Surrogate Custody Case Questions Linger

The judge has decreed and the parents have agreed: Alejandra Munoz, Mario Haro and Natty Haro will share Baby Lydia.

Joint custody arrangements have been worked out to resolve the conflict between the surrogate mother and the Haros. Both parties have compromised so that the “best interests of the child will prevail.” There are no losers. Are there, however, any winners?

Much can be said for the advantage of having two mothers and one father. Little has been written about the disadvantages. It will require the adults to be compassionate to one another, as well as to the baby. It will require enormous patience as well. If these parents compete with hostility and jealousy, they will create an environment for the child that is both distasteful and destructive. Baby Lydia might suffer from an overabundance of mothers and mothering. Are Alejandra, Natty and Mario up to it for the sake of their child? Can they rise above pettiness, anger and a need to outdo one another?

I worry. I wonder how much serious thought these three well-meaning people gave to surrogate parenting from the very beginning. Certainly, prodigious soul-searching and thought should occur before any woman lends her uterus and donates her genes to one whose uterus does not work.

Oh, it sounds simple enough--with modern medical counseling and direction, a woman can impregnate herself. How modern! No caress, no love, no involvement, no caring. Just an academic, clinical meeting of sperm and egg, at the right time and in the right place, and voila, Baby Lydia is more than an idea, she is a pregnant possibility!

When the independently ejaculated sperm meets the unsuspecting, solitary egg, they merge and an embryo is formed. That “pregnant possibility” becomes a reality. Growth and development begin. The microscopic meeting is no longer academic, as the first tiny steps are taken on the path to personhood.

This and the entire process of maturation takes place in the body of a child-bearing woman. There, the blossoming egg immediately requires, indeed demands, a relationship with that woman. In response, her juices run high to sustain the life within her.

As it develops, the woman is more than a clinical repository. The embryo draws strength and security from her body. She draws comfort and love from the developing fetus. They need each other. In symbiotic relationship, they grow together . . . as they grow, together.

Her body and mind cannot resist involvement now, as she protects and nourishes the life within her, as she worries and dreams about it, as she plans for it, talks to it, tenderly pats it and then . . . delivers it. The baby until that moment has depended entirely on the total person of its biological mother.

When a woman agrees to be a surrogate mother for a couple, she does not renounce her role as the child’s biological mother--she is forever the woman who gave birth to that child. “Natural mother” is a term used interchangeably with “biological mother” when referring to the “birth-mother.” “Surrogate,” in this context, is a legal term referring to the agreement made by the potential “birth-mother,” the man who will father the child and the woman (his wife) who plans to raise it.

Too often the surrogate mother is in conflict with herself: to keep the child, or sell it? The bargain to give up the child is made before the sperm and egg meet; it is difficult to know when the wish to renege appears. How clearly this has been demonstrated in the Munoz-Haro case.

I continue to wonder and to ask, did Munoz and the Haros find an opportunity to examine these inevitable feelings before finalizing their agreement? Did they try to understand their own conflicting desires? Did anyone--doctor, lawyer, cleric, social worker or relative--review reality with them, in prospect, as thoroughly as the court reviewed it, in retrospect?

Whether for money or altruism, Alejandra went along with the plan to be a surrogate (with or without understanding what that entailed). But then, another heart beat next to her own, inevitably awakening her instinct for motherhood.

And Natty--did she really believe that the clinical nature of the whole arrangement would keep it free of Alejandra’s feelings? Did none of the three parents understand that the emotions and instincts of parenthood cannot be dismissed? No, no one helped them realize that. That is why I am uncomfortable with surrogate parenthood as it is today. When birth becomes business, babies become merchandise. It is obscene.

There is a role for surrogate mothers in our society. But it cannot be defined in legal terms alone. There must be a human definition as well: true feelings and honest concerns, physical and emotional health, understanding and compassion--all should be evaluated and weighed by those involved and by professionals who thoroughly understand the ramifications, responsibilities and conflicts that must be resolved.

The three members of the surrogate triangle can be helped and supported with insights intrinsic in their unusual parental agreement. It is impossible to legislate feelings. The delicate process of deciding to be a surrogate mother and the emotion-laden decision to allow another woman to carry “our baby” combine to change and, with luck, enrich lives.

Once there was a time when folks “adopted” children merely by taking them when, for example, they needed an extra hand. Today, adoption is a carefully and sensitively worked-out process protected and legislated.

Those who understand the need for surrogate motherhood, the social workers and psychologists, attorneys and judges and the parents, must put their heads together and work out ways--maybe by 1818584937the surrogate parent concept so that the future Baby Lydias will indeed be winners.