Case of disabled surrogate parent

[DGayle]

I think I would feel better about it if there was a second person responsible for caring and raising this child even if it was unconventional.

Rather than relying on care workers.

I think we all would. A second parent in this case would be a stable caregiver for the child, instead of a revolving door of hired help.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I get what you're saying, but that logic is foreign to me. It doesn't set right with my soul that this baby is with strangers when 2 members of the family were involved with bringing her about.

I read that her sister was applying to adopt.

[catparty]

Children shouldn't be conceived with a future job in mind for them already. It's one thing if an injury or something happens later, but when you conceive a child with it in mind that they're likely going to be your full-time caregiver, that's just so disgustingly wrong that I don't know where to begin.

As I said earlier, this kid was born with the job of being a tick off her mother's bucket list. If you conceive a kid with this in mind, it isn't so big of a leap to assume that they'd be given a literal job- this time taking care of Mom's physical in addition to emotional needs.

I didn't pose the question to advocate this behavior; this specific case, I feel, invites conversation about what we do and don't allow parents to burden their children with. There's an interesting BBC show about that:

(link unbroken bc youtube)

I can't find another one about kids taking care of younger siblings, but it's out there somewhere and I invite you to seek it out.

[Mama Mia]

I love that quote from the judge so much. I don't think she should have arranged to have the child if there was a possibility that she wouldn't be able to keep him. I would imagine her family members aren't being granted automatic caretaker status because they aren't any more related to the baby than she is? Except possibly for the niece who acted as surrogate, but I don't know if that would be considered a relation by the court? . So it might not be that they don't want to take care of the child, they might not have been offered the opportunity.

If she can provide physical care of the child through either paid caretakers, or relatives who are committed to helping out, I don't see why she wouldn't be able to do all the truly important parts of parenting, as described in that quote. And if she is able to provide the physical care through other people, and is having caregivers to assist her now -- why would people assume the child would be compelled to be the mother's caretaker? She already has that covered.

This is completely different than the issue people have with Michelle putting her daughters to work as surrogate parents. Michelle ( AND JIM BOB ! - it irks me sooooo much that people leave him out and focus on only Michelle when discussing parenting! So incredibly sexist!) -- THEY are able to provide primary care for THEIR children - they choose not to. And not only do they seem to schlep off the majority of the more demanding, tedious, gross physical labor of child rearing - but, more importantly, they palm off all the psychological, emotional, bonding, educational aspects as well. To other children.

I only know what I read here, but if she has supports in place to keep the child safe and cared for, and back up systems in place for emergencies, why shouldn't she be allowed to parent?

The truly physical, absolute safety 24/7/365 care for a child lasts a relatively short time. By the time the child is school age the vast majority of parenting is intellectual and emotional, not physical. And look at previous generations -- how many fathers never changed a diaper or made a meal for a child? They were still parents.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I love that quote from the judge so much. I don't think she should have arranged to have the child if there was a possibility that she wouldn't be able to keep him. I would imagine her family members aren't being granted automatic caretaker status because they aren't any more related to the baby than she is? Except possibly for the niece who acted as surrogate, but I don't know if that would be considered a relation by the court? . So it might not be that they don't want to take care of the child, they might not have been offered the opportunity.

If she can provide physical care of the child through either paid caretakers, or relatives who are committed to helping out, I don't see why she wouldn't be able to do all the truly important parts of parenting, as described in that quote. And if she is able to provide the physical care through other people, and is having caregivers to assist her now -- why would people assume the child would be compelled to be the mother's caretaker? She already has that covered.

This is completely different than the issue people have with Michelle putting her daughters to work as surrogate parents. Michelle ( AND JIM BOB ! - it irks me sooooo much that people leave him out and focus on only Michelle when discussing parenting! So incredibly sexist!) -- THEY are able to provide primary care for THEIR children - they choose not to. And not only do they seem to schlep off the majority of the more demanding, tedious, gross physical labor of child rearing - but, more importantly, they palm off all the psychological, emotional, bonding, educational aspects as well. To other children.

I only know what I read here, but if she has supports in place to keep the child safe and cared for, and back up systems in place for emergencies, why shouldn't she be allowed to parent?

