Crystal Kelley was offered $10,000 to abort the child who she's holding in this photo. (CNN)
When a Connecticut couple learned their surrogate mother was carrying
a fetus with developmental disabilities, they offered her $10,000 to
have an abortion, reported CNN.
Crystal Kelley, 29, demanded $15,000 to undergo a procedure that she claimed went against her religious beliefs.
The unnamed couple refused and a legal battle over the surrogacy contract and the child’s fate followed.
In August 2011, Kelley had signed an official contract with a
surrogacy agency saying that she’d agree to abort if the fetus had a
severe abnormality. Now she was carrying a disabled child, but she
didn’t want to honor the agreement.
Determined to give the fetus a chance at life, Kelley fled
Connecticut for Michigan, where under state law the surrogacy contract
would be disregarded and she would be recognized as the legal guardian.
In Ann Arbor, she gave birth to a child with severe medical conditions.
As more people turn to a third party to carry their babies,
complicated situations like this are challenging the ethics of
surrogacy. When all three people involved in a surrogacy aren’t on the
same page, what should happen?
***
This isn’t the first time a surrogacy situation has gone bad and
caught the attention of national media. In 2010, when a Canadian couple
learned their surrogate mother was carrying a fetus that was likely to
be born with Down syndrome, they demanded an abortion.
The surrogate didn’t want to abort the child, according to the National Post, and the child’s fate became about the surrogacy contract.
According to the couple’s agreement with the surrogate, if the
surrogate birthed the child, the biological parents wouldn’t have any
legal responsibility for the child.
But many legal experts are saying that if this situation had been
brought to court the surrogacy contract would have been disregarded.
Instead the court would draw from family law requiring the biological
parents to support the child.
It’s hard to know what would have happened because a surrogacy
contract had never been contested in a Canadian court, according to the National Post, and the surrogate in this case never filed a lawsuit and decided to have an abortion in the end.
But the story got the entire world talking about surrogacy and
whether contracts should be followed in all situations. What happens
when prospective parents don’t want the child being carried by a
surrogate? Should they be forced to care for a child they don’t want or
can they demand that the surrogate abort the child?
***
Crystal Kelley revealed all the details of her complicated surrogacy to CNN. (CNN)
Crystal Kelley decided to become a surrogate mom because as a single
mother of two daughters she desperately needed the $22,000 fee. Also,
she struggled with fertility issues herself and liked the idea of
helping out others in a similar situation.
The unnamed pair already had three children and wanted a fourth but
the mother could no longer have children. For help, they turned to a
surrogacy agency.
Kelley and the couple immediately bonded at their first meeting, and in October 2011 an embryo the couple had left over from a previous round of in-vitro fertilization was inserted into Kelley’s uterus.
Ten days later, Kelley was pregnant. The would-be parents were
supportive through the beginning of the pregnancy, often checking in on
Kelley during her first trimester when she suffered from morning
sickness. The prospective parents gave Kelley and her two daughters
holiday gifts.
The relationship started to sour in February when ultrasounds spotted
signs of abnormalities. Things got worse when Kelley had a high-level
ultrasound at five months and the doctor concluded that the baby would
likely have a cleft lip and palate, a brain cyst and heart defects.
Because the doctors determined that the baby would need multiple
heart surgeries after birth and would have only a 25 percent chance of
leading a normal life, the couple decided that an abortion was the next
best step. The couple’s three children were all premature and two of
them struggled with ongoing health issues. They feared the child Crystal
was carrying faced an even more challenging fate.
Kelley felt differently. She wanted to give the baby a chance at life.
A meeting at the hospital between the three was emotional.
Kelley told CNN:
They were both visibly upset. The mother was crying.
They said they didn’t want to bring a baby into the world only for that
child to suffer. … They said I should try to be God-like and have
mercy on the child and let her go.
I told them that they had chosen me to carry and protect this child,
and that was exactly what I was going to do,” Kelley said. “I told
them it wasn’t their decision to play God.
Overwhelmed and frustrated, Kelley walked out of the meeting.
The couple hoped their surrogate would move forward with an abortion
but when the intended mother realized Kelley failed to make the
appointment with the hospital, she and her husband offered her $10,000
to move forward with the procedure.
