Custody Battle

Have you guys been following the confusing and sad custody battle for the twin infants in Michigan? The involved parties: egg donor, sperm donor, surrogate (and her husband) and the couple who brought them all together. Who should get to raise these babies?

I read about this story in the New York Times recently: In a nutshell, Amy and Scott Kehoe were overjoyed at the birth of their twins, Ethan and Bridget on July 28 in Michigan. The twins, however, who were conceived via in vitro fertilization through a donor egg and sperm and a surrogate mother, are the center of a major custody battle.

After the surrogate mother, Laschell Baker, found out that Amy Kehoe reportedly suffers from a mental illness (paranoid schizophrenia, and before her diagnosis in 2001, she was allegedly arrested on charges of cocaine possession), she decided that she wanted custody of the babies.

“I couldn't see living the rest of my life worrying and wondering what had happened, or what if she hadn’t taken her medicine, or what if she relapsed,” said Baker, the surrogate, who has four children of her own and has since changed the babies names to Peyton and Dani.

Of course, Amy and Scott Kehoe are heartbroken. "We paid for the egg, the sperm, the in vitro fertilization,” Amy said. "They wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for us."

I didn't see any information regarding the legal aspect of this battle. I'm wondering, didn't they have a contract or another binding agreement stating who the children belong to? Personally, I have to agree with the Kehoe's, the babies should be theirs. Had they not paid for the procedure, the babies wouldn't be here. I can sympathize with the surrogate, but it doesn't seem like she has or should have any legal right to the babies. What do you think?

Jennifer