Talk

Advanced search

To be shocked and offended by this judges comments.

(119 Posts)
ifgrandmahadawilly Sat 14-Nov-15 10:49:09

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3317909/The-chilling-details-judgment-ordered-mother-hand-baby-gay-couple-gagging-order-prevented-telling-story.html

I just read this article in the daily mail about a judge who ordered immediate removal of a 15 month old breastfeeding toddler from its mother.

The judge criticised the mother for bedsharing and using a sling to carry and breastfeed the child in. She actually thinks that this level of attachent will be detrimental to the child!

Now obviously we don't have all of the details of this case and I'm not saying that the judge was wrong to move the child because we only have one side of the story. BUT the judge has made some shockingly ignorant comments which may affect precedent for future cases!

Is it too much to ask that family court judges, people who are making decisions which are supposed to be about protecting the child's best interests, actually have some idea what children need? Maybe some training in child development?

The bit about the toddler being young, so will soon get o er being suddenly seperates from her primary caregiver were bonkers too. This woman has no idea!

ifgrandmahadawilly Sat 14-Nov-15 10:49:45

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3317909/The-chilling-details-judgment-ordered-mother-hand-baby-gay-couple-gagging-order-prevented-telling-story.html

laffymeal Sat 14-Nov-15 10:53:08

I'm sorry I couldn't get past the headline and first paragraph which is so relentlessly gay and feminist bashing. I really can't be bothered reading the rest of it as it's so biased and partisan against anyone who isn't straight or not a feminist. Yeuch.

Shirtsleeves Sat 14-Nov-15 10:53:12

YABU because the DM love to denigrate feminists and the family courts, so I'd take most of this with a pinch of salt.

AnchorDownDeepBreath Sat 14-Nov-15 10:54:18

There was a lot more to this than the Daily Mail have cared to summarise. If you read the court rulings, it is clear that the woman did attempt to create a suffocatingly close bond, to prevent anyone else from getting access. It was not normal sling wearing or breastfeeding, she purposefully created an absolute dependency between the child, the sling ad the mum. In doing so, she prevented the child from achieving the feeling of security required to explore the world and learn.

There was a great deal of evidence supporting this, it's not a case of not understanding attachment at all.

ifgrandmahadawilly Sat 14-Nov-15 10:54:33

Also, apologies in advance for posting an article by some sexist moron at the daily mail.

Tabsicle Sat 14-Nov-15 11:32:03

"The men are now seeking child maintenance from Rosanna, even though she has seen her daughter for only 21 hours since Ms Russell’s gagging order seven months ago."

Well, yes. Because child maintenance is for the child. It isn't what the NRP pays in return for getting the time with the child they want.

That whole article was super creepy, borderline homophobic and really foul when talking about the judge. Sneering that she didn't go to Oxbridge and likes to be called 'ms'? I flat out don't believe a word of that article and think the mud she is throwing at her poor daughter's dads pretty much explains why the gagging order was imposed in the first place.

caroldecker Sat 14-Nov-15 11:54:19

Whole thread here with a lot more detail about why the mum is a loon lost custody.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Enjolrass Sat 14-Nov-15 12:03:58

Yabu there was more to this story.

The sling and breast feeding was brought because the mother was using them as an excuse not to allow the father the have access. Which is backed up by her other behaviour.

She baptised the child even though the court had told her not to until the case was over.

She had custody of her first 2 children removed as she sent them to her home country to live (while she stayed here) when her marriage broke down, without her husbands permission. She purposely deprived her ex husband of access to his kids.

The story in the DM as usual is missing most of the facts.

Alisvolatpropiis Sat 14-Nov-15 12:06:23

Yabu for not considering that there might be more to this story, which of course there is.

FireflyGirl Sat 14-Nov-15 12:08:22

I hadn't seen the earlier thread, but even reading the mum's version of events, part of me went hmm It just doesn't add up.

The article is a load of tripe - it's just an interview, there's been no effort to follow it up by citing the judgment other than an excerpt that is quite obviously taken out of context.

Oh, and in case you missed it the previous times they mentioned it, the Judge is unmarried and has no children.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WeAreEternal Sat 14-Nov-15 12:13:40

That whole article is ridiculous.
If you read the unbiased and factual court ruling you will see that the mother set out to deceive the fathers from day one, she offered to be a surrogate and lied about everything. Her intention was always to keep the baby for herself, as she states in this article, however, she lead the father and his partner to believe that she was having the baby for them and would hand it over when it was born.
There was email and text messages to prove this I believe.

She intentionally hid when the child was born and registed the birth without telling them and in order to ensure that she could not be separated for the child even for contact she did everything she could to make it so that the child was completely dependant upon her and attached to her 24/7.

The ruling was 100% the right decision for the child.

Tabsicle Sat 14-Nov-15 12:17:16

suesspiciousminds.com/2015/05/05/breastfeeding-mother-versus-gay-couple/

This is also a very good breakdown of the judgement which makes everything think the judge was bang on the money and the mother is continuing to be a total nightmare. My sympathy is completely with the dads.

ThumbWitchesAbroad Sat 14-Nov-15 12:26:16

I remember this story of old - where the facts of the case were very much in doubt and it seemed to be a surrogacy case gone wrong. So this puff piece from the DM is very very one-sided and not telling the whole story at all.

BoneyBackJefferson Sat 14-Nov-15 13:24:47

YABVU

Aeroflotgirl Sat 14-Nov-15 13:38:19

Here is another non DM article about it, that I found

globalwomenstrike.net/content/object-sexist-ruling-separating-baby-mother-and-gagging-order

The baby was most probably the result of a surrogacy arrangement between the three. The judges decision is awful, that woman has been the baby primary caregiver for 15 months, and then the baby is taken away from her mother, never to have contact again, is just so wrong on so many levels. Read Bowlbys attachment theory. This is possibly going to be damaging to the child in the long run. The judge does not care, they two men are wealthy and have the best legal representation, whereby, the woman does not! Its a loosing battle for the mother.

Aeroflotgirl Sat 14-Nov-15 13:40:38

the transfer of the little girl to the fathers, should have been done gradually, to ease things for the girl. Yes I agree, the mother should not be breastfeeding a toddler on demand like that, mabey she was trying to hamper contact, but the child needs to be put at the centre, and just suddenly removing them from the caregiver like that is detrimental I am sure.

CookieDoughKid Sat 14-Nov-15 13:44:43

Have you actually read the court details other than what you read in the daily mail?!!

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

VestalVirgin Sat 14-Nov-15 13:58:57

Isn't it legal for a woman who volunteered as surrogate mother to change her mind? Giving birth is a very emotional experience, and many mothers who wanted to give up their children for adoption realize that they can't cope with it when the child is there.

Maybe that's one of the reasons why surrogacy isn't legal where I live.

Aeroflotgirl Sat 14-Nov-15 14:06:23

needs if you would care to provide a link, as I could not find much on Google. From whT I read, the toddler was well looked after and not in any harm.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now