The truly physical, absolute safety 24/7/365 care for a child lasts a relatively short time. By the time the child is school age the vast majority of parenting is intellectual and emotional, not physical. And look at previous generations -- how many fathers never changed a diaper or made a meal for a child? They were still parents.

If she had been considered the biological parent of the child, it would be a very different case. Children should only be removed from biological parents where there is some obvious risk of harm, and if there is an adequate support system in place with enough caregivers, mom herself doesn't need to be physically changing diapers, etc.

The thing here is that she wanted to be recognized as the parent, although there was absolutely no basis to her request. There was no biological connection - not her eggs, nor did she gestate. She was just the arranger.

Adoption is a bit different. You are asking to be approved in advance, so the state can have a higher standard than "is a child currently at risk of harm"? and can ask deeper questions about future ability to care for the child.

[Grimalkin]

If she had been considered the biological parent of the child, it would be a very different case. Children should only be removed from biological parents where there is some obvious risk of harm, and if there is an adequate support system in place with enough caregivers, mom herself doesn't need to be physically changing diapers, etc.

The thing here is that she wanted to be recognized as the parent, although there was absolutely no basis to her request. There was no biological connection - not her eggs, nor did she gestate. She was just the arranger.

Adoption is a bit different. You are asking to be approved in advance, so the state can have a higher standard than "is a child currently at risk of harm"? and can ask deeper questions about future ability to care for the child.

Very good logical breakdown 2xx. MamaMia, I don't disagree with you on the possibility of her being aable to give the child excellent guidance. I don't think anyone here does not recognize that. So much of early childhood care is physical. I am thinking of the child's perspective and needs. How hard would it be to create a bond with that child that goes both ways if you are not physically involved those early years? I am thinking of things like feeding, and cleaning, and playing,and stroking the forehead to sooth baby to sleep, and even correcting bad behavior. I imagine its possible, not sure it is likely though. That child will bond with the people doing those things for it. I also wonder if the mother would be hurt about that. That is why I felt the child needed another parent commited to raising it. . Regarding fathers, my dad was very hands off when I was a kid, my parents divorced when I was 12 and I have not spoken to him in a few years. I don't dislike him, I tried to have a relationship with him, but it was always so awkward with him. My stepmother actually made some kind of comment to me asking why I was mad at him. I was thinking WTF- he was never much involved in my life as a kid, I tried having meaningful conversations in my twenties and thirties, it failed consistently so I stopped trying, no hard feelings.My husband's parents are still married, and his dad was not much involved either. He has no relationship with his dad either, though he calls every week without fail and speaks to him. The conversations are very brief and superficial and I know my husband does not dislike his dad, he does not have any closeness with him. Just my experience.

[DGayle]

Kids raised by nannies tend to be closer to the nannies than to the people officially called Moms and Dads, for the reasons Grimalkin said about the early bonding being primarily through touch. Babies can't understand words, but they can understand being cuddled and fed and nurtured. What kind of parenting could this woman do before the child can understand enough words?

A major problem is that, even if she lines up care, it's still going to be a revolving door of people. This isn't like Amy and Kevin, where the physical stuff Amy can't do, another stable-in-their-lives parent can do. That woman didn't have a baby, then become disabled. She chose to arrange the conception and birth of a baby she not only can't raise, but who would have to be raised by whoever's on shift. This is wrong. A baby isn't a puppy.

Grimalkin is also right that kids with hands-off fathers usually aren't very close to them. Getting advice when needed isn't the same thing as being able to rely on that person to bandage a cut or dry tears or give a hug when going through a breakup. Again, I'm not faulting people like Amy, who have kids and then get injured, but that woman won't even get the early years bonding to fall back on, and if she was given that child, it would grow up knowing it was a check mark on a bucket list so she could say she's a mom, while handing the child off to be raised by whoever's on the clock.

[Snarkylark]

Yep, I agree exactly with what the two above posted. The mother would not be able to do the cares for the child and the child would inevitably bond with the caregivers who were taking care of those early needs. It might also be emotionally damaging to the child to have multiple caregivers at all hours of the day and night as opposed to the parent who would normally be doing all of the above. The child may have attachment and trust issues. I also wonder, who the heck is paying for all of this? The surrogacy, eggs, eventual child care, etc.

