Oregon question

[brighteyes]

Hello...Can a TS carry a child for a couple using donor sperm...what are the legals involved...thank you.

[Emidan]

Hmm.. my post never came through!
This technically would not be a surrogacy, as the IF nor the IM would not be related to the child.
If you'd like to talk to me about it, I could give you more info (I am an Oregon TS). You can email or PM me through here.

[surroforu2]

Hmm.. my post never came through!
This technically would not be a surrogacy, as the IF nor the IM would not be related to the child.
If you'd like to talk to me about it, I could give you more info (I am an Oregon TS). You can email or PM me through here.

hi can you email me i have a couple questions!

surroforu2@aol.com

[Diane Hinson]

Now we are getting into even trickier issues: Specifically, what happens when the IP's have no genetic relation to the child? Because if it is a TS, then that means it will be donor egg (the egg will be the TS's) and now you are adding donor sperm to the mix. This is an excellent question, Misha, and one that we have encountered on several occasions.

The answer is that the first place one has to look is at the state statute. Some statutes require that at least one of the IP's be genetically related to the child (e.g. VA requires this). I am not familiar with Oregon.

Often, there is nothing in the statute or there is no statute (e.g. MD). Then, you need to look at case rulings. There is one famous case out of California, Buzzanca v. Buzzanca. In that case, a married couple used both donor egg and donor sperm. One month before the baby was to be delivered, the couple divorced. Instead of the usual situation where everyone fought over the baby, in this case no one wanted the baby. So, it went to court with 3 reluctant players: the intended father, the intended mother, and the GS. The court held that the intention of the parties at the time of the conception was what governed and, therefore, the now divorced intended parents were both the legal parents even though they had no genetic relationship to the baby.

That was the "right" ruling, of course.

Now, did I answer your question?

Diane