I began this, some time ago, when the hope that my family's most private business could remain private, or at least in the vain hope that I could in some way manage how the news about our family having a child reached the world.
You know, a baby announcement.
Little footprints and a ribbon, and perhaps a joke or two over why two apparently sane people would have a seventh child.
And until a month ago, that seemed to be how we would announce the birth of our last child, who has yet, as I write this, to make an appearance.
But now the circumstances behind his birth have been all over the news, because of the actions of one seemingly troubled man and one seemingly biased judge.
Long story short, eight months into a pregnancy that resulted, against majestic odds, from a frozen embryo, the woman carrying our child learned she was being divorced by her husband.
A hearing was promptly set to determine what our surrogate, Arletta, assumed would be a rubber stamp judgment, albeit a painful one: She would have to share custody of her son and daughter with the man who once promised to love her forever, but changed his mind when friends at work made fun of him because her pregnancy was starting to show --perhaps presuming she'd cheated on him, perhaps casting doubts on who wore the pants in the family.
Quickly, Arletta's husband showed everyone who was boss.
She lost custody for the duration of both children for the duration of the pregnancy, and perhaps permanently.
No one said she was a bad mother. No one said she was an uninvolved or unloving mother or an incompetent mother.
Her in-laws said they didn't like her much.
Her husband said she didn't always fold the laundry on time, I believe.
But basically, she got two hours a week and ever other weekend, and got evicted from the house she'd worked to buy and pay for because she chose to be a surrogate mother.
The judge in Casey County, Kentucky, didn't like that. He let Arletta's husband's lawyer basically accuse her of adultery. Because we don't have the same last name, he let the suggestion stand that my husband and I aren't married. He let the husband's lawyer hint that we were going to "sell" our baby to "some unknown man or woman." He said that surrogacy was possibly psychologically damaging to Arletta's children -- although he is not a psychologist, or even a family court judge. He saw it as more damaging than seeing their mother thrown out of the house by their father.
Arletta's mother-in-law threatened to stop babysitting for her children if she went ahead and gave a family who were her friends the gift of bearing their child.
Arletta's mother-in-law, who, with her father-in-law, called her a "liar" and a "con" in court (again, with no interference from the judge) had six children, but let family members raise all but one -- Arletta's husband, Jack. That was the son of Jack, Senior, the man she finally married, and, as she explained, the only child she loved. Such a history is not looked askance in Casey County.
But Arletta's act of courage and compassion is.
Moreover, under the law, any woman's legal husband is the presumed father of her child. In order to gain custody of our baby under most circumstances, that husband would usually have to sign a paper acknowledging that he did not want custody of our baby and that he was no biological relation to that baby.
Arletta's husband does not want our baby.
But he won't sign off, either.
It's one more way that he can make Arletta's life miserable.
And ours, too.
More than one reporter has asked, what's the "other side" of the story? What skeletons rattle in Arletta's closet?
But I've known this woman nearly two years. And so far as I can tell, there are none. I've seen her with her children. I've had lunch with her husband, who fully supported her in this selfless act, until he didn't anymore. He now claims he never realized what surrogacy meant.
The judge accepted that, too.
And that, gentle reader, is hogwash, because the clinic at which the procedure was done would not do the procedure unless both couples had been counseled by an appropriate psychologist so that they understood it fully.
On sites such as the "Family Scholars" blog, I've been accused of being involved with the occult and witchcraft because my favorite holiday is Halloween (I just like the decorations). Arletta has been advised to apologize to the man who threw her out, and beg his forgiveness. I've been called a "rich author" (and I surely am not) taking advantage of a poor girl from a Kentucky holler (Arletta has a degree in biology and is a building inspector).
Mostly, my husband and I have been accused of being Godless, heartless and careless because we DID NOT destroy the frozen embroys created three years ago in love and purpose, by the same people who would have called us devils for taking the other route, and destroying them.
It seems to me that Arletta's husband deserves no apology, but she does.
If it comes, I don't know that she will accept it.
I don't know that I could.
I think she is a hero.
