California couple accused of tricking women into carrying babies through surrogacy; 21 children seized
Twenty-one children have been taken into protective custody in total.
Kayla, a 27-year-old from Texas, was among the women who decided to become surrogates.
'I love being pregnant but was done growing my own family, so I thought what better way to experience pregnancy at the same time as grow their family,' Kayla told KTLA 5 News.
Through an agency called Mark Surrogacy, Kayla was matched with a couple in Arcadia, California. After a successful embryo transfer via IVF, she gave birth to their baby on March 13.
Two months later, Kayla was shocked to learn the baby she carried was no longer with the intended parents. The child had been placed in foster care.
'It was something I never would have expected to happen—something almost unbelievable unless you're living it,' she said.
Kayla later found out that the baby she carried wasn't the only one removed from the home. Multiple children had been taken into protective custody.
KTLA spoke with three other women who say they were also surrogates for the same Arcadia couple – one who delivered in Florida in June — tragically that baby was stillborn.
Two Los Angeles County surrogates say they also carried for this couple, one who gave birth in March, another who had two babies -one in 2022, another in 2024.
Public records list an Arcadia home as the address for Mark Surrogacy and also as the residence of Silvia Zhang, the woman the surrogates say they carried for. In early May, Arcadia police launched a child abuse investigation, responding to that same home after a two-month-old baby was hospitalized with head trauma.
Arcadia Police say the baby's legal parents, Silvia Zhang, 38, and Guojun Xuan, 65, were arrested on suspicion of felony child endangerment/neglect with warrants served on May 9. They were later released.
Arcadia PD alleges a nanny abused the baby, and the parents delayed seeking medical care for two days. The Department of Children and Family Services also investigated and removed all children from the couple's custody … 21 children in total. Police say the children range in age from two months to 13 years old, most being babies and toddlers.
They also told KTLA that Silvia Zhang was able to show that she is the legal mom on all of their birth certificates.
In recent months, Mark Surrogacy has filed paperwork to terminate the company, according to public records.
But a surrogate in Pennsylvania, who asked to remain anonymous due to contractual restrictions, says she is currently pregnant with a child for Mark Surrogacy.
'We are carrying for Mark Surrogacy, and we are 26 weeks,' she told KTLA. 'It really hit hard when all of this came through.'
Via a text message from a phone associated with Zhang, KTLA was told, 'Any accusations of wrongdoing are misguided and wrong. We look forward to vindicating any such claims at the appropriate time when and if any actions are brought.'
Kayla has started a GoFundMe campaign for legal fees so she can try to get custody of the child she delivered, and says she has been interviewed by the FBI.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Hulk Hogan's sex tape lawsuit had a lasting effect on cases involving celebrity privacy
Famous for his fearless bravado as a pro wrestler, Hulk Hogan won one of his most notable victories in a Florida courtroom by emphasizing his humiliation and emotional distress after a news and gossip website published a video of Hogan having sex with a friend's wife. A 2016 civil trial that pitted the First Amendment against the privacy rights of celebrities ended with a jury awarding Hogan a whopping $140 million in his lawsuit against Gawker Media. Though both parties later settled on $31 million to avoid protracted appeals, the case put Gawker out of business. It also ensured Hogan, who died Thursday at age 71, and his legal team would have a long-term impact on media law. The case showed that, in certain circumstances, celebrities could persuade a jury that their right to privacy outweighs the freedom of the press — even when the published material was true. The case put media outlets on notice that 'the public doesn't necessarily like the press,' especially when reporting intrudes into intimate details of even public figures' private lives, said Samantha Barbas, a University of Iowa law professor who writes about press freedoms and First Amendment issues. She said it also emboldened celebrities, politicians and others in the public spotlight to be more aggressive in suing over unflattering news coverage — as seen recently in President Donald Trump's pursuit of court cases against the Wall Street Journal, ABC and CBS. 'I think the lasting effect of the Hulk Hogan case was it really started this trend of libel and privacy lawsuits being weaponized to kind of take down these media organizations,' Barbas said. Hogan wept hearing the verdict in a case that was 'real personal' Hogan, whose given name was Terry Bollea, sued Gawker for invading his privacy after the website in 2012 posted an edited version of a video of Hogan having sex with the wife of his then-best friend, Florida-based radio DJ Bubba The Love Sponge Clem. Clem gave his blessing to the coupling and recorded the video that was later leaked to Gawker. Hogan insisted he was unaware the intimate encounter was being filmed. The former WWE champion testified that he was 'completely humiliated' when the sex video became public. Hogan's lead trial attorney, Ken Turkel, recalled Thursday how his muscular, mustachioed client cried in court as the jury verdict was read. 