Moral/Ethical Debate Question: Who is the mother of this child? Biological, birth, or adopted?

Unfortunately, these kinds of things do come up. I have three children of my own and know what it feels like to rip a child out of their home with either parent. It is a terrible situation and emotional one that has lasting consequences.It is also very hard for me not to make insults about this so I get bonus points for keeping it mild ;).

I think that a judge, court, lawyers, whoever, don't have anything to do with it. They do however, have a right to assess the situation based on the information they are viewing, seeing, or determining as given by statutues of law and also what country they are dealing in. Given those assessments, this is what most judges would do I think given my own experience.

First and foremost, it is "intent" of the party. Amy had the intent of raising a child through this fertility clinic. She has the most legal right to the situation based solely on that factor.

It doesn't matter who feels what including the child. Now given the plethora of speculation in court cases, many things happen like proof, etc, whether the court is old or newly fashioned and not only what country, but what state, and more importantly, what county. Generally, different counties rule differently or interpret things within their own culture as accepted.

Generally speaking though it is intent of the law or situation. The intent was for Amy to have a child and willingly due so. Because of her incapacitation, Beth acted as guardian.

So adopted or not, the intent of all parties was to do the right thing and Cara doesn't have a choice if she lost control of her eggs even in a stream situation. So rather than bore you with cross-polenization studies, I will rest solely on the intent of the laws in the given area. Now I also feel it is a very terrible situation which occurs every few minutes or seconds here in America. A child is lost for whatever reason every few seconds in the world.

If I was speculating on this in a normal way, I would say that the judge should implement visiting rights to Beth even though she is not related but I think that legal adoption has granted her some motherly rights. The basis for this is that children everyday, especially around two years old, miss their parents, especially mommies when they work.So, it is not uncommon for a child to be seperated. It is probably more common than not in todays world.

So the status and relationship should be that of custodial and non-custodial parents and I think not only would the judge agree, but usually it is their duty to make everybody happy or everybody unhappy in the situation. Very rarely does a judge actually rule on working things out in a social setting from what i've seen to the extent that everything is cool with the judge. You don't want to see the judge because really, you have no idea what they might do.

My final advice is to consult a professional play therapist, get a Phd and mediator, then make out a joint custody situation that is in the best interests of the child. That too has complications but formal in-state and out of state situations can be setup. Also too, this is best because what if Amy goes back into coma, or worse, you cut off one parent and something happens to the other.

In this world, we are all mothers and deserve some respect for maintaining and taking care of life, whether or not any of us have parents.It is our obligation to take care of the young. Since you said it is not possible to share custody, I ruled that line out by any judge in the United States. The fact of the matter is that unless settled out of court, joint custody situations is not always possible but gaining popularity.

The fact is that less than 2% of custody battles where I live actually go to court so realistically, judge battles are only myth and is like a pawn shop threatening to put you in jail for bouncing a check on a small claims loan (okay, that is my mild attack). If for some reason it went to court as statements presume, then it is intent of the parties in question. This is pretty much a no-brainer.

My main argument is that it takes two to give birth to a kid. Cara goes out of the equation, because she wasn't impregnated by the father, she never even knew the father, she didn't gave birth to the child and she didn't even met the child. Although I am inclined to say that Beth should get custody because she had taken care of the baby, I will go with Amy as my response.

Amy should be the one who gets custody because she gave birth to the child, she knew the father, she knows his mental and health conditions, his background, how he would want to raise the baby, what "persuasion" (religion) should he have, what type of education should he receive etc. 5 years is not that long so that the baby could get attached to the new mother. Just like a babysitter, she is still not "the mother" if she takes care of the baby. Another strong argument comes from evolutionary psychology.

"Step parents are in a very unusual situation from an evolutionary point of view. They are caring for a child who they know is not their own. Even though they may care for the child conscientiously, evolutionary theory predicts that the childcare modules will not be activated in the same way as in biological parents.

" And since the closest biological parents are Amy and her husband, the final vote goes to Amy.

I'm adopted, and I'd say Beth hands down. My adoptee parents raised and cared for me and poured out all of their love, and I'd like to think that my life could never have been so wonderful without them. They ARE my parents, there is absolutely no question about that.

The biological mother wasn't a terrible person - she made a selfless, amazingly loving choice to offer me a chance at a fuller life - but she can never be "mom. " I could never love her and bond with the way I do my adoptee mother, who truly raised me. Not to be hurtful, but I honestly never had any interest in meeting my biological parents - In this situation I think that Renee would feel the same.

What kind of person would attempt to tear a child away from the mother that's been raising and bonding with her, for the past 5 years?

Well it's not possible for Beth to be the mother because your debate question states that Renee was raised for five years by Beth, but it also states that Beth came out her coma when Renee was 5, so unless Renee was in a coma for just a few months, then the statements rule each other out. Since it never states that Amy came out of her coma, Amy would not be a great candidate for mom. Now we don't even know if Cara even wants the child, so why would we place a child with a stranger who may not want her.

What we don't know is if Renee had any contact with Amy's family or grew close to Beth's family? If Beth has other kids (this is if she was only in a coma for a few months), they would be considered legal siblings to Renee. She may have grown close to the kids and created a bond with them.

Unconditional love between sibling bonds should never be broken up. If Beth has no children and Renee grew close to Amy's family, then by all means of unconditional love they would be family. So the deciding factors are... Does Beth have any children?

Did Renee form any bonds with Amy's family? Does Cara want Renee? Can Amy or Cara provide for Renee as Beth has?

Who could provide understanding unconditional love the best?

A judge has one criteria in a case like this: The welfare of the child. This child knows one mom, and the claims of the other two women mean nothing compared to the claims of the woman who has changed her diapers and fed, bathed and dressed her for five years. No contest for me to adjudicate this one.