Kelley was tempted but felt she should be compensated more to do
something that went against her religious values. Kelley told CNN that
in a weak moment she let the surrogacy agency know that she’d terminate
the pregnancy for $15,000.
The couple declined the offer, but Kelley claims that before she even received that news she had decided to have the baby.
In a final attempt to push for an abortion, the parents hired a
lawyer. Kelley had signed a contract agreeing to abort if the fetus had
severe abnormalities but the contract didn’t indicate what constitutes a
severe disability. The lawyer alerted Kelley that she’d need to pay
back all fees if she didn’t have an abortion because she was breaking
the contract.
Kelley hired her own lawyer, Michael DePrimo, an attorney in Hamden, Conn. DePrimo wrote back: “Ms. Kelley was more than willing to abort this fetus if the dollars were right.”
Then the couple changed their minds and decided that they would
exercise their legal rights to keep the baby and after birth they’d put
her in foster care.
The legal squabble continued. With the 24-week legal limit for
abortion just around the corner, Kelley decided to leave Connecticut
where state law says that the baby’s genetic parents—the ones who
supplied the sperm—are the legal parents, according to CNN. In April
2011, she moved to Michigan, one of several states that disregards
surrogacy contracts and views the woman who’s carrying the baby as the
legal guardian. She also chose Michigan because C.S. Mott Children’s
Hospital at the University of Michigan has an outstanding pediatric
heart program.
In Ann Arbor, Kelley and her girls settled into a new life. As her
pregnancy progressed, Kelley thought a lot about whether to keep the
baby or give it up for adoption. She was already struggling financially
and decided it would be best to give her up for adoption.
Through an online group, Kelley connected with a mother of a special needs child who would adopt her baby.
The situation too took a complicated turn a month before the baby was
due last June. The Connecticut couple filed papers in Superior Court
for parental rights, indicating that they wanted to be the legal
parents.
By filing the papers, the couple was forced to reveal that the wife was not the baby’s genetic mother. The couple used an anonymous egg donor.
Baby S was born with a cleft lip and palate. (CNN)
In the midst of a legal battle, Kelley gave birth to a baby with medical problems that were far worse than ever expected.
CNN reports:
She has a birth defect called holoprosencephaly, where the brain fails to completely divide into distinct hemispheres. She has heterotaxy,
which means many of her internal organs, such as her liver and
stomach, are in the wrong places. She has at least two spleens, neither
of which works properly. Her head is very small, her right ear is
misshapen, she has a cleft lip and a cleft palate, and a long list of
complex heart defects, among other problems.
Kelley’s name went on the birth certificate but the space for a father was left blank.
Two weeks later, Kelley finally struck a deal with the couple. The
husband and wife agreed to give up their parental rights as long as they
could maintain a relationship with the child.
Kelley handed over the child, who is identified as Baby S, to the chosen adoptive mother.
In the seven months since Baby S’s birth, the unnamed adoptive mother
told CNN that the Connecticut couple visited and held the child.
“They do care about her well-being. They do care about how she’s doing,” she said.
Baby S is leading a life filled with medical complications. She
gets food through a tube inserted into her stomach. Her head is small
and she has facial abnormalities. If she lives, she has a 50 percent
chance of ever walking.
Some might see her life as miserable but her adoptive mother sees a lot of hope and joy.
“S. wakes up every single morning with an infectious smile. She
greets her world with a constant sense of enthusiasm,” her mother said
in an e-mail to CNN. “Ultimately, we hold onto a faith that in
providing S. with love, opportunity, encouragement, she will be the one
to show us what is possible for her life and what she is capable of
achieving.”
As for Kelley, she’s chronicling her experience on her blog
where she receives both fan and hate mail. Some see her as a brave
woman who saved a child’s life while others see her as a selfish person
who recklessly brought an unhealthy child into the world when she had no
right to make that decision.
I think both Kelley and the couple behaved badly in this terribly sad
story. The lesson here seems to be that surrogate moms and prospective
parents need to have open and honest discussions about possible
pregnancy outcomes and how they would respond to different scenarios
before a contract is ever signed. Most importantly, they need to make
sure that they share similar views on abortion.
The hero in this story is undoubtedly the selfless adoptive mother
who was happy to care for Baby S and love her like her own. I can only
hope that the child’s upcoming surgeries are successful and her medical
condition improves.
What do you think?
TYT