'To him the privacy part of it was integral. It was important,' Turkel said. 'Eight-year-old kids were googling 'Hulk Hogan' and 'Wrestlemania,' and they were getting a sex tape. That was hurtful to him in a real personal way.' The three-week trial was closely followed far beyond the courtroom in St. Petersburg, Florida, as thousands of wrestling fans, First Amendment watchers and others stayed glued to their screens as the trial was streamed live online. Salacious details emerged about Hogan's sex life as jurors and spectators viewed. images of him in thong underwear. Other testimony focused on how New York-based Gawker practiced journalism differently than traditional news outlets. And Hogan explained to the jury about the difference between his wrestling persona and his private life. Jury rejected that First Amendment protected publishing sex tape The jury ultimately rejected arguments by Gawker's attorneys that Hogan's sex tape was newsworthy and that publishing it, no matter how distasteful, was protected speech under the First Amendment. 'Now more people, including judges, understand that it's possible to sue someone for revealing something truthful, as long as that something is deeply personal and its publication is highly offensive,' said Amy Gajda, a Brooklyn Law School professor who followed and wrote about the case against Gawker. News outlets still have broad legal protection for publishing information about public figures, even things that would generally be considered private, Gajda said 'As long as there is news value in what is published and the media can argue that effectively, they can get a privacy case dismissed very early on,' she said. ___ Bynum reported from Savannah, Georgia.
Boston Globe
6 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Hulk Hogan's sex tape lawsuit had a lasting effect on cases involving celebrity privacy
Advertisement The case put media outlets on notice that 'the public doesn't necessarily like the press,' especially when reporting intrudes into intimate details of even public figures' private lives, said Samantha Barbas, a University of Iowa law professor who writes about press freedoms and First Amendment issues. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up She said it also emboldened celebrities, politicians and others in the public spotlight to be more aggressive in suing over unflattering news coverage — as seen recently in President Donald Trump's pursuit of court cases against the Wall Street Journal, ABC and CBS. 'I think the lasting effect of the Hulk Hogan case was it really started this trend of libel and privacy lawsuits being weaponized to kind of take down these media organizations,' Barbas said. Advertisement Hogan wept hearing the verdict in a case that was 'real personal' Hogan, whose given name was Terry Bollea, sued Gawker for invading his privacy after the website in 2012 posted an edited version of a video of Hogan having sex with the wife of his then-best friend, Florida-based radio DJ Bubba The Love Sponge Clem. Clem gave his blessing to the coupling and recorded the video that was later leaked to Gawker. Hogan insisted he was unaware the intimate encounter was being filmed. The former WWE champion testified that he was 'completely humiliated' when the sex video became public. Hogan's lead trial attorney, Ken Turkel, recalled Thursday how his muscular, mustachioed client cried in court as the jury verdict was read. 'To him the privacy part of it was integral. It was important,' Turkel said. 'Eight-year-old kids were googling 'Hulk Hogan' and 'Wrestlemania,' and they were getting a sex tape. That was hurtful to him in a real personal way.' The three-week trial was closely followed far beyond the courtroom in St. Petersburg, Florida, as thousands of wrestling fans, First Amendment watchers and others stayed glued to their screens as the trial was streamed live online. Salacious details emerged about Hogan's sex life as jurors and spectators viewed. images of him in thong underwear. Other testimony focused on how New York-based Gawker practiced journalism differently than traditional news outlets. And Hogan explained to the jury about the difference between his wrestling persona and his private life. Jury rejected that First Amendment protected publishing sex tape The jury ultimately rejected arguments by Gawker's attorneys that Hogan's sex tape was newsworthy and that publishing it, no matter how distasteful, was protected speech under the First Amendment. 'Now more people, including judges, understand that it's possible to sue someone for revealing something truthful, as long as that something is deeply personal and its publication is highly offensive,' said Amy Gajda, a Brooklyn Law School professor who followed and wrote about the case against Gawker. Advertisement News outlets still have broad legal protection for publishing information about public figures, even things that would generally be considered private, Gajda said 'As long as there is news value in what is published and the media can argue that effectively, they can get a privacy case dismissed very early on,' she said. Bynum reported from Savannah, Georgia.
