-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Baby Evelyn (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ali#c
- Start date
Re. Evelyn
Basic run-down
1. Couple in N.S.W. pays surrogate mother to have child in South Australia
2. Surrogate Mother gives birth, hands baby over
3. Surrogate Mother changes her mind, wants baby back, initiates proceedings in the Family Court
4. Judge decides in favour of Surrogate Mother (as under the Family Law Act 1975 the Surrogate Mother is the legal mum)
EFFECTIVENESS ISSUES:
Different Jurisdictions made it harder to enforce
As they live in different states, only one party could have the child (logically)
Who can really provide the best for the child?
Basic run-down
1. Couple in N.S.W. pays surrogate mother to have child in South Australia
2. Surrogate Mother gives birth, hands baby over
3. Surrogate Mother changes her mind, wants baby back, initiates proceedings in the Family Court
4. Judge decides in favour of Surrogate Mother (as under the Family Law Act 1975 the Surrogate Mother is the legal mum)
EFFECTIVENESS ISSUES:
Different Jurisdictions made it harder to enforce
As they live in different states, only one party could have the child (logically)
Who can really provide the best for the child?
MiuMiu
Somethin' special....
Yeah I thought it was the surrogate mum that got the kid
Hang on - isn't natural/biological mother ... well the birth mother? being surrogate mother?
... Well the one who physically gave birth to the baby, got the baby back is all I know - Mrs S (Hazy memory) set the precedent
... atleast that's what I thought. So are biological/birth mother and surrogate mother the same thing? Or am I lost?
And I'm pretty sure that this set a precedent in the High Court ... meh; still very likely I'm wrong.
... Well the one who physically gave birth to the baby, got the baby back is all I know - Mrs S (Hazy memory) set the precedent
... atleast that's what I thought. So are biological/birth mother and surrogate mother the same thing? Or am I lost?
And I'm pretty sure that this set a precedent in the High Court ... meh; still very likely I'm wrong.
surrogate and birth mother are the same thing.
'Surrogate' means to give birth to a baby on behalf of another person (who cannot or does not want to)
However, in some of these cases, either the commissioning fathers sperm or the commission mothers egg (or both) are used to create the birth. Therefore, the child is (by DNA) the biological child of the commissioning mother, but because she was born by the surrogate mother, then the child remains with the surrogate mother.
'Surrogate' means to give birth to a baby on behalf of another person (who cannot or does not want to)
However, in some of these cases, either the commissioning fathers sperm or the commission mothers egg (or both) are used to create the birth. Therefore, the child is (by DNA) the biological child of the commissioning mother, but because she was born by the surrogate mother, then the child remains with the surrogate mother.
MiuMiu
Somethin' special....
biological mother is the mother whose egg it was
surrogate mother is the one who carried it.
In most surrogacy cases the real mother's egg is implanted into the surrogate mother's womb, thus making the surrrogate and biological mothers different things
surrogate mother is the one who carried it.
In most surrogacy cases the real mother's egg is implanted into the surrogate mother's womb, thus making the surrrogate and biological mothers different things
However in this case, Mrs S (the one physically having the child) was inserted with Mr Qs sperm (Qs being the people that couldn't have children)
... well The Qs from Queensland lost the case in the High Court and The Ss from South Australia were allowed to keep baby Evelyn (1998)
That's all I know about this case. Oh and that The Qs have an adopted son of Aboriginal descent ... but that's not really of concern is it?
So would this confirm surrogate mother and biological mother as one? (case specific)
... well The Qs from Queensland lost the case in the High Court and The Ss from South Australia were allowed to keep baby Evelyn (1998)
That's all I know about this case. Oh and that The Qs have an adopted son of Aboriginal descent ... but that's not really of concern is it?
So would this confirm surrogate mother and biological mother as one? (case specific)
Last edited:
MiuMiu
Somethin' special....
well its not technically a surrogate mother, all they had was an agreement which was not legally binding, and in the eyes of the law, this woman was the baby's one and only mother