Surrogate Mom’s Custody Claim

Re “Surrogate Says Childbirth is Too Great of a Bond” (Sept. 25): Anna Johnson claimed that the public unfairly condemned her for her “natural bonding” to her child.

I think we need to look at this from the Calverts’ point of view. First of all, the Calverts paid Johnson to have a child conceived from their egg and sperm because of their infertility. Johnson signed a contract, wide-eyed and fully aware of the fact that the child was going back to its genetic parents.

Just the fact that this type of contract is at present not recognized in California law does not mean that Johnson should break the outlined agreements. The fact is, Johnson was in no way tricked into this deal.

Furthermore, Johnson should have thought about her “bonding” even before she signed the contract. She has a 3-year-old daughter, so this bonding process should be nothing new to her.

Johnson was paid $10,000 to have the baby. The Calverts also gave her gifts and paid for her hospital bill. That $10,000-plus is a significant sum of money to give to someone for trying to take your child away.

The child rightfully belongs to the Calverts; it is their egg and sperm to begin with. Johnson also claimed that the child would never exist if not for her. Well, there would not be a child in the first place without the egg and sperm.

This may seem harsh, but Johnson is merely an instrument for the Calverts to have a child, and nothing more. Johnson should have no claims to the child whatsoever; she signed the contract and she took the money. She carried the child and was awarded handsomely for it. Period.

KARLYLLE UY

Irvine