Associated Press
6 hours ago
- Associated Press
Hulk Hogan's sex tape lawsuit had a lasting effect on cases involving celebrity privacy
Famous for his fearless bravado as a pro wrestler, Hulk Hogan won one of his most notable victories in a Florida courtroom by emphasizing his humiliation and emotional distress after a news and gossip website published a video of Hogan having sex with a friend's wife. A 2016 civil trial that pitted the First Amendment against the privacy rights of celebrities ended with a jury awarding Hogan a whopping $140 million in his lawsuit against Gawker Media. Though both parties later settled on $31 million to avoid protracted appeals, the case put Gawker out of business. It also ensured Hogan, who died Thursday at age 71, and his legal team would have a long-term impact on media law. The case showed that, in certain circumstances, celebrities could persuade a jury that their right to privacy outweighs the freedom of the press — even when the published material was true. The case put media outlets on notice that 'the public doesn't necessarily like the press,' especially when reporting intrudes into intimate details of even public figures' private lives, said Samantha Barbas, a University of Iowa law professor who writes about press freedoms and First Amendment issues. She said it also emboldened celebrities, politicians and others in the public spotlight to be more aggressive in suing over unflattering news coverage — as seen recently in President Donald Trump's pursuit of court cases against the Wall Street Journal, ABC and CBS. 'I think the lasting effect of the Hulk Hogan case was it really started this trend of libel and privacy lawsuits being weaponized to kind of take down these media organizations,' Barbas said. Hogan wept hearing the verdict in a case that was 'real personal' Hogan, whose given name was Terry Bollea, sued Gawker for invading his privacy after the website in 2012 posted an edited version of a video of Hogan having sex with the wife of his then-best friend, Florida-based radio DJ Bubba The Love Sponge Clem. Clem gave his blessing to the coupling and recorded the video that was later leaked to Gawker. Hogan insisted he was unaware the intimate encounter was being filmed. The former WWE champion testified that he was 'completely humiliated' when the sex video became public. Hogan's lead trial attorney, Ken Turkel, recalled Thursday how his muscular, mustachioed client cried in court as the jury verdict was read. 'To him the privacy part of it was integral. It was important,' Turkel said. 'Eight-year-old kids were googling 'Hulk Hogan' and 'Wrestlemania,' and they were getting a sex tape. That was hurtful to him in a real personal way.' The three-week trial was closely followed far beyond the courtroom in St. Petersburg, Florida, as thousands of wrestling fans, First Amendment watchers and others stayed glued to their screens as the trial was streamed live online. Salacious details emerged about Hogan's sex life as jurors and spectators viewed. images of him in thong underwear. Other testimony focused on how New York-based Gawker practiced journalism differently than traditional news outlets. And Hogan explained to the jury about the difference between his wrestling persona and his private life. Jury rejected that First Amendment protected publishing sex tape The jury ultimately rejected arguments by Gawker's attorneys that Hogan's sex tape was newsworthy and that publishing it, no matter how distasteful, was protected speech under the First Amendment. 'Now more people, including judges, understand that it's possible to sue someone for revealing something truthful, as long as that something is deeply personal and its publication is highly offensive,' said Amy Gajda, a Brooklyn Law School professor who followed and wrote about the case against Gawker. News outlets still have broad legal protection for publishing information about public figures, even things that would generally be considered private, Gajda said 'As long as there is news value in what is published and the media can argue that effectively, they can get a privacy case dismissed very early on,' she said. ___ Bynum reported from Savannah, Georgia.
