a couple was childless so they decided to try in-vitro inferltiziation. they found a woman who donated the egg, and another woman who would carry the child for 9 months. (they were all paid) so far three women are involved in this issue, the childless woman who initiated the contract, the other woman who donated the egg, and the last woman who carried the child. when the child was born, the childless woman was so happy that she finally has a child, however, as things would turnout to be, the woman who carried the baby now claims it is her child, she carried it for 9 months and can't let go of it, that the child has become a part of her, as if that weren't enough the woman who donated the egg claims she is the real mother of the child because she donated the egg , without her egg there will be no child. and the childless woman said that she took care of the baby,  she cared for her, loved, and did everything for her and that makes her the rightful owner. the egg donor, and the carrier claimed that their life have been ememotionally altered, since taking part in the baby making, the child they say has become a part of them and they were willing to repaid the money, this case landed in court if you were the judge who would you award the child?

A contract is a contract and in almost every case the childless couple gets the baby. It does not matter if it was a written contract. An oral contract is equally valid.

[size=13pt]
As for the 1st lady, she needs to show the court her evidence, the contract papers both ladies signed, giving their right up on the child, what kind of agreement did they have.
Even this contract paper is not enough to backup her case,she needs more than that
This is going to be one difficult case
[/size]

tRoOE:

[size=13pt]
As for the 1st lady, she needs to show the court her evidence, the contract papers both ladies signed, giving their right up on the child, what kind of agreement did they have.
Even this contract paper is not enough to backup her case,she needs more than that
This is going to be one difficult case
[/size]

I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the USA it is always the childless couple who initiated the whole thing who gets the baby. The reason is simple, if you start letting people change their minds we will have a thousand cases every year like this. So in the US every woman who agrees to carry a baby knows going in she can't change her mind. The courts and the law already make it clear who gets the baby. That is why you don't hear of such cases in the US.

rickky421:


I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the USA it is always the childless couple who initiated the whole thing who gets the baby. The reason is simple, if you start letting people change their minds we will have a thousand cases every year like this. So in the US every woman who agrees to carry a baby knows going in she can't change her mind. The courts and the law already make it clear who gets the baby. That is why you don't hear of such cases in the US.

[size=13pt]True that but the cases does not well like you think it does[/size]

A contract is a contract and in almost every case the childless couple gets the baby. It does not matter if it was a written contract. An oral contract is equally valid.

[size=13pt]Says who, how can you prove your case if you have no evidence to back yourself.
Oral contract does not show us there was any contract in the 1st place, only if you had it taped
[/size]

tRoOE:

[size=13pt]True that but the cases does not well like you think it does[/size]
[size=13pt]Says who, how can you prove your case if you have no evidence to back yourself.
Oral contract does not show us there was any contract in the 1st place, only if you had it taped
[/size]

Again in the US and oral contract is a valid contract. If you say to a judge, "yes, we agreed while we were having dinner that I would pay a million dollars", that is valid in the eyes of the court. You don't need to tape anything. If you say to a court "yes, I agreed to have a baby for her and accept this amount of money" it is a binding contract. Of course there are cases where a judge might throw out such contracts, but most of the time you have to keep your word. lots of business deals are done verbally. I have personally done the same many times. Once I give you my word it is as good as gold. That is how lots of business get done in the US.

rickky421:

Again in the US and oral contract is a valid contract. If you say to a judge, "yes, we agreed while we were having dinner that I would pay a million dollars", that is valid in the eyes of the court. You don't need to tape anything. If you say to a court "yes, I agreed to have a baby for her and accept this amount of money" it is a binding contract. Of course there are cases where a judge might throw out such contracts, but most of the time you have to keep your word. lots of business deals are done verbally. I have personally done the same many times. Once I give you my word it is as good as gold. That is how lots of business get done in the US.

[size=13pt]I don't know how he/she will be able to pull that off, only if they have a good defense lawyer.
By the way, most of the states have different law, CA might go for a oral contract but PA or Texas are not that lenient when it comes to providing the proof to back up your case [/size]

\

the childless mother owns the child, where did this happend if na 9ja am afriad the richest will win the case.

As long as the bearen woman have a legal contract consigning this isssue she is the rightful owner of the baby,the woman who caried the baby in her womb should have known from the begining that there will be emotional attachment to the baby before geting involve but i suppose the money was more important to her at first,sorry for her but there is no going back and she have to give up the baby.
i think they should make a law in Nigeria protecting Surogacy  for both the person carrying the baby and the person paying to have a baby ,so non of them can change there mind whenever they want and not just adoption law.

the first woman who payed for the arrangement owns the child

the childless woman is the owner of the child

A contract is a contract!

But biologically, i mean the REAL MOTHER is the one who donated the egg.

But in this case, if the case is taken to court, THE CHILDLESS WOMAN IS THE OWNER OF THE CHILD
Because she paid for it and the other 2 women signed the contract.