13 minutes ago, StevieM said:

Apparently, I saw what happened on screen very differently than you did.

It doesn't really matter to me, though.  My point is that in real life Kristina would not have been seen as having issued a voluntary TPR (termination of parental rights), nor would her actions, agreements and promises have been legitimate grounds for a court to issue an involuntary TPR.

I am not a lawyer or a legal expert, nor am I pretending to be.  I just know a little something about the basics of adoption.  The laws are set up to favor the adoptive parents when there is a conflict.  But even still, there are limits.  Molly couldn't benefit from a system set up to benefit adoptive parents because she never was one.  She was a prospective adoptive parent, nothing more.  The baby was never hers.  Kristina was the mother.  

 

 

You kind of are pretending to be some sort of legal expert with your wall of text about the laws, but whatever.   It's two very different things to give a baby up for adoption and to go into a pregnancy with the agreement of insemination and surrogacy.

You are making it seem like Kristina could just peace out with the child and everyone else has no rights.  That's entirely not the case here.

13 minutes ago, BetterForgotten said:

And thank goodness for that!

Yup!

Edited August 9, 20241 yr by carolineg

Pretending like what Kristina was doing is cool because of the “law” is absolutely ridiculous. If she kept that baby or made it a custody battle she’d be a terrible person and basically tell her sister I don’t give a [!@#$%^&*] about you. You encouraging this is odd.

Kristina clearly also had some mental issues, knowing damn well she was contracted as a surrogate and then going around town calling that fetus “my baby” and pretending like this pregnancy wasn’t based on surrogacy at various points. 

I wonder if they’ll give her PPD, even with the baby dead. 

7 minutes ago, Antoyne said:

Pretending like what Kristina was doing is cool because of the “law” is absolutely ridiculous. If she kept that baby or made it a custody battle she’d be a terrible person and basically tell her sister I don’t give a [!@#$%^&*] about you. You encouraging this is odd.

Thank you!  Kristina does not get the rights to keep the child just because she was the incubator. 

The point is this was a set-up, to be as soapy as possible. Kristina as a character was fulfilling her part of the drama & there were nods to hormones & that she couldn't know how she would feel ahead of time. Tolly also was doing some fulfilling. There had to be this yin yang or no story. A famous curvy cartoon character said it wasn't her fault, she was just drawn this way. This goes double for TJ, Molly & Kristina!!! I mean, my god, Blaze even told her they were not ready to make any sudden changes.

51 minutes ago, carolineg said:

You kind of are pretending to be some sort of legal expert with your wall of text about the laws, but whatever.   It's two very different things to give a baby up for adoption and to go into a pregnancy with the agreement of insemination and surrogacy.

You are making it seem like Kristina could just peace out with the child and everyone else has no rights.  That's entirely not the case here.

Yup!

It's not about being a legal expert, it is about knowing the basics.  Your parental rights cannot be terminated until the child is born.  And no court will issue an involuntary TPR based on your past promises while you were pregnant.

I disagree that being pregnant through insemination, with a plan to surrender the baby, is that different from planning to give a baby up for adoption.  The mother's feelings are the issue and in both cases it is highly possible that the expectant mother will not be able to give up her child like she thought she could.  

Of course other people had rights.  TJ could petition the court for a paternity test.  When it showed that he is the father, he would have been named the father on the birth certificate.  He could have then gotten shared custody or visitation.  He also could have fought hard and asked the court for sole custody.  But even if he had won, Kristina would have remained the mother and had liberal visitation rights.  

Other people with rights are Alexis, Sonny, and Jordan.  They are grandparents and, in many states, may have the right to visit with their grandchildren.  Molly, on the other hand, had no rights other than those that she received from TJ and Kristina.  The baby was never hers.  

Edited August 9, 20241 yr by StevieM

3 minutes ago, StevieM said:

It's not about being a legal expert, it is about knowing the basics.  Your parental rights cannot be terminated until the child is born.  And no court will issue an involuntary TPR based on your past promises while you were pregnant.

