Surrogate mother wins access to her biological son in landmark case - after gay couple said it was 'homophobic' for her to be involved in their 'motherless family' with 'no vacancy' for a woman

!!!!!!!!!!
A mother's inappropriate relationship with her child. Having been forced to compromise, the buyers magnanimously hope to make the arrangements work for [Z], while the mother is expected to have more respect for our family and accept her role as [Z's] surrogate.

I have no words to describe their self-entitled arrogance. Nor for the plight of that poor baby.

💷💰££££

Surrogacy. AirBnB for the womb.

If you carry a baby using a donated egg, you are still its mother. I hate this idea that motherless babies can be produced if women are used to gestate donated eggs.

Making parenthood a matter of who pays is utterly wrong.

And always by someone who appears to have landed on it through a search for keywords. Interesting, eh?

Tbh I don't think the mother comes out looking that great. Two men paid her for her baby. The child has three parents that saw him as a transition. I would like to see a ban that includes egg and sperm donor etc . No one has a right to a baby especially when you fuck up your kid in the process.

It is quite timely given that the surrogacy lobby are having another go at the law:

https://post.parliament.uk/approved-work-surrogacy-current-practice-and-proposed-reforms/

I know! There's been a spate of The Undead Thread recently hasn't there?👻
Sometimes it's interesting to look back on discussions from years ago on topics which are now turning up more and more in the mainstream, e.g. single sex spaces, women's sports, etc.

Another old thread resurrected 🧐

Can you give a source for this claim of best outcomes, please?

Surely, also, you are not claiming all male gay couples are narcissistic?

Cates and Bindel discussing an issue that affects all women and children is good to see. I like to see ‘across the aisle’ political alliances on issues that affect women of every political perspective.

Brilliant conversation between Miriam Cates and Julie BIndel about surrogacy here. And guess what - it was JB who first covered this story, published it in the Critic and then it was nicked by the Mail. But another example of JB's sterling journalistic work uncovering this shocking episode.

That’s quite encouraging.

Personally, quite a lot, within certain parameters of acceptable and cautious language. However in the role I have I would definitely be in a position to challenge this decision making and I would do. Thankfully I know my direct line managers aren't captured either, which makes things easier.

Fecking hell. What is actually going on in this world? 😭 as pp said, where is the public outcry when these two men tried to eradicate the mother and claim there was no 'vacancy'. 😡

Heartbreaking for the children; heartbreaking for their mothers.

Glad to hear it. How open do you feel you can be about that though?

We aren't all brainwashed

When Madonna adopted a boy from Malawi his dad didn't understand what he was signing up to - he thought he would in fact have his son back when he was grown up and educated.
Before the early 20th century, legal full adoption didn't exist in the UK. It was brought in to make sure adopted children had full inheritance rights. They still don't have the right to inherit a title, though.

Actually it also makes me really suspicious of Surrogacy companies operating in places like Africa. You wonder if they are being fully honest about what the surrogacy entails etc. Not because the women there are stupid, but because cultural understandings of parent-child bonds and duties are different. And because Western "child procurement" agencies (can't think of a better description) working in those places don't have the best track record.

The Jane Austen system makes sense though, if you see the adoption/fostering as breaking the link between the birth parents and original family. The relatives that adopted them ARE the family, therefore the biological mother and sisters are just relations. (I am not saying he wasn't a twat to act like that).

I know of quite a few sub-saharan African cultures have similar set-ups, where its quite common still for better of (usually but not always) relatives to foster children and give them lots of advantages. The issue there being that even though the child is being brought up by other people they are still the original child of the first parents, with the usual obligations/expectations on them. One of the reasons why international adoptions can cause so many issues is that the original parents are going into it with one set of expectations (and the concept of adoption severing birth ties just doesn't exist in their culture) and the adopting parents going in with their own ideas (adoption severs the ties, the new parents are the parents). Causing confusion and heartbreak and also issues for the adopted children down the line (eg going back to Africa to meet their original family and being expected to buy cars etc for their parents like a good child would and everyone having their feelings hurt).

I know its off topic, but a lot of profit making adoption companies were fully aware of this mis-match - meaning effectively that they knew they were misleading the parents. Now we have profit making surrogacy companies and we expect them to navigate incredibly difficult issues with perfect honesty and sensitvity. Plus ca change.

I agree with the PPs who’ve suggested the social workers need some (re?)training.

But this would have pushed all of the buttons their extensive EDI brainwashing has carefully programmed in… their instinctive distrust of men overridden by the chance to be LGBTQ+ ‘allies.’

They said they were 'made to feel that the baby we had always dreamed of would never be ours' describing an occasion when they had sat on the nursery floor and cried.

Menz hurty feelz trumps well-being of woman and child

In a twist that shocks no one

You are describing adoption, not surrogacy. And in modern adoption it's considered cruel to obscure a child's origins or block contact between child and bio family unless there is a clear risk to the child by allowing it.

@Supersimkin7 That's not surrogacy. The biological mother didn't get pregnant in order to fulfil the child need of her sibling. It's either kinship foster care, or adoption, in today's terminology.

I haven't read the judgement. If it was private law and they paid for legal advice for the fathers and not the mother that would be shocking and outrageous and I can't see how that could have happened. If it was public law (ie care proceedings) then anyone with PR would have legal aid. Maybe it was public law and the dads got legal aid but mum didn't as her PR had been severed. In that case the LA should have at least paid for a session of legal advice for her but not for representation in court. I do wonder if it was private law and the social work team got blinded by the fact that she no longer held PR and failed to do their duty to put the child's welfare first. Regardless of whether she had PR or not some common sense should have been applied.