Skip to comments.
Surrogate mom who kept kids must pay dad
cleveland.com ^
| March 16, 2006
| John Horton
Posted on 03/16/2006 9:55:43 AM PST by mlc9852
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
1
posted on
03/16/2006 9:55:46 AM PST
by
mlc9852
To: mlc9852
"must pay back" dad seems more accurate than "must pay" dad. What about pain and suffering? Aren't men allowed to be compensated for that?
2
posted on
03/16/2006 9:58:36 AM PST
by
ClearCase_guy
(Never question Bruce Dickinson!)
To: ClearCase_guy
I have no opinion. Just wanted to see what others thought about this mess.
3
posted on
03/16/2006 9:59:32 AM PST
by
mlc9852
To: mlc9852
Wow, what a mess. I wonder how the surrogate's husband feels about all this...
4
posted on
03/16/2006 10:01:01 AM PST
by
LongElegantLegs
(Going armed to the terror of the public.)
To: mlc9852
I think this is a reasonable judgment based on contract law. Good for the judge!
5
posted on
03/16/2006 10:02:26 AM PST
by
Tax-chick
(Death is perishable. Faith is eternal.)
To: mlc9852
Understood. I think people who get invovled with surrogate births are fools. It's treating a human as a manufactured product and putting them up for sale. Emotions kick in, and the item gets taken off the market, and the customer gets irate.
I'm quite surprised its legal.
6
posted on
03/16/2006 10:02:59 AM PST
by
ClearCase_guy
(Never question Bruce Dickinson!)
To: RogerFGay; Z in Oregon
7
posted on
03/16/2006 10:03:01 AM PST
by
FOG724
(http://nationalgrange.org/legislation/phpBB2/index.php)
To: mlc9852
No-brainer. You don't get to take the guy's check, not fulfill your part of the deal, and keep the money.
To: mlc9852
What an unbelievable story. I didn't know this type of thing went on. A third party provides ova....? These kids are not related what so ever to the surrogate, Bimber. Flynn is 64, fiance is 61....wow! Can you imagine taking on triplets at that age?
What a mess!
9
posted on
03/16/2006 10:05:25 AM PST
by
Dudoight
To: mlc9852
What a mess.
The poor boys. no matter what happens, it's so screwed up for them!
10
posted on
03/16/2006 10:05:29 AM PST
by
Hoodlum91
(need a tagline)
To: LongElegantLegs
If the surrogate's husband divorces her, the child support issue would be a major mess.
11
posted on
03/16/2006 10:06:05 AM PST
by
ncountylee
(Dead terrorists smell like victory)
To: LongElegantLegs
I don't know, but (I know I'm gonna get flamed for this) the dad/sperm donor is 64 years old. The surrogate mom is 31. I think the kids are better off with her then "dad".
12
posted on
03/16/2006 10:08:02 AM PST
by
Millee
(Don't make me get out my voodoo doll out!)
To: Howlin; onyx; Clemenza; Petronski; GummyIII; SevenofNine; martin_fierro; veronica; EggsAckley; ...
To: al baby
The 9th Ohio District Court of Appeals ordered Danielle Bimber to reimburse James Flynn her $20,000 surrogate's fee plus child-support that Flynn has been required to pay as the biological father of the three boys. Bimber's reaction: Stuned.
14
posted on
03/16/2006 10:11:14 AM PST
by
martin_fierro
(_____oooo_( ° ¿ ° )_oooo_____)
To: mlc9852
ordered Danielle Bimber to reimburse James Flynn ... child-support that Flynn has been required to pay as the biological father of the three boys I wonder how this links to the case of the guy trying to sever support with the woman who tricked him and had a kid by him. Looks like my joke of "Sue her for the child support he's been giving her" is a real possibility.
To: Millee
I kinda thought that too. Dad's 64? and the mom to be is 61? So by the standard life expectancy the kids will be 10 when dad kicks off and 17 when mom kicks.
I know that the so-called father has some legal standing here and the egg donor has some too. But the surrogate at least to me has absolutely no standing other than possession being 9 tenths of the law.
16
posted on
03/16/2006 10:15:59 AM PST
by
Ouderkirk
(Funny how death and destruction seems to happen wherever Muslims gather...)
To: ClearCase_guy
What about pain and suffering? Aren't men allowed to be compensated for that?"Pain and suffering" is one of the biggest perversions of both the courts and money we have. People should be paid in money when it's money they lost. Non monetary losses are just that.
Other than that quibble with ~your~ post, the decision appears to be a good one. :~D
17
posted on
03/16/2006 10:18:12 AM PST
by
HairOfTheDog
(Hobbit Hole knives for soldiers! www.freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net)
To: Millee
"I don't know, but (I know I'm gonna get flamed for this) the dad/sperm donor is 64 years old. The surrogate mom is 31. I think the kids are better off with her then "dad"."
That is the most.......stop.
18
posted on
03/16/2006 10:23:00 AM PST
by
TET1968
To: Millee
The surrogate mom is 31. I think the kids are better off with her then "dad".Also...
...involve multiple parties, including egg donor Jennifer Rice, a Texas college student who sued for parental rights
Don't forget the egg-donor. The "mom" had NO biological relationship to the kids. Why does she get to keep them. What if I took someone's child from the hospital? Would having "possession" of them give me an advantage in court? These babies were cooked in her, but she didn't provide the ingredients.....
19
posted on
03/16/2006 10:23:01 AM PST
by
Onelifetogive
(* Sarcasm tag ALWAYS required. For some FReepers, sarcasm can NEVER be obvious enough.)
To: Ouderkirk
Even if the parents live for another 30 years the idea of having three adolescents around when they are in their seventies may make them wish for death.
I found it rough in my thirties.
20
posted on
03/16/2006 10:25:27 AM PST
by
Mears
(The Killer Queen-caviar and cigarettes.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson