We pride ourselves on having the friendliest
and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment
for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers.
If you have any problems registering please drop an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!
To realize her lifelong dream of becoming a mother, Cindy Close and a longtime friend used in vitro fertilization to get pregnant. Neither was married, and both wanted to be parents. She expected to raise the children, and he would be a part-time father figure supporting the family while living his own life.
After giving birth to twins in July, Close said, Marvin McMurrey shocked her by saying she was just a surrogate, demanding custody and revealing he is gay.
Now, the courts will determine what rights Close has as she struggles to define, legally speaking, what it means to be a mother.
"There has never been a case in Texas quite like this one," said Jim Paulsen, a professor at South Texas College of Law. "It combines three or four of the strangest areas of Texas family law all in one package. I'm glad I'm not the judge."
McMurrey has custody of the children, who are living with his boyfriend. According to Close, McMurrey does not live at the home.
McMurrey filed a lawsuit in August asking that a judge declare he is the father and that Close was a surrogate, despite presenting no written agreement or contract.
That ruling, according to Close and her attorneys, would mean that the children will have no legally recognized "mother."
"If Marvin gets his way, the only four people who will have ever walked this earth without a mother would be Adam, Eve and these twins," said Close's lawyer, Grady Reiff. "What they're trying to perpetuate is pretty unheard-of in this state."
He said the law in Texas is well-settled.
"It's our position that a woman who give birth is the mother, unless there is a (surrogate) agreement," Reiff said. Close is counter*suing for child support, as well as for custody.
Attorneys for McMurrey and his partner, Phong Nguyen, declined comment and said their clients would not comment on the situation.
Typical surrogate contracts are defined by statute. A surrogate is impregnated with a donor's eggs that have been fertilized, usually by the intended father's sperm. The intended mother's eggs are not used and she does not carry the child, Paulsen said, but she is the "mother" because of the agreement.
Donor eggs used
In this case, Close said, the doctor recommended she use donor eggs to lower the risk of birth defects because she was 47 when she was impregnated, not because she was a surrogate.
Paulsen said McMurrey obviously is the father, but the case is rife with legal issues.
"The father is arguing a very technical legal position," Paulsen said, "but it's one of those cases that you hope the judge will be able to look at more than just preliminary technical matters."
He said the courts aren't often asked to determine who a child's mother is, because it is determined either by DNA or intent in a written contract.
"It is very unusual to see a case where maternity is in question," said the professor. "In this case, the woman admits she is not biologically related, but says she always intended to be the mother."
Typically, Paulsen said, the surrogate agrees in advance that she will not be the mother, and the intended father and mother are spelled out by contract.
However, he said, Texas law does not exclude other arrangements for surrogates, an issue the courts may take up in this case.
Another issue that might be a factor is that the intended parents have to be married for a surrogacy to be a valid contract in Texas.
Same-sex marriage is not legal in Texas and is not recognized by the state.
The case is expected to be heard Monday in state District Judge Bonnie Hellums' court.
Since the prematurely born twins went from the hospital to Nguyen's home, where the nursery is set up, Close gets to see them for two hours a day on weekdays and four hours on Sunday.
Watched during visits
She said small cameras have been set up to watch her, and she is not allowed to use her phone or take pictures of the children. She also is not allowed to breast-feed the children, so she is pumping and freezing breast milk to feed them if she regains custody.
This was not a surrogacy, so it never occurred to me that I would ever need a written agreement," Close said of the lack of any documentation. "If anything, I thought he would lose interest because I didn't expect him to be a very involved father."
You think the only people who are people, are the people who look and think like you, but if you walk the footsteps of stranger, you'll learn things you knew... you never knew.
The only things that makes me question it is why they are at the partner's house. If she intended to have primary custody, wouldn't the nursery be set up at her house? So wouldn't they have gone there in the first place? Also if he didn't reveal he was gay until after birth why in the world would they be at some other guy's house? It would have been at his house. And why would he want to go through the trouble of a surrogate if him and his partner didn't even live together yet? Most couples don't make the decision to have kids before they live together I don't think.
If it was supposed to be a surrogate from the start I'd think he would have a written agreement stating as such. Even if it wouldn't be an official one since he isn't married anyone in their right mind would have a lawyer draw one up anyway. He also should have been footing the bill for the IVF process so there should be statements of that. Surrogates don't pay for their own treatments. Since that wasn't mentioned in the article I'm assuming she paid for at least half.
Thanks Bokkechick for my wonderful siggy! TTC Blog
I also have to wonder, since gay marriage is illegal in Texas, perhaps gay adoption is too, and one partner would have to adopt. So maybe he planned to dupe his friend from the start, but something in the story is definitely weird and off.
Surrogacy implies that she knowingly and willingly underwent an embryo transfer for the SOLE purpose of giving the child to this father. There has to be intent.
That's not (appearing) to be what happened here.
First, there would be a signed contract. Then there would be a signed embryo transfer consent form. The RE would/Should know who the INTENDED parents were. If this mom went in thinking she was going to be the mother, regardless of her having adopted embryos, then there was never a surrogacy agreement to begin with.
Additionally, surrogacy also comes with some form of compensation. I don't mean a "fee" but medical bills, for example, are almost ALWAYS paid (very rare that they're not) for by the IP's. Since this mom was the intended mother, she should have had her own insurance in place. She would have placed her dependents on her insurance and paid her own bills. With surrogacy, it is illegal to place non-dependents on your insurance plan.
Now, knowing these things, and based on her 'story', one can say she's not a surrogate.
The thing is, we ALL know that things go wrong in the world of reproduction. I have seen people have sex with their husbands to get pregnant, adopt out the babies, and slap a surrogacy label on it. I've seen where a surrogate won a case in MI because her IP's adopted embryos. In MI, the birthmother is the mother, period, point blank. So, the surrogate, who had done a legitimate surrogacy before, chose to keep the 2nd surrogate babies ( twins) she gave birth to citing that the IP's were incapable of raising the kids. Because the IP's had NO biological connection AND the IM (intended mom) didn't actually birth the child, the IP's lost their case and this woman got to keep the baby. (Look up Laschell Baker and Dr. Phil). Some surrogates for some CRAZY reason don't think they need contracts. Others have what they think are fool proof contracts, but find themselves screwed because they're doing it in a state that frowns on surrogacy.
There are so many variables and really we don't know what the truth is here. It's highly possible her friend tricked her. It's also very possible she's lying and decided to keep the babies. I've seen it before many times and cannot choose which one I think is being honest. The wool has been often been pulled over the surrogacy community by those we *think* are being honest, only to find out they've been playing some game the whole time.
Mom to many
1 Girl 2011 and 1 Boy 2013. Their family is COMPLETE!