Police: Delaware Mom Agreed To Sell Newborn To Philadelphia Man

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – A Delaware mother, along with a Philadelphia man, are facing charges after investigators allege the two agreed to the sale and purchase of the woman’s newborn son.

“I didn’t want to give my baby away,” said 33-year-old Bridget Wismer of Brookside Park, New Castle County Delaware.

Wismer, charged with selling her newborn for $15,000, said she did nothing wrong.

According to her, she had an agreement with friend, John Gavaghan, who wanted to help Wismer raise her son, Christian.

“He told me he would help out,” explained Wismer. “Whenever I needed something for the baby, I would call him. There was no organized thing.”

Wismer said she is already raising two children. She doesn’t have a job and she lives at home with her mother. Gavaghan doesn’t have any children but wanted one.

“He was with him (referring to the baby) at night, because he comes down for the races, he races horses in Delaware,” said Wismer. “We were doing this together.”

New Castle County Police paint a different picture.

“You can’t sell a baby in Delaware,” said Cpl. John Welgarz with the New Castle County Police. “There are different ways you go about it, if you don’t want your child.”

For the last month county detectives had been investigating Wismer. Police say her family members told authorities that Wismer was planning to sell her child. Police had been keeping a close eye on Wismer and Gavaghan. Investigators say, last week surveillance cameras at Delaware park where Gavaghan races horses, shows him signing an agreement to purchase baby Christian.

After detectives conducted separate interviews involving both suspects, they were able to confirm that Gavaghan and Wismer were involved with one another in the sale and purchase of the newborn.

The newborn is currently in foster care.

Both Wismer and Gavaghan have been charged with Dealing in Children and Conspiracy in the Second Degree.

Wismer was arraigned and released after posting $750 secured bail for the charges and $1500 secured bond and $75 cash bail for outstanding capiases.

Gavaghan was arraigned and released on $7,000 unsecured bond.

Reported by Jericka Duncan, CBS 3

Top Content On CBSPhilly


One Comment

  1. SAM I AM says:

    Signing paperwork to buy the baby?

    I hope he got the 18 year/ 18 million gray hair warranty with it.

  2. SAM I AM says:

    $15,000 ??? Wow!!

    I’m going to print this article for my teenagers and every time I get some attitude from them, I’ll stare off into space and go on about how nice a new bass boat would be…

    That should line them out. :)

    Seriously though, the guy might be a great guy with good intentions. If that’s the case, the station should show a different picture of him rather than his booking picture because it makes him look creepy.

    1. Eyebelieve says:

      I think thats the whole ideal.

  3. Truth Detector says:

    “You can’t sell a baby in Delaware,” said Cpl. John Welgarz with the New Castle County Police. “There are different ways you go about it, if you don’t want your child.”

    But you can pay a doctor to kill a baby in Delaware as long as he’s not yet born.

    1. Kyle Hikalea says:

      You can pay a doctor to kill an unborn child in any state. That’s not yet a baby. What’s your point? Pro choice means you have a choice. Accept it or move to China.

  4. Truth Detector says:

    In other news, it’s reported that an estimated 100 million American mothers are offering to PAY other countries to take their president.

  5. W says:

    The only entity that is allowed to sell Children is the state. Odd that the laws that enable adoption are really an exemption from the anti-slavery laws. I think these need to be updated.

  6. Nick says:

    This isn’t an issue about slavery or pedophiles, unless you are calling every parent a slaver and every father a pedophile.

    This isn’t about whether money should be allowed in the adoption process. It already is in legal adoptions, surrogates, etc.

    This isn’t about whether the state’s judgement should take presedence over a woman who does not want her child – she can give up her child to adoption to anyone she wants so long as she doesn’t get paid to do so.

    This is about trying to prevent a specific type of industry from forming – women getting pregnant for financial gain. You can’t criminalize sex, pregnancy or adoption.

    A libertarian, like me, says that government intervening in this way in order to achieve a broad societal result by preventing the free interaction of consenting adults not only threatens the freedom of those involved (an important issue in itself) but also leads to many of the unintended consequences others have mentioned – unwanted children, poverty, etc.

    Don’t try to social engineer a specific result. Pass laws that protect the child from predators, whoever the parent is, and enforce them with a heavy hand. Promote morality in the life of individuals in order to prevent the need to legislate morality, restrict freedom, and cause unintended consequences.

  7. wazup says:

    what?? …..you can kill’em when they are in your gut, but you can’t sell them when they’re out???? we gotta PRO CHOICE……what is this government doing in an attempt to control my rights????