She has gone on to try to deliver a healthy baby despite the greatest sorrow and outrage in her life. We can give her nothing, literally, except tea and sympathy as she waits in our house with her aunt to give birth to our child.
I also think that the personal politics of the judge who presided over her custody hearing had no right bringing his personal politics to bear on her personal life.
But Arletta's husband is the boss. He asked for exactly what he wanted, and he got almost all of it; and he intends to get the rest.
In Casey County, they call that justice.
Where I come from, they call it something else.
Jackie Mtichard
Comments (9)
I think she is a hero as well. In these trying times she will need a lot of support. I feel so sorry for her children who must be missing her terribly.
There is no side of any story that should keep a responsible loving parent (mom or dad) away from their children.
Having lost custody at one time to a very controlling man I think that her husband's desire to hurt her, and to be in control, is making him forget that the kids need their mom as much as they need a dad who will do the right thing when it comes to what is truly best for their kids. I have hope that things will work out for this woman who must have a heart of gold.
~katie~
Posted by linda paloma | October 30, 2005 10:35 PM
Posted on October 30, 2005 22:35
This personal commentary comes at a momentous time: our president has made his second nomination for Sandra Day O'Connor's position this morning.
While driving into work, I listened to commentators stress the importance of reviewing statutes and precedent to make a judicial decision instead of allowing personal feelings cloud the decisions that are made by our highest court.
Then when confronted by your blog while drinking my first Monday morning cup of coffee, I was stopped short with indignation and shame.
What Arletta offered your family was generous of heart and mind. What has been done to her can only be described as narrow and wicked on the part of both her husband's family and the local judiciary in Kentucky.
I am disheartened and worried at the approach taken on behalf of Casey County in Kentucky by the judge that ruled on this case. What direction could any of us hope to see this country take if an individual such as this one is in any kind of power? To me, the ramifications are frightening.
On a smaller level, Arletta now must deal with the hue of her husband's true colors. I hope that with time and with the support of friendships such as yours, she is able to move on and past this colossal blip on her life's radar screen - that this will not be the obstacle that proves to sink her.
This child will be a reminder to you all of what love can build. The process by which he or she has been conceived will be a reminder that sometimes love is not enough when combating outside forces that seek to sully its name.
Posted by Jenn | October 31, 2005 9:44 AM
Posted on October 31, 2005 09:44
Ms. Michard,
I work for the Casey County News in Liberty, Ky. and have recently written a story about the turmoil that Arletta is going through. I, too, am a mother, along with being a person of some intelligence who also cannot believe Arletta's children have been taken from her by her "ignorant" x-husband.
I talked with Arletta before writing my story and found her to be a very strong and willful woman who will fight for what is right when the right time comes.
Tell her I said hello and I still have her cell phone number. I am anxious for both you and her for the baby to arrive. The world is waiting as well.
Sincerely,
Linda Carmicle
Posted by Linda Carmicle | October 31, 2005 2:59 PM
Posted on October 31, 2005 14:59
I LIVE IN KENTUCKY AND CANNOT NOY BELEIVE THAT YOU AS BEING AN AUTHOR DID NOT FIND OUT WHAT KENTUCKY LAWS WERE. YES YOU ONLY KNOW ONE SIDE AND YES THERE ARE TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY. THE STORY ON FIRST EDITION HAD ME BELEIVING THAT HER GIVING BIRTH TO YOUR BABY WOULD BE WORTH IT ALL WHEN SHE HANDED YOU YOUR BUNDLE OF JOY. APPARENTLY LOSING HER SPOUSE AND CHILDREN WAS WORTH THAT. BOTH PARTIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN AGREEMENT WITH THE BEFORE AND AFTERMATH.
