This week, Albright, accused of assaulting a teenager after a party at his home over a decade ago, entered a not guilty plea in Sheboygan County Court. Albright requested reduced bond and allowances for limited contact with his child, but the prosecution, led by Rosario Perez-Guerra, opposed this leniency.
Unfortunately, Albright’s case isn’t isolated. Across the country, similar stories expose disturbing loopholes that allow adults to exploit minors with inadequate preventative measures in place. Beyond individual cases, a larger conversation is emerging around systems that place children in vulnerable positions — particularly in areas with lax oversight, such as commercial surrogacy.
In a recent incident in Illinois, Adam Stafford King, a prominent veterinarian, was apprehended in an FBI sting operation. King, who openly discussed his plans to abuse a surrogate-born son, exemplifies the potential hazards associated with the commercial surrogacy industry. Unlike adoption, which necessitates rigorous background checks and home visits, commercial surrogacy lacks such requirements, allowing individuals who may pose a risk to children to enter into legally binding contracts to gain custody of a child. This unregulated practice often overlooks the welfare of children, raising moral and ethical concerns about their rights and safety.
A significant portion of the surrogacy industry’s clients are male couples or single men, and the lack of vetting requirements for surrogacy arrangements can lead to tragic outcomes. Critics argue that surrogacy, in its current form, enables individuals with a history of predatory behavior to obtain children under the guise of “family building.” The case involving King demonstrates how dangerous this lack of regulation can be. Without regulatory safeguards, such arrangements can expose children to potential exploitation and abuse.
The inherent risks in the surrogacy process are clear, yet many states have moved forward with expanding the practice, often overlooking essential child-protection measures. For example, Michigan recently reversed its ban on commercial surrogacy. Minnesota is considering similar actions, disregarding basic protections that could prevent individuals with histories of abuse from gaining access to vulnerable children.
The current legal framework surrounding surrogacy must be re-evaluated. As child welfare advocates and policymakers examine these cases, it is imperative to implement regulations prioritizing children’s rights and safety. Measures such as mandatory background checks, home visits, and psychological evaluations for all parties involved in surrogacy agreements should be standardized, similar to the criteria required in the adoption process. Additionally, the role of the surrogate should be carefully considered to protect the child’s psychological well-being, recognizing the significance of a biological mother’s presence in early life.
Cases like those involving John Albright and Adam Stafford King expose critical vulnerabilities in how our society protects children from predatory adults. Moving forward, stronger laws and policies must be enacted to prevent such individuals from accessing children, whether through public trust positions or unregulated commercial surrogacy.
