Who should the parents be?

Former Member

Another story I had to try and piece together from my viewpoint of the till I work on, from the papers headlines.

Heres a proper link type thing.
IVF blunder

Basically... there was a mix up, and a white couple are going to have coloured kids. The white mother wants to keep the children, but the black donors also want them, and so a judge may have to decide who the real parents are.

How would you decide such a thing? Do you side with the birth mother, or take into consideration the fact that genes from the black couple were used to make the child?

Former Member

It's too late to act now. They should be left with the birth parents, who have developed a bond wit hthem.

What will be achieved by separating them now?

Nothing stops the black couple from going through the process again...

You can guarantee tho' that now that lawyers are involved this is gonna end in an almighty mess, with no-one satisfied and a huge bill to finish it all off.

Former Member

I think its too late to sort this out amicably so the baby should be split in half, half going to the black parents and the other half going to the white parents....

Don't like my idea?.... Its got good precedent...


All I really care about is no-one sueing the NHS.
Thats the course of action I really cannot condone:
"this place is underfunded, so I have not received the level of service I was expecting. The best thing for me to do is to TAKE EVEN MORE CASH AWAY FROM THEM."

In litigation the only people that win are the lawyers.

Former Member

Originally posted by cokephreak
All I really care about is no-one sueing the NHS.
Thats the course of action I really cannot condone:
"this place is underfunded, so I have not received the level of service I was expecting. The best thing for me to do is to TAKE EVEN MORE CASH AWAY FROM THEM."

Don't get me started on that topic, £4bn in legal cases last year ...Grrrr :mad:

Former Member

In medical terms, the person that actually physically gave birth to the twins is the parent, but I guess this definition was thought up before IBF treatment could be used in such a way as allowing another individual to deliver a couple's baby.

The parents (whether biological or not) are those that live with and care for the children, but at such a young age this doesn't really apply to the twins either.

I agree with Man Of Kent that the twins shouldn't be moved about yet. Neither should they be "swapped" back to their biological parents.

As the twins were born in the same hospital, chances are the parents live pretty close and so the couples will be able to see both sets of twins more easily. At the moment, it doesn't seem like either couple is trying to stop the other having access to the children, and so I guess that's a good thing.

I don't know what I'd do in such an unusual situation- whateber happens, at least one couple will be unhappy.

Former Member

I think they should be left with the birth mother now. They are the ones who went throught the birth and stuff. I don't think t matters that the genes are from another set of parents. The birth mother will have motional attatchments with the children that the other mother could not have.

Former Member

Originally posted by Ilson-Youth
sorry to be picky, but you mean parents :P im sure the father has got attached to them just as much as the mother, anyway enough of being petty..

I see that you came to this thread with your emotional bags packed then Ilson

I think you have to think about the future, from the childs point of view, forget who has built a tie with the children so far, forget whos genes they are, does that really matter in 10 years time to the child?

What will matter is whether or not they have had loving parents. Even adoptive children don't always want to know their genetic parents...

Former Member

They should be left with the birth parents. At the moment, the babies themselves do not know that they are not the biological children of the womant hat gave birth to them, they look on her as the provider of food, warmth love and safety. At the moment they need to be fed on breastmilk, and the biological mother's body is not producing breastmilk. This would pose a problem, because with what would you feed them? So keep them with the birth mother because she is providing for them. This makes the birth mother's case stronger by the day, because each day a stronger bond is formed between them.

The fact that the twins are coloured, but born to white parents may cause problems later in life, but that can be worried about later. Anyway, who says that you have to have the same skin colour as your parents?

Nobody asked Louise Brown if she wanted to be the first test tube baby. She is happy enough isn't she? i bet she feels special. That is how the twins might feel. They should be kept in contact with their biological parents, who in turn, should be offered another course of IVF for free. After all it is not their fault that it got messed up.

Also, can I ask whether the same argument wouild have arisen, or indeed if anyone would have noticed, if both sets of parents had been the same colour?

Former Member

Are these parents weird or what?

If I were in their situation a)I'd have a heart-attack b) I'd want situation remedied ie where are my children

I thought point of IVF was you get your own biological children, otherwise you might as well adopt

Former Member

its been proved that mother and baby bond even when in the womb, the baby responds to its mothers voice. The twins would know thewoman who gave birth to them as their mother, and if she wants to keep them then she should be allowed to. she nourished them for 9 mths, they are her babies.