Absolutely. It was escalating through the story, but this paragraph nailed it: > She also hired psychics to give her answers. As she tells it, they all blamed

Absolutely. It was escalating through the story, but this paragraph nailed it: > She also hired psychics to give her answers. As she tells it, they all blamed Smith. One suggested that an ex-boyfriend of Smith’s had turned her against Baby Leon. Another claimed to see traumas on Smith’s belly and said she was clearly having rough sex. He warned: “She has something to hide.” When Smith refused to release her medical records unless nonpregnancy information was redacted, Bi saw it as confirmation that Smith was hiding crucial details. What in living fuck do psychics have to do with a surrogacy process? Also, this: > SAI countered that there was “no documented bleed” on the date in question but clarified that there was “some light pink fluid which the doctor was not concerned about.” SAI said Smith asked the doctors to tell Bi directly, and that the contract gave Smith two weeks to tell Bi. “That’s emergency information,” Bi said. “She should have told me right away.” You're going to have a hard time convincing a court that an obstetrician noted, and was unconcerned about something but that you believe it was "emergency information". > If Bi had been told, she believed that Leon would be alive. She would’ve insisted on a C-section immediately. A layperson insisting on a C-section at what would have been ... 27-28 weeks gestation? Where viability is ~70% at best? There's so much to poke at there. Ostensibly, Bi had a contract with the surrogacy agency that "guaranteed" a "well baby". One, who writes that contract? And seems to me the mere act of "insisting" on a C-section (which let's also be clear, has a risk to the mother, though lower) at that gestation would be at odds with any "guarantees".