[Mama Mia]

Kids raised by nannies tend to be closer to the nannies than to the people officially called Moms and Dads, for the reasons Grimalkin said about the early bonding being primarily through touch. Babies can't understand words, but they can understand being cuddled and fed and nurtured. What kind of parenting could this woman do before the child can understand enough words?

A major problem is that, even if she lines up care, it's still going to be a revolving door of people. This isn't like Amy and Kevin, where the physical stuff Amy can't do, another stable-in-their-lives parent can do. That woman didn't have a baby, then become disabled. She chose to arrange the conception and birth of a baby she not only can't raise, but who would have to be raised by whoever's on shift. This is wrong. A baby isn't a puppy.

Grimalkin is also right that kids with hands-off fathers usually aren't very close to them. Getting advice when needed isn't the same thing as being able to rely on that person to bandage a cut or dry tears or give a hug when going through a breakup. Again, I'm not faulting people like Amy, who have kids and then get injured, but that woman won't even get the early years bonding to fall back on, and if she was given that child, it would grow up knowing it was a check mark on a bucket list so she could say she's a mom, while handing the child off to be raised by whoever's on the clock.

There are lots of ways to provide emotional care and nurturing that don't involve physical care. And I didn't see where she couldn't have physical touch with the child. She could, for example, lie in bed with the baby / toddler cuddled up on her and sing songs and tell stories and talk. As the child grows she can have conversations just like anyone else does with their child. She could also help with learning letters and numbers and reading and homework. She likely also has some system for using some sort of computer, which she could use to play games and do activities with her child. She could be transported to watch the soccer games and be talking to the child on the ride in the car.

The difference between her situation and a child raised by a nanny or having a distant father is that she would be actually physically and emotionally present as a parent. When children are raised by nannies - in the way I think you mean - where the parent is rarely available - they bond with the nanny not just because she's physically putting on the band- aid, but because she's the one reassuring the child that it will be okay. A distant father isn't just distant because he doesn't bathe the kids, he's distant because he's at work all the time, and when he's at home he doesn't make hanging out and talking to his kids a priority. She couldn't give the kid a bath, but she could be in the room talking about the rubber ducks or the bubbles.

And we don't know that the child would have a revolving door of caregivers any more than working parents know that their childcare providers might quit or a center will have staff turnover. It sounds like she has family support as well. Which presumably would be relatively stable.

She would obviously have a lot of limitations that other parents don't. But I think some of that would be off- set just by being physically present and emotionally available all the time. She doesn't even have the usual distractions of needing to go to work , clean house, cook dinner or any of the other things that take time and attention away from raising children. That constant emotional availability might balance out the lack of physical care.

[Grimalkin]

There are lots of ways to provide emotional care and nurturing that don't involve physical care. And I didn't see where she couldn't have physical touch with the child. She could, for example, lie in bed with the baby / toddler cuddled up on her and sing songs and tell stories and talk. As the child grows she can have conversations just like anyone else does with their child. She could also help with learning letters and numbers and reading and homework. She likely also has some system for using some sort of computer, which she could use to play games and do activities with her child. She could be transported to watch the soccer games and be talking to the child on the ride in the car.

The difference between her situation and a child raised by a nanny or having a distant father is that she would be actually physically and emotionally present as a parent. When children are raised by nannies - in the way I think you mean - where the parent is rarely available - they bond with the nanny not just because she's physically putting on the band- aid, but because she's the one reassuring the child that it will be okay. A distant father isn't just distant because he doesn't bathe the kids, he's distant because he's at work all the time, and when he's at home he doesn't make hanging out and talking to his kids a priority. She couldn't give the kid a bath, but she could be in the room talking about the rubber ducks or the bubbles.

And we don't know that the child would have a revolving door of caregivers any more than working parents know that their childcare providers might quit or a center will have staff turnover. It sounds like she has family support as well. Which presumably would be relatively stable.