I disagree that being pregnant through insemination, with a plan to surrender the baby, is that different from planning to give a baby up for adoption.  The mother's feelings are the issue and in both cases it is highly possible that the expectant mother will not be able to give up her child like she thought she could.  

Of course other people had rights.  TJ could petition the court for a paternity test.  When it showed that he is the father, he would have been named the father.  He could have then gotten shared custody or visitation.  He also could have fought hard and asked the court for sole custody.  But even if he had won, Kristina would have remained the mother and had liberal visitation rights.  

Other people with rights are Alexis, Sonny, and Jordan.  They are grandparents and, in many states, may have the right to visit with their grandchildren.  Molly, on the other hand, had no rights other than those that she received from TJ and Kristina.  The baby was never hers.  

My father and sister are both lawyers and I don't even know weird paternity rights basics lol.  But thank you for explaining-and I don't even mean that in a snarky way.

The baby isn't an issue now.  

Honestly thank god the baby is gone because I would not have been able to stomach Kristina keeping her sister’s baby because she changed her mind 8 months in.

1 minute ago, Antoyne said:

Honestly thank god the baby is gone because I would not have been able to stomach Kristina keeping her sister’s baby because she changed her mind 8 months in.

It would have made Kristina very toxic and unrootable. 

3 minutes ago, carolineg said:

It would have made Kristina very toxic and unrootable. 

She’d essentially be right there with her father for me, which I guess would be appropriate.

55 minutes ago, carolineg said:

Thank you!  Kristina does not get the rights to keep the child just because she was the incubator. 

Thanks to you and others who have pushed back against this "Kristina is the mother!!!" bull. All these legal posts are too much.

As many have said, a custody battle would have been horrendous, and would have damaged the character Kristina incredibly.

59 minutes ago, Antoyne said:

Honestly thank god the baby is gone because I would not have been able to stomach Kristina keeping her sister’s baby because she changed her mind 8 months in.

Kristina would not have been keeping her sister's baby.  She would have been keeping her own baby, rather than following through with an adoption plan.  That would have been her right, both legally and morally.  

Willow had the right to change her mind about the adoption she had originally agreed to for her baby.  She did nothing wrong when she vacated the adoption within the agreed upon window for her to rescind.  The only bad guys were Julian, for illegally learning her identity and approaching her (which was inherently coercive), and Brad&Lucas for trying the challenge her right to rescind by falsely asserting that it would be damaging to the baby if he was returned to his mother, when in reality they just wanted the kid for themselves.

Molly, through her actions, showed herself to be no better than Julian Jerome.  Ironic, given how much she used to hate him.  

Edited August 9, 20241 yr by StevieM

33 minutes ago, ranger1rg said:

Thanks to you and others who have pushed back against this "Kristina is the mother!!!" bull. All these legal posts are too much.

As many have said, a custody battle would have been horrendous, and would have damaged the character Kristina incredibly.

Kristina absolutely was the baby's mother.  

Any custody battle would have been initiated by TJ and Molly.  They would have been wrong to do so.  Instead, they should have accepted the fact that the adoption they hoped for didn't work out.  And then they should have sat down with Kristina and worked out a plan for joint parenting and joint custody.  

What?  We are making this a moral issue? LOL.  The trolls never stop.  It was TJ and Molly's baby even if Kristina was the carrier.

25 minutes ago, carolineg said:

What?  We are making this a moral issue? LOL.  The trolls never stop.  It was TJ and Molly's baby even if Kristina was the carrier.

I am not a troll.  I have posted here, on occasion, for many years.  Apparently, I just got moved up to Explorer, whatever that means.  I have known Toups since 2001.  

My opinion sincerely differs from yours.  We seem to look at this story--and this issue--from a different perspective.  That doesn't make either one of us a troll.

As far as I am concerned, the baby was TJ and Kristina's.  I regard Kristina as the mother, not as the carrier for Molly.  Even if the adoption had happened--which was looking less and less likely--I still would not have regarded Kristina as having been a "carrier."  She would have been the expectant mother when pregnant, the new mom after giving birth, and then the birth mother after the adoption papers were signed.  

Edited August 9, 20241 yr by StevieM