That really is crap.
Obviously some laws need to be updated.

"My Mother is my sister..."

Sounds like a Jerry Springer to me.

I can't imagine how difficult that kind of ruling was for the judge to make. They aren't allowed to just 'make it up' and they have to follow the law where they can.

The law states that the 'egg donor' and 'sperm donor' don't have the rights to the child. It's to protect the carriers and donors. Donors aren't stuck with child support, carriers don't have to worry about donors who want to later take their children away from them.

When that law got crossed with a daughter giving her egg to a mother (don't get me started on the weirdness of THAT) it became a problem for the law. It's not the judge that needs to straighten out that problem, it's the lawmakers.

OK, keeping in mind I dont know about Australian laws, but couldnt the "mother" (IE the woman who carried and birthed the baby) sign her rights over to her daughter (egg donor)? And the "father (IE the man married to the one who carried the baby) could also sign his rights over. Isnt that what happens when someone gives their baby up for adoption when they have a specific person in mind? Would that not work in this case?

I dont find it weird at all that a mother would carry a baby for her daughter. After all, who better to carry your baby than your own family? And, I agree that the law protects donors from legal responsibilities and carriers from having the baby taken, but couldnt SOMETHING be worked out when the donor WANTS the baby and the carrier WANTS to give the baby to her?


Maybe they should have thought of all the legalities before hand, too. I would think they could do an adoption type thing where the "carrier" wants the donor to have the baby.