Surrogate mother pushes for adoption

Helen Beasley made contact with the couple via the internet

A British woman suing a US couple for allegedly backing out a surrogacy agreement is continuing her fight to put the twins she is carrying up for adoption.

Helen Beasley, aged 26, from Shrewsbury, Shropshire, said the couple demanded she abort one of the foetuses because they only wanted one child.

They don't want two babies

Helen Beasley, surrogate mother

Under the terms of their contract, Californian couple Charles Wheeler and Martha Berman agreed to pay $20,000 (£14,000) to the British woman.

But Ms Beasley, who has filed lawsuits, claiming breach of contract and misrepresentation, said the couple would no longer talk to her.

She and her lawyer have also filed suit in Family Court in San Diego to clear the way for the unborn babies to be put up for adoption.

The Briton, who first made contact with the couple through the internet, went to San Diego in February to undergo in vitro fertilisation (IVF).

Eggs from a donor selected by the couple were used along with sperm donated by Mr Wheeler.

'Verbal agreement'

Ms Beasley, a single mother of a nine-year-old son, said she had agreed to abort additional foetuses if more than one egg was fertilised.

But she said a verbal agreement was made that such a decision had to be made before the 12th week of her pregnancy.

When the couple scheduled a hospital appointment for the abortion in her 13th week, she objected on health grounds.

"Basically they don't want two babies and although we did have it in the contract that if there was multiples we would reduce, they left it too late in arranging the appointment to reduce them," said Ms Beasley.

"I thought I just couldn't do it," she told the BBC.

"There is a risk to the other baby as well. If you are reducing one and the risk of miscarriage is higher, you could lose both of them."

Adoption obstacles

Ms Beasley, who is due to give birth in November, wants to put the twins up for adoption because she says she cannot afford to support the twins herself.

But under California law, she found she had no right to do so because parental rights in a surrogate birth are granted to the intended parents.

A spokeswoman for Childlessness Overcome Through Surrogacy (COTS), which puts potential surrogates in touch with childless couples, said a similar situation could not arise in Britain because the surrogate mother would have sole legal rights over the children.

Theresa Erickson, Ms Beasley's American lawyer, said the couple abandoned the Briton the moment she refused to have the abortion.

"They didn't want two babies," she said. "When Helen said she wouldn't reduce, they said: 'We only wanted one, we don't want to separate them, so you figure out what you're going to do with the two babies'."

At their home in California, the American couple at the centre of the controversy, both San Francisco-based lawyers, could not be contacted.