  8. knows a thing or two says:

    People who adopt infants through an agency go through extensive home studies and screening. Caseworkers and Courts are involved, etc. It can take momths. It’s intended to make sure someone is fit to parent. It also goes through birth father termination of rights. I have two close relatives who have adopted and it’s clear to me based on some of the comments on here that some folks need some education on the topic and that other folks are just plan scary and/or having a little fun today.

    This idea people on this site keep throwing out that you should be able to sell/buy children like cattle or chattel is slavery/trafficking AND is exactly how it USED to be done. Some children were even “put up” on orphan trains for adoption, etc. If you needed a farm hand, for example, you went down and picked one up. That’s why “putting up for adoption” isn’t exactly the most accurate description anymore. It’s an “adoption plan”; what’s best for baby, the adoptive parents, and the birth mother who cares about and wants the best for baby.

    We already have a huge human trafficking issue. If everyone who wanted a baby for good intentions was all that was out there we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But get real people. Every domestic slavery, sex trade, and sweat shop runner would “buy” kids and low-life birthmothers would be popping them out like a puppy mill. Your concept is old and flawed.

    1. Machismo says:

      Agencies are needed…but…The problem with the agencies is they charge way too much for an American to adopt an American baby or child. These agencies should be somehow subsidized so this process is not so expensive. The Children sit in orphanages and grow up there until 18 years of age because the average person cannot afford it. We see so many kids coming over from overseas, when our own kids are stuck in institutions. That should be the crime.

      1. James Kearney says:

        AMEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have been saying this for decades.

  9. This country is long dead says:

    her family members told authorities ..?
    What a bunch of inbred MORONS… unbelievable — I don’t even recognize this country– Are these idiots Americans? Really?? What America, exactly, is it that they came from–
    Here is an idea you pathetic child-like idiots… talk with your “family” member first.. Maybe even tell her listen, I’ll call the police if you do this or that because I believe its illegal, or going to harm the child, whatever.. I mean, seriously people… Whats the problem, could get off your fat dorito eating butt during the lates NFL game? You should be ashamed–

  10. Riley says:

    Question #1
    If this Mr. Gavaghan wanted a child…why didn’t he go through an adoption agency?
    Because he would never have been approved.

    Question #2
    If Miss Wismer has two children already and had fallen upon hard times WHY THE HECK DIDN’T SHE KEEP HER LEGS TOGETHER OR USE BIRTH CONTROL?

    Her mother, with who she lived, would have no doubt offered to pay for it.

    Both parties’ stories are lies and both are disgusting individuals.!

    1. Dee says:

      Riley: succinctly stated!! agree with you completely!!

    2. no says:

      It is almost impossible for a single man to adopt a child. Granted, I don’t know why in the hell one would want one any more than they want a punch in the nuts, but still . . . they are heavily discriminated against by adoption agencies. Not to mention, the cost for adoption (none of which benefits anyone but the agencies) is enough that it could pay half the child’s college tuition.

      1. Meggie says:

        A gay couple has a stronger chance of getting a baby through adoption agencies rather than a well-meaning single man who simply wants to be a father. I do not condone their actions but they both could have gone through an adoption agency and she could have demanded he get the baby but it was all about the money, not the baby… not for her at all.

  11. truth says:

    The only difference between this and legal adoption is the paperwork. If you do any research into the adoption industry at all, you’ll find that adoption is nothing more than LEGALIZED human trafficking; Particularly international adoption. Where there are people desperate for babies, there will ALWAYS be corruption and people finding a way to make a buck from it. Domestic adoption in the US is a multi-billion dollar industry, and that’s NOT because everything is kosher!

    1. roze says:

      The adoption agencies and the state gets paid instead of the Mother….that’s fair! I gave two kids up for adoption and it felt like everyone else was getting something but me, it was very lonely. There should be NO PROFIT for anyone when adopting out a kid but if anyone should get compensated it is the Mother.

      1. liberalrepublican says:

        I am sorry for your loneliness, however, your comment “if anyone should be compensated it is the mother” struck me as wrong. The mother and father created the situation of a new life, for whatever reason the new life could not be supported and cared for by the parents. So the parent should be compensated for the cost that they are putting on the state, the welfare agencies, the foster care system? Seems the mother AND father created the situation, but the mother should be compensated? Isn’t this a repeat of the news story? Again, I am sorry for your situation, but your statement is not logical.

      2. dumbfounded says:

        Didn’t you learn to close your legs after the 1st time?!?!?! You should get no compensation for bringing a defensless child into this world in your words “adopting out a kid” this isn’t a freaking puppy you loser! Do the world a favor and stop breeding!!!!

