

Mom and Dad (and Mom): Florida Judge Approves Unconventional Family

A family court judge in Florida recently authorized the reissuance of a 22-month-old girl’s birth certificate. No big deal, right? After all, birth certificates get reissued all the time due to clerical errors or name changes. In this case, the reissuance was not because of any old typo. Instead, the toddler would be getting a third parent.

The case starts with a lesbian couple, Maria Italiano and Cher Filippazzo. The two had been considering having a child for a while when they met a new friend, a Miami hairdresser named Massimiliano Gerina. Gerina, a gay man, became fast friends with the duo. After a while the two approached Gerina and asked if he’d consider donating sperm to allow the two to have a child. At first he shrugged off the offer, but after some lengthy consideration he decided he was game.

The only condition to his participation was that Gerina wanted to play an important role in the child’s life. Not content to be an anonymous sperm donor, Gerina wanted to have visitation rights and get to know his child. The lesbian couple was on board and the three reached a verbal agreement laying out Gerina’s rights and responsibilities.

Things, unfortunately, got complicated the moment the child was born. Florida law (and the law of most other states) says that sperm donors have no parental rights to their biological offspring. As a bit of an aside, here in Ohio if the couple receiving the sperm knows the donor, the donor is only released from legal responsibility for the child if the procedure is performed with a physician’s involvement. Florida has no such law and Gerina would ordinarily have no rights or responsibilities for the child, something the lesbian couple eventually decided they agreed with. Going back on their verbal agreement, the couple now prevented Gerina from seeing the girl, denying him the role he felt he’d been promised.

Gerina, in turn, filed suit seeking to enforce their original verbal agreement. The Florida judge who presided over the case eventually sided with Gerina, at least on most issues. The lesbian couple will maintain sole parental rights to the child and Gerina will not be expected to pay child support. However, Gerina has been given visitation rights to the girl and has also been allowed to have his name listed on the child’s birth certificate.

Two moms and a dad certainly make for an unconventional family, but one that reflects the changing realities of modern life. If you find yourself facing the prospect of complicated divorce and have questions about your rights and options, contact an experienced Ohio family law attorney who can help guide you through the difficult process. Count on the expertise of Twinsburg family law attorney Carol L. Stephan.

Source: “Florida judge approves birth certificate listing three parents,” by Kevin Gray, published at Reuters.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Ohio Man Ordered To Refrain From Reproducing

How to Establish Parental Rights for Unmarried Fathers in Ohio

Ohio Man Ordered To Refrain From Reproducing

An Ohio family court judge from Lorain County recently issued a controversial order requiring that a man who is seriously behind on child support payments not have any additional children.

Just last week Judge James Walther issued an order requiring a man from Elyria, OH to not procreate until he has taken steps to financially support his existing children. The case concerns a man who has not paid child support since 2009 for his four children from previous relationships. The man pled guilty, saying that while he doesn’t financially support the kids, he is a great father and is there for them in other ways.

Judge Walther was unsurprisingly not convinced, saying that the nearly $80,000 that the man owes is outrageous. Walther sentenced the deadbeat dad to five years of probation. During the length of that probation the man is not permitted to reproduce unless he can show that he has taken steps to support his existing children. If he does have another child, the man faces a possible year in prison.

Though some have applauded the move as an essential step to hold parents accountable for supporting their children, others have wondered about the constitutionality of Judge Walther’s decision. An Ohio case from 2004 was overturned after a judge issued a similar order. That case was tossed because the state Supreme Court said there was no mechanism in place for the man to regain his right to reproduce.

Surprising to many is that the decision is not without precedent. Just a few months ago a judge in Wisconsin ordered a man not to have another child given that he was unable to take care of the nine he already fathered. Another Wisconsin case involved a judge who ordered a man to not only refrain from reproducing, but to tell all women he meets romantically within three minutes that he’s a convicted felon with unpaid child support.

Some of these cases survived appellate review, which means it’s unclear what will happen in this case. The father has said he intends to appeal the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court. It’s likely that parents behind on child support payments will be anxiously awaiting news on the outcome of the case.

If you find yourself facing the prospect of divorce and have questions about your rights and options, contact an experienced Ohio family law attorney who can help guide you through the difficult process. Count on the expertise of Twinsburg family law attorney Carol L. Stephan.

Source: “Court to Ohio man: Stop fathering children,” by Evan Bevins, published at MariettaTimes.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

How to Establish Parental Rights for Unmarried Fathers in Ohio

How to get an annulment in Ohio