Posted by CINDY | November 7, 2005 8:17 PM
Posted on November 7, 2005 20:17
WELL I THINK SOMEONE HAS NOT TOLD YOU THE TRUTH BUT ARLETTA'S MOTHER-IN-LAW WAS MARRIED EVERYTIME SHE GAVE BIRTH TO HER OTHER CHILDREN AND AS FAR AS LOVING THEM SHE EACH AND EVERY ONE. WHOMEVER TOLD YOU THIS SACK OF LIES REALLY HAD YOU SNOWED BUT I REALLY MUST KNOW IF YOU ONLY POST LETTERS THAT ARE ON YOUR SIDE I HAVE SEEN NOTHING NEGATIVE ON YOUR WEB SITE AND I DO KNOW OF PEOPLE WHO DO NOT AGREE WITH THE SITUATION AS IT GOES SOME PEOPLE ARE PERSONALLY INVOLVED AND REALLY DO NOT AGREE AS LIFE GOES EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN OPINION AND THATS WHY THEY LIVE IN AMERICA
Posted by CINDY | November 8, 2005 7:05 PM
Posted on November 8, 2005 19:05
As the saying goes "I do not have a dog in this fight". But what I do have is the fact that I live in Central Kentucky. I understand that you have an emotional tie to the situation. But contrary to what you think we are not a bunch of "rednecks" that want to keep everyone out. I agree with the person who posted that you should have known what the laws were before you went ahead with the procedure. If you would have got the correct signatures in advance you might not have had this problem. I have never read your books although I am an avid reader. I only learned about this through the Lexington Herald Leader. I would say that your surrogate knew she was having problems in her marriage long before she was "blindsided" with divorce papers. But the worst part of this is that two children will now spend the rest of their lives going from one parent to the other. Imagine that their Christmas this year will be spent at two separate places. I hope you enjoy your new baby. And hopefully he will grow up with his parents in the same household.
Posted by Dot | November 13, 2005 7:48 AM
Posted on November 13, 2005 07:48
I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND THOUGHT IT NECESSARY TO BRING ANOTHER CHILD INTO THIS WORLD, YOU ALREADY HAD A FAMILY WITH SIX CHILDREN. THERE ARE SO MANY NEWBORNS WHO NEED A HOME. I WOULD THINK ADOPTION WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH EASIER THAN THE PUBLIC HUMILIATION YOU MUST NOW BE SUFFERING. THE SORROGATE MOTHER IS ALSO SUFFERING BECAUSE OF HER DECISION TO DO THIS. I AM WONDERING HOW SHE SO EASILY HANDED BABY ATTICUS OVER WHEN HER BLOOD IS RUNNING IN THIS BABY'S VEINS. SHE CARRIED IT NINE MONTHS, FELT IT MOVE AND LIVE INSIDE HER. HOW COULD HE NOT FEEL LIKE HER CHILD ALSO. IT IS NOT LIKE SHE WAS DOING THIS FOR A CHILDLESS COUPLE. IT SHOULD NOT BE SO HARD FOR HER SEE HERSELF WITHOUT HER OTHER CHILDREN. SHE GAVE ONE AWAY WHY NOT TWO. I THINK PEOPLE INVOLVED SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THIS MORE THOUGHT BEFORE LEAPING. MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN HURT. FOR YOU OF COURSE I SEE ANOTHER BOOK BEING PUBLISHED. THE BENDSCNIEDERS ARE BROKEN PEOPLE NOW. MAYBE NOW ARLETTA WILL ALSO BECOME FAMOUS AND CAN MOVE FROM THE DREADED LITTLE TOWN OF CASEY COUNTY, KENTUCKY. SHE IS THE ONE THAT TOOK THIS TO THE PAPERS AND TV.
Posted by NAOMI | November 15, 2005 7:52 PM
Posted on November 15, 2005 19:52
Cindy, and Naomi,
I realize that Jackie has already addressed both of you. But I personally would like to address you... You want to talk about personal interest Cindy, I know the family like the back of my hand, can tell you both children's birthdates the parents wedding anniversary, most anything personal about them I can tell you, if you follow what I am saying about how well I know the family and situation.