      3. anon513 says:

        @roze, I totally agree with you. I think that whoever adopts the child should be compensated because, let’s face it, children are expensive. Diapers, formula, food, clothing, eventually schools. From birth to 18, the child needs to be taken care of and that’s where the money comes in. If the Mother puts the child up for adoption, she shouldn’t get a dime, because she’s not the one taking care of the child.

  12. Keith says:

    Who would dare have another person provide support for pregnancy!!!! If that mother aborts the child …no worries -> CHOICE!!! But if the mother agrees to give custody to a third party…lock her up in Jail? This is shameless!

  13. joemash says:

    Who knows what was really going on between these two? BUT I thought, if the police knew from the family members that they planned to do this, why didn’t the police just call them in and tell them “We know. Need help?” BEFORE a crime was committed. You know, why let it go through…just tell them “We know. Find another way, legal. Need help?”

    1. Georgiasaraann says:

      Because of the nature of the crime. Police are not guidence counselors. The couple would have just clammed up and arranged the same thing in a less conspicuous way. Do you really want a woman who would sell her baby raising that baby? Take the other children away from her too. Give them to her family who at least have enough sense to know right from wrong. Do you expect the police who get tipped off that a crime is going to be committed to call the future perps in and counsel them too? Lord, they would never get anything done if they had to counsel every bad idea out of criminals. The defense attorney would love to have you on the jury. You would blame the police and family members for the crime instead of holding this horrendous mother accountable.

      1. Leah says:

        Also because human trafficking is a crime, and because police officer are supposed to enforce the law, not be someone’s mommy.

      2. joemash says:

        Just saying! In this unique situation. perhaps…and aren’t they in the business of preventing crime? Or reacting after the fact? That’s why – have a shotgun at the ready in your house to stop a crime then let the cops investigate the perp.

  14. Uncle Don says:

    Man, my Mom would have given him me, my three brothers AND $15,000.00 to take us…..

  15. derf says:

    Who in his/her right mind wants a child? That’s the buyer’s first problem. I get the seller’s angle. 15K and no kid left. Win, win. But the buyer? Geeez!

  16. Anne Gross Beal says:

    As a pro-lifer, I look at it this way; if women were allowed to sell their unwanted babies, maybe they’d stop killing them!

    1. Kimberly Nix Murray says:

      very true! But babies are not cattle and not all buyers would be loving and kind that is why they need to be screened.

      1. derp says:

        because foster care is that much better?

      2. StaceyS says:

        Replying to Derp…

        I am a foster mom…and I only take infants and toddlers under 2. I can tell you that I am a very loving mom and my husband is a very fun dad…we take excellent care of the babies that are placed with us…we usually end up loving them and wanting to adopt them. Many times when the kids leave us, they are returning to parents who severely abused or neglected them. Foster care can be much better than the alternative!

      3. Ernaldo T says:

        Like all parents are kind and nurturing? hahahaha

    2. joe nuss says:

      Uh, that’s jacked up.

      The child’s obviously being dealt a “bullet” if they’re getting a parent who’s more interested in killing, selling or giving them up as far as this russian roulette of “what kind of parent will they end up with”.

      Guess what? Giving away your child is already an option Kimberly. It’s called Giving them Up fo Adoption and it’s the most compassionate choice second only to caring and rearing the child by the birth parent(s). The biggest difference is you’re not banking.

      If you open up that flood gate by allowing unwanted children to be sold then you’re pronouncing a death knell of the value of human life and hastening the devaluing of it. You’d reduce each of us to just another commodity. Poorly behaved children at any age can then be sold off to whomever. Elderly people can be sold off, the disabled can be sold off and basically reduce ourselves to property. Let’s welcome back slavery shall we?

      The better solution is for us to develop a moral back bone. Part of that spine is called taking proper responsibility for each of our actions which includes teaching our children that very same thing from the start!

      It’s called “getting to the root of a problem”.

    3. Ken Teaff says:

      You can’t be serious. Women would start having many more babies as a means of making money. Creating a market in babies would be akin to slavery. Let’s say a woman is desperately broke and decides to sell her child. Do you think she’s going to be picky about the person to whom she sells the baby? A baby girl could end up in the hands of a prostitution ring while a baby boy could be raised by a drug cartel with plans to make him a stone killer. When babies become a commodity, they have no value to the buyer, except as a tool.

      I, too, am pro-life, but as a Christian, I believe that aborted babies go straight to heaven, as they are sinless. ( That does not excuse those who participate in the abortion [mother, doctor, nurse, and in most cases, the father], who will pay the consequences for their decision to kill the baby.) Abortion is wrong, wrong, wrong, but the selling of babies as cattle is just as bad.

