Sherri Shepherd and Hubby Lamar Sally Separate

[Flygirl]

Since the baby carries none of Sherri's genetic material, perhaps there is hope for the little one.

[Trixie]

^ Probably not. It has her shiftless husband's.

[Flygirl]

^ Probably not. It has her shiftless husband's.

Good point.

Just curious here. Does anyone know whose health insurance covers surrogate mothers' pre-natal care? Would her health insurance cover it, since technically the care is just as much (if not more so) for her as it is the baby? Are there clauses about this in policies? I googled this, but didn't get much information. If anyone has any firsthand knowledge they wouldn't mind sharing, I'd love to hear it.

[cherrypye]

I heard there are clauses excluding surrogacy (ie if I become a surrogate, my insurance will not cover, so the eventual parents cover all medical bills for the surrogate out of pocket).

Also, I'll take that baby. Worthless, thankless fools, all of them.

[exippy]

Pity the child who is obviously just a pawn in their lives

[huntsy_2000]

The poor surrogate must be saying WTF. I wonder if she is worried that they won't take the baby now. Assholes.

[Trixie]

Very weird situation, that's for sure. I'm assuming this is a gestational surrogacy so even if the egg donation didn't come from Sherri, there's no biological connection to the surrogate. The only bio connection is to Sal, if he donated the sperm. Not sure where that leaves the child if the intended "mother" backs out. Neither woman is related to the child, so I guess it depends on whether the contract is legally binding? I assume most couples don't want to use the surrogate's egg so there is no legal claim to the child by the surrogate/bio mom--as in the Mary Beth Whitehead case of many years back...?

Confusing as hell, really.

[*DIVA!]

Lazy ass Sal wants the baby for a payday! The dumb bitch doesn't want the baby... Screw the both of them and give the baby to someone else!

[sluce]

From a legal perspective only, this is not Sherri's child and she would need to legally adopt it after the surrogate terminated her parental rights. This will be a very interesting case and I am interested in watching the legal rulings. I am not sure if the courts could, or would, rule that Sherri must become a legal parent. Much will depend on where the case is heard. She is a resident of NJ, and that is where they had their marital home I believe, but if they did the surrogacy agreement in Cali she may not have a case because the new law, as of 2013, allows them to establish parentage prior to the birth of the child. I wonder if they did this.


In relation to Gestational Surrogacy Agreements, the new law:
Requires that intended parents and a surrogate be represented by separate legal counsel.
Requires notarization of gestational surrogacy agreements.
Requires the execution and notarization of an agreement prior to the administration of medications used in assisted reproduction or any embryo transfer procedure.
Requires the parties to a gestational surrogacy agreement to attest, under penalty of perjury as to their compliance with these provisions.
Provides that an gestational surrogacy agreement executed in accordance with these provisions is presumptively valid.

In relation to establishing legal parentage between intended parents and the resulting child, the new law:
Permits intended parents to establish parentage prior to the child’s birth.
Permits intended parents to establish parentage prior to the child’s birth and permits the filing of the parentage action in the county where the child is anticipated to be born, the county where the surrogate or intended parents reside, the county where the agreement was executed, or the county where the medical procedures were performed.
Requires that a copy of the gestational surrogacy agreement be filed with the court as part of the parentage action.
Seals records of the agreement to all except parties except the intended parents, surrogate, their attorneys and the state Department of Social Services.

[Flygirl]

Thanks for the insight, Sluce. This is so interesting to me. Sad, but still interesting.

[llamamama]

I feel like that child is on the way because of the actions of BOTH Sherri and her husband. Even if he talked her into it, she must have thought it was a good idea at the time and they must have presented themselves as a happily married (wealthy) couple desperate for a baby to the surrogate. The reason they used another woman's egg was likely because of failed treatments and her age. If those had worked, or if they had decided to put a donor egg in her, she'd be pregnant right now. Would she say if she were pregnant with a donor egg that the child was not genetically hers and she should not pay for child support? Just because they decided to go the surrogate route does not mean that she shouldn't be responsible for that child, it's 1/2 her fault that it's on the way!

[Trixie]

^ ITA. Presumably they both signed the surrogacy agreement, but I guess it all depends on how legally binding that agreement is. (I guess Sherri's not thinking from a moral standpoint...and she's such a good Christian, right?)

I'm wondering if she's reneged on payment of the surrogate's expenses while pregnant as well. It seems pretty obvious that her estranged husband has no money and that Sherri was footing all the bills.

[MohandasKGanja]

I am SHOCKED that a person who believes the Earth might be flat could have found herself in such a mess. Usually, people with that caliber of cognitive development think things through far in advance.

[idunno]

Poor kid. Can the surrogate mother claim she was defrauded and keep the baby? I know, I would not want to hand over a baby to either of these two asshats, if I were the surrogate.

[BITTER]

If it were anyone else, I'd say give them an out. But it's Sherri, so I want her to suffer a li'l bit.