Sherri Shepherd - Page 5

AngusandBuddhasMom · ‎03-10-2010

It may not be her""egg"" but it is her name on the contract and her signature. So she may well be responsible as far as the state of Calif is concerned. As of now the state has made the surrogate responsible for child support as s temporary custodian. Should be interesting to see how this gets ruled on when it goes to court. So yeah it is a big deal Shepard is breaking a legal contract and someone else is paying what she by that contract said she would pay.

sophiamarie · ‎08-08-2013

I really never heard any snide remarks from Sherri about her husband(s), but I did see the the raunchiness between her and Jenny and before that, Elisabeth. She becomes besties with the new girl right off the bat.

She and Elis. were supposed to be "sisters". They visited each other back and forth, etc.... I wonder if they are still close.

VanSleepy · ‎10-05-2010

I don't know why the surrogate should be responsible for the child right now. If Sal wants custody, why hasn't he been given it by now? Is Sherri trying to prevent it, or does Sal need to be assured of his $$ before he wants to be a father? Seems they have broken the contract, and the surrogate should be able to place the child for adoption if that's what she would choose.

ROMARY · ‎04-28-2010

I'm sure the baby can be adopted to one of many wonderful couples/families. The three of them discussed here should just decide to legally adopt this child out. Better for the child and all concerned. If Sal insists, then let him be financially responsible, and hopefully he will find a good nanny to care for the child. Still, I'm thinking that an entirely new couple/family would be much better for all concerned.

'More or less', 'Right or wrong', 'In general', and 'Just thinking out loud ' (as usual).

chrystaltree · ‎05-10-2010

On 1/30/2015 Deb1010again said:
On 1/30/2015 chrystaltree said: It's not her baby, they didn't use her eggs. She has no genetic or legal ties to her forner husband's child. None at all.

Sherri signed a contract with the surrogate mother via an agency, Sherri personally selected the egg donor and was there in the beginning of the pregnancy meeting with the surrogate mother and being an involved party. Sorry, she decided to be a mother. You can't just back out because you don't feel like it. That little baby needs a mother. I am feeling for the baby here. Why should he (baby) suffer, have no mother and be on welfare because his millionaire mother decided she didn't want him afterall. She should've been SURE when she signed on for all this and worked out the contracts.

She's going on the angle that Lamar defrauded her? C'mon.... Sherri isn't that stupid. Why did she continue on with the baby creation if she was unsure about her marriage? they should've waited on the baby, but they didn't and now THEY BOTH have to deal with it and be the best parents they can be to the little baby. He shouldn't become the taxpayers baby.

........signing a contract does not make it a legally binding contract.....if that were the case, Sherri woulf have settled with the money grabbing husband and put this all behind her. And the surrogate wouldnt be trying to get herself some tabloid bucks now. It's a mess, but it's the husband's mess. Sure, Sherri has some moral irresponsibility to the child but no LEGAL responsibility. The child belongs to the egg donor and the sperm donor.

AngusandBuddhasMom · ‎03-10-2010

On 2/1/2015 chrystaltree said:
On 1/30/2015 Deb1010again said:
On 1/30/2015 chrystaltree said: It's not her baby, they didn't use her eggs. She has no genetic or legal ties to her forner husband's child. None at all.

Sherri signed a contract with the surrogate mother via an agency, Sherri personally selected the egg donor and was there in the beginning of the pregnancy meeting with the surrogate mother and being an involved party. Sorry, she decided to be a mother. You can't just back out because you don't feel like it. That little baby needs a mother. I am feeling for the baby here. Why should he (baby) suffer, have no mother and be on welfare because his millionaire mother decided she didn't want him afterall. She should've been SURE when she signed on for all this and worked out the contracts.

She's going on the angle that Lamar defrauded her? C'mon.... Sherri isn't that stupid. Why did she continue on with the baby creation if she was unsure about her marriage? they should've waited on the baby, but they didn't and now THEY BOTH have to deal with it and be the best parents they can be to the little baby. He shouldn't become the taxpayers baby.

........signing a contract does not make it a legally binding contract.....if that were the case, Sherri woulf have settled with the money grabbing husband and put this all behind her. And the surrogate wouldnt be trying to get herself some tabloid bucks now. It's a mess, but it's the husband's mess. Sure, Sherri has some moral irresponsibility to the child but no LEGAL responsibility. The child belongs to the egg donor and the sperm donor.

If signing a contract did not hold any legal responsibility then we wouldn't have them.

Mmsfoxxie · ‎06-19-2010

On 1/31/2015 ROMARY 1 said:
I'm sure the baby can be adopted to one of many wonderful couples/families. The three of them discussed here should just decide to legally adopt this child out. Better for the child and all concerned. If Sal insists, then let him be financially responsible, and hopefully he will find a good nanny to care for the child. Still, I'm thinking that an entirely new couple/family would be much better for all concerned.

Your post makes good sense. Adoption would be the best option IF Sal didn't want to keep the baby for the child support and the fact that the child would have to be living in a home benefiting a child from sherri who is, I assume, fairly wealthy. If I'm not mistaken, he has said that he didn't want Sherri involved with the child....just the support. Might be wrong on that but, to me, he saw an opportunity for money, married Sherri with this scheme in mind. He is the one that filed for divorce first. Sherrie should have seen the writing on the wall when he never seemed to have a job.

“You can’t wait until life isn’t hard anymore to be happy”. (By Nightbirde, singer of the song, It’s Ok)

ROMARY · ‎04-28-2010

MmsFoxie: What is it with young women who support boyfriends who don't have jobs and/or cars? I see it around here, young women driving their BFs around, BFs reclining back in the passenger seat....Actually, I hadn't paid attention until a friend kept pointing it out to me.

'More or less', 'Right or wrong', 'In general', and 'Just thinking out loud ' (as usual).

adelle38 · ‎03-09-2010

I believe there are 3 sides to this story Sherri's, Lamar's and the truth. Here's an article giving his side

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2765861/EXCLUSIVE-She-begged-baby-wouldn-t-old-mom-paid-30-...

It's always a victory for me when I remember why I entered a room.

Jabberjaw · ‎03-10-2010

On 2/1/2015 Mmsfoxxie said:
On 1/31/2015 ROMARY 1 said:
I'm sure the baby can be adopted to one of many wonderful couples/families. The three of them discussed here should just decide to legally adopt this child out. Better for the child and all concerned. If Sal insists, then let him be financially responsible, and hopefully he will find a good nanny to care for the child. Still, I'm thinking that an entirely new couple/family would be much better for all concerned.

Your post makes good sense. Adoption would be the best option IF Sal didn't want to keep the baby for the child support and the fact that the child would have to be living in a home benefiting a child from sherri who is, I assume, fairly wealthy. If I'm not mistaken, he has said that he didn't want Sherri involved with the child....just the support. Might be wrong on that but, to me, he saw an opportunity for money, married Sherri with this scheme in mind. He is the one that filed for divorce first. Sherrie should have seen the writing on the wall when he never seemed to have a job.

It is unfortunate, but many woman fall in love and think that they can change that person. Other people can see that person is scamming, but the woman has on blinders and cannot or will not see what is so clear to others. Years ago, I was one of those young women who had on blinders. I was more educated, made more money and had it "going on", but I fell in love with a fool who I thought I could change. Thank goodness, I finally woke up. I don't know, but this whole things smells so fishy to me. It does not even sound like a legit agency was involved. If a legit agency was involved, it seems that they would have stepped forward and put a stop to this nonsense and produce the contract. This sounds like some back door deal that went astray.