Hence, the plaintiff's confession that he referred to the disappearance in his cross-examination as the "exceptional case" should be appreciated. Nor should we take lightly the plaintiff's admission that this is an "incident that has never happened to us". Some of the concerns described by the defendant herself can also be identified in the plaintiff's testimony when he noted on his own initiative - "And thank God that in the end she was found, she was found healthy and whole." The plaintiff's honest answer, during his cross-examination, in practice supported the description of the feeling of distress and pressure that the defendant conveyed regarding those days of the surrogate's disappearance and the failed surrogacy process.
- The plaintiff claimed in the statement of claim that the surrogate who disappeared later underwent a "natural abortion". Subsequently, in his affidavit, it was claimed that the surrogate had undergone an abortion, due to the fetus's medical condition and the defects that were discovered in it, with the consent of the defendant and her partner.
In his affidavit, the plaintiff had to deal with what he called "the gap between the different versions" that he himself had raised. The plaintiff's arguments indicate that only after the defendant's claim against the surrogacy company, against Danel, as well as against him and his daughter, was the defendant's claim filed in the framework of civil case 78597-05-23 - only then did he learn that the surrogate who disappeared did not have a natural abortion. In this regard, the plaintiff stated in his affidavit (paragraph 15) as follows: "The discrepancy between the versions stemmed from the fact that information regarding the termination of pregnancy was not in my control at the time of filing the statement of claim, but rather under the control of the company, since on April 1, 2022, I terminated my position at the company, while the defendant's consent to terminate the pregnancy was given on May 7, 2022."