Connect with us

Opinion

Judge orders 2-year-old IVF baby to be given to biological parents despite being raised by birth mom

Published

9 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Nancy Flanders

With the rising popularity of IVF, egg donation, sperm donation, and surrogacy, Americans have been fed the marketing line that biology isn’t what makes a family. Yet in cases like Sophia’s, it becomes obvious that biology certainly matters when the adults say it matters.

According to Haaretz, an Israeli court on Sunday ordered that, following a lengthy legal battle over an IVF mix-up, a woman who gave birth to a daughter and raised her for two years must now give the girl to her biological parents.

The woman and her partner underwent IVF treatment at Assuta Medical Center in Rishon Letzion, but as she neared the end of her pregnancy, she underwent testing after it was discovered that the preborn baby had medical concerns. During that testing, it was revealed that the baby she was carrying had no biological connection to her or her partner. She had been implanted with someone else’s embryo.

report on the situation found that the error was likely due to the heavy workload staff are facing at the fertility clinic following the government’s decision to move fertility treatments to private hospital settings – a move considered a financial benefit to the Health Ministry, hospitals, and doctors, but one that put patients at risk of errors.

Now, two years later, a judge has ordered the woman to hand the child, Sophia, who has a heart condition and developmental delays, over to her biological parents.

Benefits vs. damage

Judge Oved Elias of the Rishon Letzion Family Court said the girl should be given to her biological parents on the recommendation of Dr. Daniel Gottlieb, a psychologist appointed to the case, but against an affidavit from Welfare Ministry social workers and the head of Israel’s Child Protective Service. That affidavit advised that the girl should remain with the woman who gave birth to her, and her partner who have been raising her.

Elias determined that being given to her biological parents was in the child’s best interest because they are her natural parents. “The benefits that will arise from handing the girl over to her genetic parents and her life with them overcome the damage that will be caused by disconnecting her from the parents who have been raising her. The benefits of life with the genetic parents are, among others, in her future identity, connecting her to the family’s genealogy, a shared family story, and matching psychologies and family values,” he said.

He’s not wrong. Research has shown that children who live in a home with their married, biological parents are healthier both physically and mentally.

However, the removal of the child from the only parents she has known both inside and outside of the womb is likely to cause significant trauma. Studies have shown that taking babies from their birth mothers – whether they are biologically related or not – causes immense trauma for the child and can permanently alter her adult brain function later in life. While adoption seeks to heal the trauma that results when a birth mother feels unable to raise her child and lovingly selects a family to raise her baby, artificial reproductive technologies (such as surrogacy) deliberately create a trauma, with a child knowingly created and intended to be separated from his or her birth mother.

Birth parents and biological parents speak out

“Given that there was a major error in the IVF process, and given that, with cooperation and in a planned, monitored way it can be rectified with minimum harm, I cannot accept the stance that what’s done is done,” the judge wrote.

The birth parents argued that the biological parents do not know how to care for the child and her health needs properly, and that the situation should be left as is because “the family unit embraces the baby.”

“As a mother, I don’t understand how they can tear my daughter from me after I birthed her with blood, sweat, and tears? She is the fruit of my womb and I’ve been raising her for more than two years. As far as I’m concerned, I’ll wait until justice is done at the High Court of Justice,” said Sophia’s birth mother, who feels as though she’s been reduced to the status of a surrogate.

“I am Sophia’s mother, and she is a sweet girl who only months ago underwent a third life-threatening surgery. I’m not a womb for rent, and with all my grief for the woman who gave the egg, she didn’t make the child. I was implanted with the embryo, carried her, and gave birth to her, and I will not allow my daughter to be uprooted from me. It’s inhumane. I won’t lend a hand in risking my daughter’s life.”

Sophia’s biological parents, however, said that Elias’ decision “rectified” the mistake made by the IVF clinic. That mistake was determined to be that both women were at the clinic at the same time and had been called back for an embryo transfer in the wrong order.

“She is coming home to live with the family she was supposed to be born into. Everything was done to try to protect her privacy and allow her to be raised in peace. We are overjoyed and waiting for the moment we will finally be able to hug our daughter and be hugged by her, which is something we’ve been waiting for for so long,” they said.

Sophia’s birth parents have appealed the decision to the District Court.

Sophia’s case shines a light on the potentially serious harms of IVF and sperm and egg donation. The fertility industry treats children like commodities to be created and destroyed at will with adults as the clients, making decisions that are in the adults’ best interest, not the child’s. With the rising popularity of IVF, egg donation, sperm donation, and surrogacy, Americans have been fed the marketing line that biology isn’t what makes a family. Yet in cases like Sophia’s, it becomes obvious that biology certainly matters when the adults say it matters.

“[…] #BigFertility routinely implants someone else’s biological children into an intended mother or surrogate via donor sperm, egg, or embryos,” said Katie Breckenridge of the organization Them Before Us. “When adults choose to separate a child from their biological parents at conception, we shower those adults with congratulations and often call it ‘progress.’ Only when it’s a case of an IVF mix up is it a problem that babies go home with genetic strangers. In other words, biology matters only when adults want it to matter.”

Reprinted with permission from Live Action.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Opinion

Globally, 2025 had one of the lowest annual death rates from extreme weather in history

Published on

Congratulations World!

Here at THB we are ending 2025 with some incredibly good news that you might not hear about anywhere else — Globally, 2025 has had one of the lowest annual death rates from disasters associated with extreme weather events in recorded history.¹

According to data from the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) at the Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium (via Our World in Data), through October 2025, the world saw about 4,500 deaths related to extreme weather events.² Tragically, the final two months of 2025 saw large loss of life related to flooding in South and Southeast Asia, associated with Cyclones Senyar and Ditwah.