  17. bobsmith223 says:

    Interesting to consider that people are so willing to pay for newborns, yet by the time those newborns are teenagers, parents will just about pay someone to take them off their hands.

  18. Petey Kay says:

    That Gavaghan dude is old, old, old. As in, she’s 33 and he looks every bit of 60.

  19. John Thomas says:

    It’s terrible that she set up a private adoption and denied a myriad of jobs that would be created by pushing the child through CPS, lawyers, doctors, judges and adoption agencies. The criminal government hates competition. Luckily, we can add prosecutors, police and defense attorneys to he mix. Yaaay!

    1. Eyebelieve says:

      I agree with you John. I think the government does get too involved in personal affairs. And how can they say that she sold the child when there were no papers giving him legal custody of the child?

      1. freecheese says:

        Eyebelieve: Obviously, you are a brain-dead liberal who needs to change your meds, and get off the weed bag!
        Your comments imply that the government has no business interceding in the case of a welfare mommy selling her kid.
        You are a sick mutt. Get some help.!

      2. Ralph says:

        >you are a brain-dead liberal
        >Your comments imply that the government has no business interceding

        Conservatives are supposed to desire small government.
        Clearly the government has no business intervening when there has been no act of aggression against a victim’s property rights.

  20. Michael R. says:

    Living home with mom and pumping out kids…have you heard of the Bell Shaped Curve?

    1. Eyebelieve says:

      My mom always told me about a cool drug called Nosexatall. It includes taking cold showers.

      1. cole says:

        haha! i’m going to borrow this one…

  21. Paul in FL says:

    So now instead of going to a loving home the baby will end up in an institution awaiting adoption. Ridiculous. Should have let the sale go through. Another tragic example of there really not being free markets in this country.

    1. Dee says:

      I am appalled at your comment. Selling a newborn baby to a man?? you surely are jest? What a disgusting “transaction”. That baby is not a “product to be sold”. A human being who should not be sold or bartered.
      Paul, have you sold any babies lately??

      1. lookeeme says:

        Yeah! Only the state can sell babies! Jerk!

      2. Ralph says:

        >A human being who should not be sold or bartered.

        Agreed. This is about guardianship over a child, not ownership of a child. Each human being is born a self-owner; children cannot be owned. (Although people can be violently enslaved and stuck in a cage which is what the government does if you are caught carrying the wrong kind of plant.)

      3. David says:

        Lets all remember to ask Baby Christian what he would have preferred in 18 years. A one-time transaction in which he has zero knowledge, or almost 2 decades in a crumbling, bizarre, and dangerous foster care system in which he runs a substantial risk of being a victim of sexual crimes and an enormously high propensity towards becoming a criminal.

        The state should only be involved in screening the prospective purchaser of the guardian rights. This story is not nearly so terrible as the writer would have you believe.

    2. Cat says:

      Into human trafficking, Paul?

    3. Mike says:

      How do you know it was a loving home this child was going too? What if it were some baby f’er? You are a clown with the logic of a chimp, stop commenting on thing that are over your head you imbecile.

      1. Ralph says:

        How do you know it was a loving home the child was leaving?
        How do you know the guy wasn’t trying to rescue the child?
        How does the State know it isn’t sending the child to a home full of abusers?

      2. Ernaldo T says:

        Most babies are diddled by FAMILY members, so statistically speaking it would be safer with a total stranger, eh Einstein…….

  22. Montford John Greenwood says:

    What would be the difference between selling the baby to a stranger or giving it to CPS?

    The child would probably be safer with the stranger.

    It’s her kid and if she and her husband/boyfriend needed the money, it’s their kid.

    It’s sad and disgusting but it’s their kid and no crime was committed, as the government does the same if not worse.

    1. zerb says:

      There was a crime committed. It is called child trafficking! You can’t just sell your kid if you need money. Selling people is illegal. My God, you people on this site are scaring me!

      1. Dee says:

        Well said!! It is a criminal act

      2. Ernaldo T says:

        Want a real scare, attend a Democratic convention…..

      3. David says:

        “Trafficking of children is a form of human trafficking. It is defined as the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receiving of children for the purpose of exploitation.”

        Prove to me that the purchaser intended to exploit the child and I’ll agree this is trafficking.

      4. Keith says:

        Abort baby but don’t sell it..that’s a crime!

  23. Charles says:

    good grief…the judge needs to be removed from the bench and be beat….he allowed both of them to bail out of jail….HELLO…am i the only one that sees something wrong here…

    both did a crime but were released with a slap on the wrist….

