Give up yet?

[Gina B]

Try keeping what's going on here straight. (no pun intended)

http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/sp...y-agreements-mean-for-children-214548579.html

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

“We don’t have any real research that tells us much of anything.” -- psychologist Constance Ahrons

She's an idiot.

https://mctfr.psych.umn.edu/

These studies changed the understanding psychologists, psychiatrists and medical doctors had of twins, and for that matter, children in general.

And yeah, I didn't have any trouble "keeping what's going on here straight." A gay couple adopted twins and then split up, so now they're going to screw up the kids' lives by separating them. With the court's permission. Brilliant.

Someone in California Family court is an idiot. Of course, that isn't all that surprising, is it?

 

[Gina B]

Nope. The twins are fraternal, and each male ended up being a biological father to one twin. One is the biological father to the girl, one the biological father to the boy. The surrogate mother is the biological mother to both the children. Say thank you to science! It can happen naturally too, but this one was implantation from what the article says.

Twin babies. Each has a different biological father and the same biological mother, but the mother is a surrogate, but the parents are the fathers, who were together but split up during the surrogate's pregnancy, then they decided to settle child custody by each keeping their biological child, but claim they want the twins to keep in contact.

Perhaps a twenty year halt to anyone having kids is in order. Call it a time out for humans to reflect on common sense before they're allowed to bring anyone new into this mess.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Nope. The twins are fraternal, and each male ended up being a biological father to one twin.

So what? They are/were still a gay couple, and they are still endangering the healthy development of the twins by separating them. With the exception that I did say erroneously they adopted the twins, how is what I said any different from the facts? The overall effect, to me, is more important than the biological relationships of the three parents, including the surrogate in that description because she's the only mother the twins actually have, unless you saw in the article a differing explanation of who supplied the ova to be fertilized.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Updating what I said about adoption. Parents contracting for surrogacy have to adopt the child, as the natural birth mother is considered the biological mother even if she didn't supply the ovum.

Therefore, I said nothing wrong in that post. Thanks.