My first comment goes to you Cindy the information about Mrs. Bendschneider giving away her children came from a very reliable source, and if you will check the court transcripts from a trial on 9-17 you can read where she and one of her own children testified to that. Secondly, how dare you make the people of KY look ignorant, her husband signed all the appropriate paperwork took the appropriate evaluations and passed with flying colors, all Jack ever had to do from the very beginning was tell the person giving him his psychological evaluation that he didn’t feel comfortable with the surrogacy.. He took the evaluation by himself and all Arletta would have known is that he didn't pass; they would have been denied the opportunity to be a surrogate based solely on those scores... What this really looks like is a man who went into this surrogacy knowing that the judge in Casey county would frown on it, and knowing he and his loving mother who abandoned all of her children but one would be able to get the judge on their side using the surrogacy, he himself makes a comment in his interview with the Lexington Herald on 11-6 that the marriage was having trouble a year ago.. So he set this woman up to have her children taken, if anyone is cold hearted or manipulating I would say if you step back and look at the whole picture it's the man who threw his family away and stole the mother's children from them. He kept this pregnancy going for weeks when he gave her shots of progesterone and I talked to her on some of those especially difficult days when she was bruised so badly she could hardly move, and she would say Jack is real trooper he keeps me going and tells me "arty you have to do this for the baby" Cindy you see the facts as you want to see them, and the plain and simple facts of this case are Arletta is a surrogate, who give a flying flip, SHE IS AN EXCELLENT MOTHER, and if you know her as well as you say you know that.
Naomi,
How quickly we throw stones when we don't understand. Ignorance is the root of hatred. Truly with the utmost respect it is far better to not speak when you clearly are in the dark about so many things it makes you look foolish. This woman took this to the media because the injustice and discrimination she faced at the hands of this judge, I work in this field and can say that if you were a woman who had her children taken from her just because of a choice you made, you would see this differently. This is an injustice to the mother and to her children and if you can't look past your own beliefs on surrogacy and see that, than all respect I gave to you in the previous sentences was not deserved
Praise these people who have given so many children a home, don't make the number of children they have your business because it's not.
Jackie I wish you and your family only the best and pray that Arletta's children will be placed back with a mother who loves them, and thinks only of them.
Posted by Becky | November 17, 2005 8:25 AM
Posted on November 17, 2005 08:25
BECKY,
YOU SAY YOU KNOW THE MOTHER-IN-LAW AND KNOW FROM A GOOD SOURCE WHAT WAS TOLD WAS TRUE. YOU MAY THINK THIS TO BE TRUE AND MAYBE IT IS BUT DID YOU KNOW HER CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN SHE LEFT HER CHILDREN WITH THIER FATHER. WHAT WAS IN QUESTION WAS THE ARTICLE WRITTEN THAT THE MOTHER-IN-LAW WAS NEVER MARRIED WITH THE OTHER FIVE CHILDREN AND SHE WAS. ALSO IT WAS CLAIMED SHE ONLY LOVED THE CHILD SHE HAD THAT IS INVOLVED IN ALL THIS. THAT MUST BE UNTRUE. NO ONE HAS ANY THING AGAINST MS. MITCHARD AND SHE IS A REMARKABLE WOMAN RAISING CHIILDREN IN THIS DAY AND AGE. WE NEVER KNOW WHAT TOMORROW WILL BRING BUT WE DO KNOW NOT TO JUDGE BUT I GUESS WE CAN HAVE AN OPINION, BUT WHEN YOU JUDGE MAKE SURE YOU KNOW THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THE TRUTH. WHEN SOMEONE GETS A DIVORCE IT IS BETWEEN MAN AND WIFE, WHY WOULD THE IN-LAWS PAST LIFE BE OF IMPORTANCE TO THE DIVORCE, THEY WERE NOT SEEKING CUSTODY. MAYBE IN THE END THE JUDGE CAN SORT THIS OUT IN MY OPINION THE MAN JUST WANTED A DIVORCE AND DID NOT KNOW IT WAS TO BECOME PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. LET THE PEOPLE GET A DIVORCE AND GET ON WITH THEIR LIFE, LIKE MANY HAVE SAID AND THOUGHT BEFORE THIS IS ONLY BEEN BROUGHT TO THE MEDIAS ATTENTION BECAUSE SOMEONE THE PUBLIC CONSIDERS FAMOUS IS INVOLVED IF ANYONE ELSE THEY WOULD NOT HAVE RECEIVED A SECOND GLANCE. THANK YOU, AARON
Posted by AARON | November 20, 2005 6:43 PM
Posted on November 20, 2005 18:43