She would obviously have a lot of limitations that other parents don't. But I think some of that would be off- set just by being physically present and emotionally available all the time. She doesn't even have the usual distractions of needing to go to work , clean house, cook dinner or any of the other things that take time and attention away from raising children. That constant emotional availability might balance out the lack of physical care.

I was thinking a lot about this. How it could work, and the amount of work involved. It would take an enormous amount of commitment. I still would hope she had another person committed to the child's care, but

Can see more how it can work.

[Terrie]

For me, it comes down to the fact that she decided to skirt the laws to get what she wanted. That does not point to a person willing to make the needed sacrifices to put a child first.

[Snarkylark]

For me, it comes down to the fact that she decided to skirt the laws to get what she wanted. That does not point to a person willing to make the needed sacrifices to put a child first.

Maybe, but maybe it also shows her commitment. I could see it both ways.

[Terrie]

Maybe, but maybe it also shows her commitment. I could see it both ways.

Her commitment to what? To what SHE wanted?

[Snarkylark]

Her commitment to what? To what SHE wanted?

Yes. I agree that she went around the rules to get what she wanted. But I also think that it could possibly show that she's committed to the child and what it would take to raise it. Not that I agree at all. Just another way to look at it.

[CaptainFunderpants]

Yes. I agree that she went around the rules to get what she wanted. But I also think that it could possibly show that she's committed to the child and what it would take to raise it. Not that I agree at all. Just another way to look at it.

That doesn't make any sense. If she was committed to what it would take to raise it, she would have a partner. Children need regular interaction with the same people (generally parents) particularly in terms of being held, cuddled, and snuggled. Being able to provide physical contact is a huge part of the responsibility when you have a child. It is a language unto itself that she cannot provide.

[Snarkylark]

I agree! But it's not like she can just go out and get a partner. Lol

[Terrie]

Yes. I agree that she went around the rules to get what she wanted. But I also think that it could possibly show that she's committed to the child and what it would take to raise it. Not that I agree at all. Just another way to look at it.

How in the world does bending and breaking laws designed to protect children show a commitment to a child? Would you suggest a bank robber shows commitment to his or her kids, because they are providing for them?

And don't hide behind "Well, I don't agree." YOU'RE the one who brought it up. Why do that if you think it's nonsense?

[DGayle]

MamaMia, laying in bed next to a baby isn't anything remotely like being the one to provide hands-on care when there's an injury.

Let's look at the Duggars. Michelle could provide that care, if she wanted, but she only wants to be involved for the fun stuff. The sister-moms do the nitty-gritty. Who are the little bonded to? Their sister-moms who bandage their owies and dry their tears.

Anybody can be there when the times are fun, but even kids know the people you can rely on, and will most likely bond to, are the people who take care of you when it's not fun.

Kids bond through the daily experiences most of us have taken for granted, everything from dealing with injures to baking cupcakes to taking baths. Who will be the person doing all that? A revolving door of nannies. Why would a child even want to go cuddle up next to someone other than the people who holds that child when in need of comfort?

[Mama Mia]

MamaMia, laying in bed next to a baby isn't anything remotely like being the one to provide hands-on care when there's an injury.

Let's look at the Duggars. Michelle could provide that care, if she wanted, but she only wants to be involved for the fun stuff. The sister-moms do the nitty-gritty. Who are the little bonded to? Their sister-moms who bandage their owies and dry their tears.

Anybody can be there when the times are fun, but even kids know the people you can rely on, and will most likely bond to, are the people who take care of you when it's not fun.

Kids bond through the daily experiences most of us have taken for granted, everything from dealing with injures to baking cupcakes to taking baths. Who will be the person doing all that? A revolving door of nannies. Why would a child even want to go cuddle up next to someone other than the people who holds that child when in need of comfort?

