Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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

A surrogate mother breached a contract when she secreted away the triplets she delivered for a would-be Kirtland father and set out to raise them at her Pennsylvania home, an appellate court ruled Wednesday.

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. The decision was unanimous.

Presiding Judge Lynn C. Slaby used the opinion to implore state legislators to tackle the complicated issue of surrogacy, which is not addressed under state statutes. He wrote that Ohio has "failed to address the rapid technological advances of surrogacy."

The legal fight over the triplets started soon after the boys took their first breaths in November 2003. Court cases stretch across three states - Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana - and involve multiple parties, including egg donor Jennifer Rice, a Texas college student who sued for parental rights.

(Excerpt) Read more at cleveland.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: canofworms; surrogateparents; whatatangledweb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last
To: HairOfTheDog
"Pain and suffering" is one of the biggest perversions of both the courts and money we have.

If my spouse (or even myself!!!) causes me "pain and suffering" due to negligence or malice, should I be able to sue my spouse (or myself) and be awarded damages (to be paid by our insurance company, of course!)

21 posted on 03/16/2006 10:26:28 AM PST by Onelifetogive (* Sarcasm tag ALWAYS required. For some FReepers, sarcasm can NEVER be obvious enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

So much for adults honoring valid contracts...


22 posted on 03/16/2006 10:27:41 AM PST by Publius6961 (Multiculturalism is the white flag of a dying country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

I think you know my answer...


23 posted on 03/16/2006 10:28:01 AM PST by HairOfTheDog (Hobbit Hole knives for soldiers! www.freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
'What about pain and suffering? Aren't men allowed to be compensated for that?"

The story indicated the award to father was based on a breach of contract claim. Consequential damages such as pain and suffering are rarely recoverable in a contract action. Those are generally tort claim damages.

24 posted on 03/16/2006 10:29:00 AM PST by joebuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

so let me get this straight:
* a college student provided the egg
* a 64 yo man provided the sperm
* and a 31 yo woman gave birth
???

it's a strange, strange world.


25 posted on 03/16/2006 10:34:53 AM PST by kpp_kpp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

Something like this should NOT be contracted!


26 posted on 03/16/2006 10:43:19 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk
I'm 60 and there would be no way in HE!! I would want to start raising one kid much less three.

How stupid these people are to even consider this arrangement!

27 posted on 03/16/2006 10:43:27 AM PST by SweetCaroline (Homosexuals intention is to serve none but themselves. THE PINK SWASTIKA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kpp_kpp

I had twins and can't imagine anyone (in their right mind) wanting triplets! Especially at their ages. I cannot believe this stuff is legal! I find the whole tawdry mess disgraceful!


28 posted on 03/16/2006 10:44:38 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kpp_kpp

Can someone please explain who is on 1st here. Who did what to whom, who gets to keep what, who is paying for whom, and who has to pay back whom. I know "I don't know is on third" but who is on 1st and 2nd.


29 posted on 03/16/2006 10:49:32 AM PST by cynicalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
should I be able to sue my spouse (or myself)

Suing yourself? What a concept! If I caused myself 'pain and suffering' (that hammer on the thumb really hurt) does that mean I could collect a gazillion dollars?

/ sarcasm off

30 posted on 03/16/2006 10:52:49 AM PST by madtier1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: madtier1
If I caused myself 'pain and suffering' (that hammer on the thumb really hurt) does that mean I could collect a gazillion dollars?
Sure - just write yourself an IOU for it!

(Well, it works when the government spends the current-accounts surplus of the Social Security payroll tax revenue, and puts an IOU in the Social Security Trust "Fund" for it . . . )


31 posted on 03/16/2006 11:05:51 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
should I be able to sue my spouse (or myself) and be awarded damages (to be paid by our insurance company, of course!)

There was a story here recently along those lines. Guy driving a city truck hit his own car, then sued the city for the damages. They didn't buy it so he had his wife sue -- for more!

32 posted on 03/16/2006 11:26:37 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

The USA has gone mad!! How depressing. The end of western civilation as we know it.


33 posted on 03/16/2006 11:36:02 AM PST by tbird5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tbird5

I agree. You know the old saying, "just because you can doesn't mean you should". I think that applies in this case.


34 posted on 03/16/2006 11:46:53 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
I'm quite surprised its legal.

It's legal because America is still a more-or-less free country. That which is not specifically forbidden is implicitly permitted. As opposed to a tyranny, in which that which is not mandatory is forbidden ... whether this practice should (as a practical matter) be forbidden is a fit subject for debate. But until the States get around to banning it, it's legal.

That said, I find it morally repugnant.

35 posted on 03/16/2006 11:51:56 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

I agree. This judge made the right decision however there should have been some kind of award for the pain and suffering of being double crossed and scammed in this way.


36 posted on 03/17/2006 7:47:59 AM PST by Galveston Grl (Getting angry and abandoning power to the Democrats is not a choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson