Sadly this was the attorney who helped us get Baby Q

[Andrew Q Gordon]

Lawyer Jailed for International Baby Selling

 

 

I knew something happened but didn't quite know the details. This is very sad for me because I will always have nothing but nice things to say about Hilary. Without her we wouldn't have met the surrogate and we wouldn't have Baby Q.

 

What she did was wrong, I won't try to justify that or to say she didn't deserve what happened to her, but if you ever met her, you wouldn't doubt that part of her thought she was just helping people who couldn't have a child have a baby, she was that type of person.

 

Anyway - sigh -

[comicfan]

Well she did wrong but at least she helped you get baby Q. That is what matters. No one is perfect.

[Daddydavek]

It's unsettling to find out that an attorney you trusted and who helped you, is found to have broken the law and got caught and pleaded guilty. You seem to have put it into the right perspective, she did right by you and she did help families who were desparate for children. Now she will serve her time and probation. Justice is never perfect.

 

 

[Aximili Chaosmembrane]

She could have helped people desperate for children without breaking the law.

[Andrew Q Gordon]

She could have helped people desperate for children without breaking the law.

 

Let me say this - I agree with you. As most know, I am a prosecutor, so I take breaking the law seriously. But - and yes there is a but - no one got hurt.

 

The surrogates who did this got paid above market rates - 38,000-40,000 is about 90-100% above the current rate for first time surrogates - so the surrogates got well paid. They also helped someone who couldn't have a baby, have a baby, so the two reasons to do surrogacy - help the couple and make money - were achieved.

 

The baby's didn't get hurt - i.e. these were pre screened families that - presumably - were good families. They court didn't take any of the children away, so again - presumably - the babies are in good home.

 

The parents - they didn't get hurt, sure they paid more than the going rate BUT they also got a good deal too. Since we investigated all the options, I know something about this. The parents in these cases were not people like Mike and I who wanted to have a child of their own. These were couples who wanted to adopt. The offer they received - take over the surrogacy contract [even though there really wasn't one] was a VERY fast track way to a child and it was a VERY safe way too. Adopting can take as much as 3 years or more. You basically have to sell yourselves and your family to the birth moms to get them to pick you. So there is a chance that you won't get picked for a long time. Then once you get picked, the birth mom has time to decide she doesn't want to give up the child - even after the baby has been with the family for a month or more. So adopting is a very very stressful proposition for couples because for the 'change your mind' period, you walk on pins and needles hoping the birth mom doesn't change her mind.

 

AND the vast vast majority of newborns adopted have birth moms who have some level of substance abuse. One of the reasons we chose surrogacy was that one of the agencies we contacted about adoption asked us, 'how much substance abuse on the part of the birth mom are you willing to accept.' when Mike said none, we were told it was not likely we'd get a child for years if at all.

 

In this case - the couple is given a fast track to a baby, one that there is NO option for the birth mom to back out, there is no more 'waiting list' and the prenatal care is well documented so the issue of substance abuse is minimal if any. This was a pretty good deal for the parents even if it cost them more.

 

That is why I struggle with this. Because no one got hurt and everyone got what they wanted. The negative side and the reason it is wrong is that if there are no rules, then it really does become flat out baby selling and that has it's own issues. What if those selling don't screen the parents? Who knows what they'll do with or to the child. Then there is the issue that if surrogacy is seen as baby selling, it could be banned, thus depriving people like Mike and I a chance for a child.

 

Again, what she did was wrong, and I don't want to suggest it wasn't, but it took us 2 and a half years to get Baby Q, If I was offered a chance to get a child in 3-4 months guaranteed with no chance of the mother changing her mind, I'm not sure I would have said no.

[Mark92]

I feel for you Qtee, you and Mike are stuck in the middle of this one. How many children are born to abusive parents, neglectful parents, and those that do it for the money.

I know of a woman over here, she has had thirteen babies. And every one of them took into care. Because she didnt want the child, just the money that came for having one.

You and Mike, care and love and baby Q has a loving family. That cant be wrong can it?

[Agaith]

I agree with Marky, it's a very difficult situation and very unfair when a couple like yourselves only want the best for a child, when others see them as cash cows. It feels to me like those that only want to care for a child and can't do it on their own get thoroughly scrutinised when drugged up idiots still have the means to have a child and abuse that gift to have a child.

[Andrew Q Gordon]

I feel for you Qtee, you and Mike are stuck in the middle of this one. How many children are born to abusive parents, neglectful parents, and those that do it for the money.

I know of a woman over here, she has had thirteen babies. And every one of them took into care. Because she didnt want the child, just the money that came for having one.

You and Mike, care and love and baby Q has a loving family. That cant be wrong can it?

 

No Mark, we are not stuck in the middle - we got baby Q home and our involvement with the now defunct agency is over. I'm just sad for Hilary.

 

I totally agree that there are many people in our system too that have children for the money. It is not uncommon at all to see kids in our system who's mothers have children 18-20 years apart. pretty much as the last one aged out - they had another couple to keep the checks coming for another 18 years. Always annoyed the snot out of me too. Sorry, for the rant, I know I was

 

I agree with Marky, it's a very difficult situation and very unfair when a couple like yourselves only want the best for a child, when others see them as cash cows. It feels to me like those that only want to care for a child and can't do it on their own get thoroughly scrutinised when drugged up idiots still have the means to have a child and abuse that gift to have a child.

 

Stu, you have no idea. We first looked into adoption, the paper work for just the home study was about 2 inches thick. There were visits from the Fire Marshal, home inspectors, we needed to be fingerprinted, have a gazillion references etc. We were going to do it but then we realized we had to do a self promotion file to send to prospective moms so they could decide if they wanted to pick us. We went the surrogacy route after that. Amazingly, there are no requirements other than medical - and by medical I mean, you can have HIV, have to have sperm that works, that kinda stuff. There are no age limits, you can live in a shack, have a criminal record, it's all an agreement between you and the surrogate. Now, any surrogate who would be someone with a record or those kinda dings would be rare, but I'm sure it happens.

 

I have to say that after this, I realize how lucky we were at how relatively painless and smooth the process went for us. I can't image what being a parent of one of those kids must have gone through wondering if they'd lose their child because of the legal issues.

[Aximili Chaosmembrane]

I understand, although I just stated the fact, it can come out as cold and unfeeling sometimes. That's a fault I'm trying to fix.

 

Anyway, what I'm saying is that people want the perfect child, the ideal family, the easiest path, etc. But what got me thinking is that there might be unwanted children out there, whose parent(s) are substance abusers. Don't they deserve a better life as well? Then again, maybe it's just me.

[Nephylim]

I agree with you Q. I struggle to see how what she did was wrong. Yes, she broke the law and yes, I guess she deserves to be punished but, as you have said no one got hurt and everyone benefitted. Perhaps it's the law that should be looked at and not the people who break it. As far as i can see the only bad effects of not having this law are financial.

 

In some ways it's the same arguement as leagalising prostitution. If a woman wishes to use her body in this way and improve her situation considerably, perhaps giving her her one and only chance to escape poverty then why shouldn't she be allowed to?

[Andrew Q Gordon]

Nephy,

 

The counterargument Mike made was that if this is perceived as 'baby selling' it could negatively affect everyone else who wants to use surrogacy. There is already enough opposition to surrogacy - I believe it is illegal in Great Britain and maybe Germany, but certainly many European Countries. If people start doing it this way - they could screw it up for everyone else in the future. Given the jacked up, stupid politicians in the country, I could easily see that happening, and that would be a shame for all the people who can have a family using this method.

 

Mike and I went back and forth on this - i.e. why would the parents do it, since it was so much more money than if they did regular surrogacy themselves. I mean WE couldn't have afforded this quicker but much more expensive way. I guess in the end it was time. This was a fast track to a baby. No million and one tests for both parents - even the parent who is not involved in the baby making has to be tested for diseases and what not - no screening the surrogates, no failed attempts at insemination, no waiting to be picked by a birth mom who is giving the child up, no waiting period. I mean if you had the money, I guess this was the best of both worlds, you got a 'made to order child' so to speak, one where the pregnacy was controlled and the donors were chosen with care, you skipped all the trouble and had none of the problems with adoption.

 

In some ways this seems an ideal way, it's not baby selling, it's more like baby ordering. IDK, very difficult issue for me, especially since we used surrogacy for Baby Q.

[Billy Martin]

It's a sad situation. However, I cannot form a wise opinion on it, because even after reading the article, I can't know everyone's true intentions. I know we have to have strict laws on this issue to prevent it from becoming some sick nifty slave story. Yet couples like you and Mike should have an opportunity to have children, like I want for myself and my future husband or any other couple that has the means and love to offer a child, but are unable to have one.

 

I'm really glad baby Q, Mike, and yourself weren't directly touched by this. Your lawyer appears to have gotten herself caught up in something she didn't intend to. But when the red flags were popping up, she chose to ignore them. Too bad. For I really feel her intentions were good and her heart was in the right place. That's how I feel without having all the facts.

[Andrew Q Gordon]

I understand, although I just stated the fact, it can come out as cold and unfeeling sometimes. That's a fault I'm trying to fix.

 

Anyway, what I'm saying is that people want the perfect child, the ideal family, the easiest path, etc. But what got me thinking is that there might be unwanted children out there, whose parent(s) are substance abusers. Don't they deserve a better life as well? Then again, maybe it's just me.

 

 

Several things, first, I didn't get from your first post you were cold or unfeeling, I was just trying to explain a bit more.

 

Your second point is well taken and one I won't get into as it was a discussion my partner and I had. I wanted to adopt, he wanted 'one of our own.' Since having a kid was my dream that I convinced him to go along with, I did it his way. Let's leave it at that.

 

 

It's a sad situation. However, I cannot form a wise opinion on it, because even after reading the article, I can't know everyone's true intentions. I know we have to have strict laws on this issue to prevent it from becoming some sick nifty slave story. Yet couples like you and Mike should have an opportunity to have children, like I want for myself and my future husband or any other couple that has the means and love to offer a child, but are unable to have one.

 

I'm really glad baby Q, Mike, and yourself weren't directly touched by this. Your lawyer appears to have gotten herself caught up in something she didn't intend to. But when the red flags were popping up, she chose to ignore them. Too bad. For I really feel her intentions were good and her heart was in the right place. That's how I feel without having all the facts.

 

Billy,

 

My take on people's intentions is that Teresa Erickson was motivated by money - she had the 'perfect' situation. She was a leading authority on surrogacy law so she knew without a doubt what she was doing was illegal. Beyond that I don't know. I mean for her, this was not an easy thing. She had to recruit surrogates that would agree to go to the Ukraine for embryo transfer. That's not cheap. She also needed to front the money, because the surrogate would want to get paid and the contracts typically say once you hear a heartbeat you start collecting your fee as a surrogate. There are also a number of milestone fees the surrogate gets - embryo transfer, travel, maternity clothing allowance, monthly stipend for vitamins and food, etc. All of this had to be paid by someone, i.e. Erickson, because there were no real intended parents.

 

Basically this was a way to get money fast, without the worry the 'birth mom' would change her mind. Remember that with a typical adoption, the birth mom gets to choice which set of parents her child goes to. AND once the baby is with the adoptive family, the birth mom can change her mind and take her kid back. So this was basically a way to get babies to wealthy family who were willing to pay more to get a child sooner without the risk the birth mom would/could change her mind.

 

Now, Hilary's involvement was different. She didn't - at least on the face - have any involvement in creating the babies 'for sale.' her involvement was finding couple who wanted to adopt a child and who were well to do. Although surrogacy is a more certain route to a baby - it is potentially longer. Meaning, if a baby comes available tomorrow and the birth mom chooses a couple, they can have the baby once it's born. So for instance, say a couple is home study approved, meaning they've been certified an appropriate family - the next day is a birth mom picks them, they can have a child. If the the birth mom gives birth two weeks later - that's it, they've got a child. No doctor visits, not blood tests, no insemination or egg donation/fertilization, no whacking off into a cup etc and NO 40 weeks of pregnancy.

 

So this little scheme took the best of both and packaged it for those who could afford it. The baby was on the way, so goodbye all the time necessary to get to the insemination stage and no attempts and hoping it takes - baby is in the oven. Then the agency picks who gets the child, so no need to sell your self to the birth mom, in this case, if you had the high fee, you got the child. No risk of mom changing her mind - huge stress reduction. So it removed all the negatives and made the process much shorter for those who had the money. In fact, there was no need to even do a home study for surrogacy.

 

Why Hilary continued to do this I don't know, I never asked her. My gut says she was trying to help people who wanted a kid sooner than later and of course she profited from it as well. Very sad. It might have taken us 20 months but it was worth it in the end. So it's not like it was impossible or really an eternity to do it the right way.

[Billy Martin]

People say money is the root of all evil, but that's not true. Money itself does nothing. Well I guess it could grow in an interest bearing account or disappear in the stock market. No, money isn't what's evil. It's the want of money, the lust for it, that's evil. And here it seems, lust won out over good intentions.

[option]

I agree with you Q. I struggle to see how what she did was wrong. Yes, she broke the law and yes, I guess she deserves to be punished but, as you have said no one got hurt and everyone benefitted. Perhaps it's the law that should be looked at and not the people who break it. As far as i can see the only bad effects of not having this law are financial.

 

In some ways it's the same arguement as leagalising prostitution. If a woman wishes to use her body in this way and improve her situation considerably, perhaps giving her her one and only chance to escape poverty then why shouldn't she be allowed to?

 

not forgetting that there are many many laws still on the books that havnt been enforced for decades or more

& others that should be enforced