  24. Ryan says:

    Maybe he wanted to obtain a human child to teach it mathematics?

  25. linda1964 says:


  26. Dee says:

    Why is it always older guys and women 20 years younger in the news? Note to any woman being wooed by an much older man – run!

    1. cm says:

      we’re not ALL bad.

  27. Alex Storm says:

    why was his bail almost 10 times what hers was ? The sad irony is that now the state has taken away the child and will be giving him away to at least a dozen different people and paying them to take him in for the next 18 years.

  28. ek says:

    Abortion is okay but selling the baby is not. Hmmm….

    1. Dee says:

      Though shalt not kill.. pretty basic. Murdering an unborn child is just that murder. Genocide occurs each and every day and for those who are part of it , some day they will have to answer … Sickening to think of the cries of the unborn being killed.

  29. boson Higgs says:

    He should have paid a Lawyer the $15,000.00, then it would have been legal.
    This is why you always need a lawyer.

    1. Jeff Gerard says:

      True. I know a lawyer here in LA that “sells” babies through “private adoptions.” A healthy white newborn costs around $50,000 — more if it’s a boy. Yes, even on the black market boys are worth more than girls.

  30. lukuj says:

    I think selling a child is terrible, but how ironic that if the child had been murdered before birth that would have been perfectly legal. What is worse, killing the child or selling it? I would go with killing it, but that wouldn’t result in an arrest as long as it hadn’t journeyed down the birth control yet.

  31. $15K for a newborn? Cheap for the black market…….


  32. ObamaLied says:

    Oh Delaware…plus being a female…that means there is a high chance she is an Obama Voter.

    1. Jeff Gerard says:

      Please have yourself sterlized for the good of society.

      1. Keefer Beefer says:

        Because he is right?

        You are a idiot wrapped in a moron and it is you that should not procreate.

  33. drink mountain doo says:

    fantasy now here’s reality take a look

  34. HK says:

    If this was just a private adoption type of thing, why would it be a crime? Unless the buyer was intending to murder the kid and use his body fat to make candles for a black mass, I don’t get what’s the big deal. But similarly, I don’t get why they didn’t do the adoption the legal way.

    1. Ralph says:

      >why would it be a crime?

      Because everything not expressly permitted by the State is a crime.
      Didn’t they teach you in the State child concentration camp?

      1. zerb says:

        Is snarking in favor of slavery now the cool way to express libertarian views? Apparently law enforcement preventing trafficking in children is nanny statism now.

      2. Ralph says:

        zerb, I didn’t see anything here about slavery until you mentioned it.

        FWIW I support a child’s right to run away and choose new guardians.

    2. Ralph says:

      Also, freely acting people performing private adoptions would threaten the State’s monopoly over the child guardianship market.

      If there’s one thing organized crime hates, it’s competition.

      1. zerb says:

        Ralph, the reason there are laws against trafficking in children is because buying and selling humans is known as slavery.

        A 4-=week old baby obviously isn’t old enough to choose new guardians.

        I can’t believe things like this have to be explained.

  35. Carolyn says:

    CORRECTION: I can’t understand with all of the birth control on the market today, how a woman, who doesn’t want a child gets herself pregnant anyway!
    If she didnt want the child, why wouldn’t she have just put the child up for a legal adoption…DAH!!!

    1. Laura says:

      cuz she gives the child away- not sells the baby for a quick n cool $15 GRAND-
      that will buy her A LOT of coke- (and not the drink)

  36. Carolyn says:

    I can’t understand with all of the birth control on the market today, how a woman who doesn’t want a child gets herself pregnant!! If she didn’t want the child why would she have just put the child up for a legal adoption…DAH!!!

  37. LINDA says:

    ME TOO!

  38. ck says:

    I am curious as to why a 54 year old man would want an infant son? I hate to say it but I hope the police search that man’s computer to see if he was into something more nefarious. So glad that these two were stopped and the baby is presumably safer.

    1. HK says:

      Or, maybe, he just wanted to have a son. People sometimes become parents unreasonably late in life these days (50+, 60+).

      1. ck says:

        I think you are being very naive. I will bet there is evidence to be found on that guys computer.

    2. Armyof1 says:

      I’m also glad that these two were caught before something REALLY bad happened. I’m equally glad that the little guy is safe and hopefully some caring couple will give him a wonderful, loving home. All babies deserve that. All CHILDREN deserve that. @ hk, this was not a ‘private adoption’. She was “SELLING” her son to this man. There’s a difference.

Comments are closed.

More From CBS Philly

Getaway Guide To Eastern Shore Docking And Dining
Cap'n Mark Getaway

Watch & Listen LIVE