Children , even very, very small children, respond to words as wells as to touch. The turn to the sound of a parent's or siblings voice over strangers from the time they are newborns. Your earliest warm and loving every day memories from childhood might include being cuddled and held. They likely also include being told nursery rhymes or sung lullaby's. Your children are hopefully building a bond with you in the multitude of small moments that don't necessarily include touch. If your daughter is telling you some elaborate imaginary story , you might be cuddling her while she tells it, or you might be listening while folding laundry. You can admire her play dough creation or latest art project or nag about homework from a wheelchair just as well as you can from across the room while you are making dinner. Is it any less meaningful if your hands are otherwise occupied while she's showing you tower of blocks? If your toddler is playing with your hair snuggled up against you in bed and babbling her thoughts - is she going to scarred if you aren't the one changing her diaper? Children are also much, much more understanding and adaptable to others limitations than adults - particularly if they are around it from the beginning.

I also addressed the giving baths and making cupcakes - this mother can be there and talking to the child during all those every day experiences. She might not be washing her hair, but she can be talking to her about her ducks and boat and tasting the cupcakes. And most of the actual day to day physical care of a child ends by about 6 in any case. A child that age is dressing themselves, showering, getting in and out of the car and all of that. The outside help by that point, as far as the child is concerned would be for emergencies and to drive where they needed to go and housekeeping. Do children stop needing a parent at the point the can dress and wash themselves? Of course not. They still need endless love and support and guidance and care and comfort. The physical part of the comfort would obviously have to take a modified form in this case - but the child can still snuggle, and kids can tell the difference between a parent who isn't hugging back because they are too busy or remote - and one who simply can't.

Also, you have no idea if it would be a " revolving door" of nannies, or a couple of stable helpers who know their job is to support the mother in being a mother - not take over that role themselves. Also, it has been mentioned she has extended family who is involved. There are millions of households where extended family takes on the role of another parent.

Open your mind a little bit.

[Snarkylark]

How in the world does bending and breaking laws designed to protect children show a commitment to a child? Would you suggest a bank robber shows commitment to his or her kids, because they are providing for them?

And don't hide behind "Well, I don't agree." YOU'RE the one who brought it up. Why do that if you think it's nonsense?

I guess in a way, yes, you could say that. Doing whatever it takes to try to provide could show commitment. It doesn't mean it's the right thing to do or the right way or that I agree with it. I brought it up because I can see it both ways, regardless of whether I think she should have, which I don't. Someone who went through all the thought to bring about the child may have thought about how to provide for her after is what I was trying to say. Idk. I still want to know where all the money is coming from?

[happy atheist]

And don't hide behind "Well, I don't agree." YOU'RE the one who brought it up. Why do that if you think it's nonsense?

Such is the way of snarkylark. That's ALL she does. Ignore her.

[FullmoonOverDuggardWaters]

There are some doctors that condone similar situations. A very good friend of mine is a practicing Physician. She tells me of a story regarding a patient of hers, and of a local OBGYN that she finds horrid.

This higher-functioning quadriplegic patient of hers became pregnant, unplanned. She had gone to the emergency room, ill with nausea. And had come to discover she was pregnant. They admitted her, sending her to the Women's Hopsital next door, to be treated overnight with IV antibiotics for a concurrent UTI that had also been discovered.

In the morning, this OBGYN assigned to her case, came in to discuss the pregnancy. The patient stated she was utterly scared, that she did not - could not - have this baby.

The Doctor told her, nonsense. She could have the baby, she would have the baby. Plenty of disabled women, including other quadriplegics, have babies. Of course, her regular Dr. and Physiatrist (Doctor of Physical Rehabilitation) understood her situation and found a more sensitive OBGYN, who helped her, out of concern for her health and well-being. (None of this is verbatim. To be safe, consider it as hearsay.)

In any case...

Also, you have no idea if it would be a " revolving door" of nannies, or a couple of stable helpers who know their job is to support the mother in being a mother - not take over that role themselves. Also, it has been mentioned she has extended family who is involved...

Open your mind a little bit.

Usually, there ARE a "revolving door" of nannies/nurses. The job of caring for someone in her situation is VERY strenuous. The longest these nurses/companions stay, at best, are a few years - and that is rare. This is because of the degree of hard-work the job entails. And more often than not, the companion/nurses would be male, because of the heavy lifting required.

In summary, I dont think I can open my mind that much to settle on the premise of this situation being the best for the child, unless the extended family supposedly involved lived with her full-time and essentially cared for the child on their own. But, this is, of course, only my opinion.