While the final death tolls are not yet available, reports suggest perhaps 1,600 people tragically lost their lives in these and several other events in the final two months of the year.

If those estimates prove accurate, that would make 2025 among the lowest in total deaths from extreme weather events. Ever! I am cautious here because the recent decade or so has seen many years with similarly low totals — notably 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2021.

What we can say with some greater confidence is that the death rate from extreme weather events is the lowest ever at less than 0.8 deaths per 100,000 people (with population data from the United Nations). Only 2018 and 2015 are close.

To put the death rate into perspective, consider that:

  • in 1960 it was >320 per 100,000;
  • in 1970, >80 per 100,000;
  • in 1980, ~3 per 100,000;
  • in 1990, ~1.3 per 100,000;

Since 2000, six years have occurred with <1.0 deaths per 100,000 people, all since 2014. From 1970 to 2025 the death rate dropped by two orders of magnitude. This is an incredible story of human ingenuity and progress.

To be sure, there is some luck involved as large losses of life are still possible — For instance, 2008 saw almost 150,000 deaths and a death rate of ~21 per 100,000. Large casualty events remain a risk that requires our constant attention and preparation.

But make no mistake, 2025 is not unique, but part of a much longer-term trend of reduced vulnerability and improved preparation for extreme events. Underlying this trend lies the successful application of science, technology, and policy in a world that has grown much wealthier and thus far better equipped to protect people when, inevitably, extreme events do occur.

Bravo World!

Learn more:

Formetta, G., & Feyen, L. (2019). Empirical evidence of declining global vulnerability to climate-related hazardsGlobal Environmental Change57, 101920.

1

What is “recorded history”? CRED says their data is robust since 2000, as their dataset did not have complete global coverage and perviously many events went unreported. That means that the tabulations of CRED prior to 2000 are with high certainty undercounts of actual deaths related to extreme weather events.

2

Note that extreme temperature event impacts (cold and hot) are not included here — Not becaue they are not a legitimate focus, but because tracking such events has only begun in recent years, and methodologies are necessarily different when it comes to accounting for the direct loss of life related to storms and floods (e.g., epidemiological mortality vs. actual mortality). See a THB discussion of some of these issues here. My recommendation is to account for extreme temperature impacts in parallel to impacts from events like hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes — Rather than trying to combine apples and oranges.

Subscribe to The Honest Broker.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Business

Land use will be British Columbia’s biggest issue in 2026

Published on

By Resource Works

Tariffs may fade. The collision between reconciliation, property rights, and investment will not.

British Columbia will talk about Donald Trump’s tariffs in 2026, and it will keep grinding through affordability. But the issue that will decide whether the province can build, invest, and govern is land use.

The warning signs were there in 2024. Land based industries still generate 12 per cent of B.C.’s GDP, and the province controls more than 90 per cent of the land base, and land policy was already being remade through opaque processes, including government to government tables. When rules for access to land feel unsettled, money flows slow into a trickle.

The Cowichan ruling sends shockwaves

In August 2025, the Cowichan ruling turned that unease into a live wire. The court recognized the Cowichan’s Aboriginal title over roughly 800 acres within Richmond, including lands held by governments and unnamed third parties. It found that grants of fee simple and other interests unjustifiably infringed that title, and declared certain Canada and Richmond titles and interests “defective and invalid,” with those invalidity declarations suspended for 18 months to give governments time to make arrangements.

The reaction has been split. Supporters see a reminder that constitutional rights do not evaporate because land changed hands. Critics see a precedent that leaves private owners exposed, especially because unnamed owners in the claim area were not parties to the case and did not receive formal notice. Even the idea of “coexistence” has become contentious, because both Aboriginal title and fee simple convey exclusive rights to decide land use and capture benefits.

Market chill sets in

McLTAikins translated the risk into advice that landowners and lenders can act on: registered ownership is not immune from constitutional scrutiny, and the land title system cannot cure a constitutional defect where Aboriginal title is established. Their explanation of fee simple reads less like theory than a due diligence checklist that now reaches beyond the registry.

By December, the market was answering. National Post columnist Adam Pankratz reported that an industrial landowner within the Cowichan title area lost a lender and a prospective tenant after a $35 million construction loan was pulled. He also described a separate Richmond hotel deal where a buyer withdrew after citing precedent risk, even though the hotel was not within the declared title lands. His case that uncertainty is already changing behaviour is laid out in Montrose.

Caroline Elliott captured how quickly court language moved into daily life after a City Richmond letter warned some owners that their title might be compromised. Whatever one thinks of that wording, it pushed land law out of the courtroom and into the mortgage conversation.

Mining and exploration stall

The same fault line runs through the critical minerals push. A new mineral claims regime now requires consultation before claims are approved, and critics argue it slows early stage exploration and forces prospectors to reveal targets before they can secure rights. Pankratz made that critique earlier, in his argument about mineral staking.

Resource Works, summarising AME feedback on Mineral Tenure Act modernisation, reported that 69.5 per cent of respondents lacked confidence in proposed changes, and that more than three quarters reported increased uncertainty about doing business in B.C. The theme is not anti consultation. It is that process, capacity, and timelines decide whether consultation produces partnership or paralysis.

Layered on top is the widening fight over UNDRIP implementation and DRIPA. Geoffrey Moyse, KC, called for repeal in a Northern Beat essay on DRIPA, arguing that Section 35 already provides the constitutional framework and that trying to operationalise UNDRIP invites litigation and uncertainty.

Tariffs and housing will still dominate headlines. But they are downstream of land. Until B.C. offers a stable bargain over who can do what, where, and on what foundation, every other promise will be hostage to the same uncertainty. For a province still built on land based wealth, Resource Works argues in its institutional history that the resource economy cannot be separated from land rules. In 2026, that is the main stage.

Resource Works News

Continue Reading

Trending

X