I decree that the adopted mom "Beth" is the current legal guardian and no fact presented would persuade me (were I that judge) that either of the others had any right to claim otherwise. Renee knows one mom, disrupting that harms the child. This assumes a completed, legal adoption, and of course, no evidence of abuse or neglect.

Beth is the only mother the child has known. I feel pretty bad for Amy, who has a pretty strong claim for the baby. (Renee would not exist except for Amy's hard work to have her.) Depending on the circumstances of her coma, there's a good chance that, in Amy's mind, she had Renee just a few weeks ago.

I'd like to know how Cara even found out about Renee. IMHO, even though she is the biological mother, her claim is the weakest. Salomon would offer to cut Renee into thirds and distribute a part to each woman.

(Then sit back and watch to see who really loves the girl. ) 1 Kings 3:16-28.

I think this is a Solomon-type question. Who really has the child's best interests at heart? Is it any of them demanding their "rights"?

Beth has raised her. There is a bond of trust there. That bond of trust becomes very important during the teen years.

Where it's not there, kids can get into serious trouble, or at the very least serious emotional difficulties. The other two moms cannot possibly be thinking in the child's best interests if they would put her future happiness and emotional stability in jeopardy for the sake of their legal "rights". "Parent" comes from the Latin for "protector", and anyone who would take a child from the only mother they've known, during a time period when same-sex children are very attached to and emulating that parent, is damaging that child, not protecting it.

Therefore, I award custody of the child Renee to her parent Beth, who has raised her from birth.

There are only two arguments: The best interest of the child and the biological connection to a parent. The best interest of the child seems to be with Beth, as continuity and continuing care are important. That would favor Beth.

However, traditionally we have viewed the biological connection between a mother and daughter to be very strong, and something that will normally produce a stronger, more loving environment for a child. This belief is rooted deep in our culture and law. This, of course, favors Cara.

Sadly Amy has no real claim, except upon our sympathy. As I have one sibling who has two natural children, and one who adopted two children, I don't see any real difference in the kind of loving environment provided. Both sets of parents are equally devoted to the interests of the children.So, my opinion has to go with Beth, as she already has 5 years of continuity and I don't think the biological connection trumps that.

A "best interest of the child" analysis would come out on that side.

Beth. Beth is the only one of the three women who knows the child. The *person*, Renee.

The other two have no claim to anything but an egg and an infant respectively. Renee is a living breathing person, not property to be passed around, not a hypothetical child that might arise from an egg, not even a hypothetical person that an infant may grow into. She is a person, with 5 years of experiences and memories.

Beth is the only mother that Renee has known, and the only mother in those 5 years of memories. Removing her from Beth's home and family is unacceptable.

One thing confuses me: "it was discovered that Renee was not Beth's biological child (clinic error) and it is actually Cara. " Why would anyone have thought Beth was ever the biological mother? Beth ADOPTED Renee!

I'm guessing you may have meant to say that it was discovered that AMY wasn't Renee's biological mother. Beth is the mother. She is the one who raised the child.

She's the one Renee calls "mommy". It was she and Renee who formed the emotional connection. Under normal circumstances, I think Cara would have the 'right' to claim the child, being the actual 'ancestor', but I'm assuming that there is some kind of setup in the contract in which you donate eggs to a fertility clinic where you give that up, so under the circumstances you gave, it would only be between the (unknowingly-)surrogate mother and the mother who raised her.

From there, it's a fairly obvious decision, in my opinion. Beth is effectively Renee's mother.

The answer is Cara. If she is the biological mother of the child, it doesn't matter who raised her or who adopted her, she has all the legal rights to the child at that point. She could be an alcoholic or drug addict, and she'd still get the child(for some amount of time at least).

It's very unfortunate, but I've heard of situations where a family has raised a child from birth only to later find out that it not theirs and have to give the child up. The law always sides with the biological parents, and if it takes DNA to prove it, then the DNA will give the child to Cara.

It seems like Beth and Amy would have the most to argue about as far as custody. If Cara never agreed to donate her eggs in the first place, it seems like she wouldn't be planning to have a child (assuming that by not donating she's not a participant in this fertility clinic; or that if she is a participant there, she didn't specifically agree to have the zygote that would be Renee be created with her egg). In my mind this puts Cara out of the picture for the moment.

That being the case, I would hope Amy would relinquish custody to Beth upon discovering the clinic's error, especially when she understands that Renee isn't her biological child (hopefully easing some of the desire she might have to retain Renee out of a familial desire) and that she and Beth could come to an amicable agreement outside of court, bearing in mind that Beth has been Renee's mother in Amy's absence in these very formative 5 years of her young life. To me that seems morally right to do, and hopefully Amy and Beth would come to this conclusion themselves; it seems to me in the child's best interests to stay with the mother who has provided for her (assuming she's done so well of course), and in a court of law I think a judge would agree.

Legally, Cara has the right to claim the child as hers, and she would most likely win a court battle to that effect. In this case, I think the law is correct. Cara has the most right to have that child.It is her biological daughter and she never gave away the right to raise her own daughter.

Given that Cara never CHOSE to donate her eggs, it's not Beth that has the weakest legal leg to stand on, it's Amy. All Amy did was carry the child to full term. Given this sad situation, Cara still has full rights to her own eggs.

I can't guarantee that a judge would call the case in either direction, especially since we don't know why Cara had her eggs in a fertility clinic. Suppose now that Cara has a crazy shark-swimtank accident and no one else besides Amy and Beth wants the kid. Then I think Amy should have the child.

She gave birth to the child, and legal papers before her coma say that she has the right to the child. It sucks for Beth that she raised a child for five years, but letting Beth keep the child means taking the original rights that Amy had to the child away.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.