ETA: It is very sad, for either party. She must be in pain.

[DGayle]

MM, touch in experiences is absolutely vital. It's not merely being somewhere in the same room, or talking to a child, or tossing a child in bed next to someone. It's the soothing and the cuddling that causes babies to really bond and connect to voices. Touch first, then voice. So we're going to have to agree to disagree, while I'll agree with the science on this. You're free to disagree with the experts and studies.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... evelopment

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/infant-touch/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2865952/

http://www.drgreene.com/touch-is-as-imp ... -sleeping/

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/02/scien ... -role.html

[DGayle]

In any case...

Usually, there ARE a "revolving door" of nannies/nurses. The job of caring for someone in her situation is VERY strenuous. The longest these nurses/companions stay, at best, are a few years - and that is rare. This is because of the degree of hard-work the job entails. And more often than not, the companion/nurses would be male, because of the heavy lifting required.

In summary, I dont think I can open my mind that much to settle on the premise of this situation being the best for the child, unless the extended family supposedly involved lived with her full-time and essentially cared for the child on their own. But, this is, of course, only my opinion.

ETA: It is very sad, for either party. She must be in pain.

My mother was an in-home nurse, and she couldn't do it longer than a couple years at a stretch before having to go back into a geriatric facility setting for a break. In-home health is literally without break because you can't take a break. Add the care and raising of a baby to that, and I don't know how any paid caregiver could to is longer than a year before having to take a break to recoup. And even if they have 8-hour shifts, that still means 4 full-time people every week.

MamaMia says it seems like the woman has supportive family, but there's a difference between "I'll help you however I can," and "Sure, I'll commit to raising a child for the next 18 years." A sign that the family wasn't on board with this is a relative might NOW, more than 2 years after birth, be petitioning to adopt. If the family was all really okay with this because they're supportive, why would it have taken so long for someone to step up and take on a HUGE commitment like that? No, I don't think people should be expected to just suck it up. It's better to acknowledge limits, and Ora didn't do that.

Wanting a baby isn't a good enough reason to have a baby. You really ned to think about the baby's needs, and if you can reasonably meet them. A situation doesn't have to be 100% ideal, but when it's so very far away from it, then it's selfish to have a baby. I wish the baby already had permanency instead of a future still unknown.

[Mama Mia]

MM, touch in experiences is absolutely vital. It's not merely being somewhere in the same room, or talking to a child, or tossing a child in bed next to someone. It's the soothing and the cuddling that causes babies to really bond and connect to voices. Touch first, then voice. So we're going to have to agree to disagree, while I'll agree with the science on this. You're free to disagree with the experts and studies.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... evelopment

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/infant-touch/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2865952/

http://www.drgreene.com/touch-is-as-imp ... -sleeping/

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/02/scien ... -role.html

All of those studies are saying is that touch is important. None of them address having a loving, emotionally involved but physically challenged parent who has other caregivers who provide physical nurturing - so are irrelevant to the issue at hand. I would doubt there even are any studies to address this particular situation.

Has anyone suggested the baby should be placed in a box and cared for by robots? No, of course not. Other relatives and caregivers can provide the portions of care taking that she can not. Of course babies and children need and thrive on touch. Her inability to pick up her child 1) doesn't mean there is no physical connection and 2) does not mean the child won't be picked up.

Saying " you're agreeing with the science and experts" is beyond misleading.

Are your children less bonded with you now that they can move about independently instead of being carried? Will you be completely unneeded as a parent in a couple of years when their physical care is done almost entirely independently? How ridiculous does that sound?

Unless she is relying solely on the health aides she employs to care for her physical needs for care of the child - you also can't compare the turnover and physical demands of a home health nurse with a paid childcare provider or a relative. They aren't the same jobs. Most parents with small children work outside of the home, meaning their children are cared for by others a large portion of the time. Study after study has shown those children function just as well as children with a SAHP. In this case the parent is around all the time - just delegating the physical aspects of care to someone else.

It's really depressing how far people still need to come in being educated about disabilities.