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

"They would have got involved because the court ordered them to. If a private court application is heard by a court and the court has safeguarding concerns they will order the local authority to carry out a section 27 assessment. They wouldn't have got involved voluntarily."
@GuestFeatu was it not the case that the local authority supported the fathers and paid their legal costs? Because if that's the case, I do think they should be answering for this

The dads do not come off well at all. They tried to paint her as unreasonable and said she was mentally ill, and denied how they'd treated her right up until they realised there was a recording of it. It certainly looks like they were trying to set her up to fail in order to get what they wanted ( no contact for her).

For a judge to call something horrendous is really strong language, they usually say 'surprised' to mean wtf or 'unusual' to mean batshit. It must have been really bad.

It happened loads, see Jane Austen. Childless couples adopted excess children (usually boys) from their poor relations. Excess children were plentiful, for slightly unattractive reasons.

The deal was that the child’s rights and their responsibilities were completely transferred to the better off couple and their setup - bio parents were acknowledged as birth parents only.

Worked really well, as it happens BUT with a notable exception in JA’s own family. Her elder brother was adopted by properly rich relations and when his mother and younger sisters inc JA fell into true poverty he did sweet FA to ease their homelessness. One of the reasons she died at 36, that.

I don't think "sister carrying for sister" has existed but "bringing up a child if you have too few and a sibling has too many" has existed.
I don't think this can be termed surrogacy, it's kinship foster care if anything.

What do you mean ‘sister carrying for sister’ has always existed? Do you mean since the dawn of time or the past 25 years? Since, unless the sister slept with her sister’s husband, I doubt this could have happened pre IVF 🤔

My take on this is that the mother was told she'd be part of the baby's life and treated as a mother but this was a total lie on the part of the dads.
In that situation, and given that she knew the couple and we are in the UK where "payment" is supposed to be limited to expenses, but the mother was a not very well off single mother, I don't think she'd have agreed if she wasn't being paid but I ALSO think she wouldn't have agreed if she thought she wouldn't be an actual mother.

In this case the "surrogate" is actually the biological mother, too. The child was conceived with her egg and sperm from one of the dads.

I think SS got involved cos the Dads called the police when DM turned up
to visit and Dads had cancelled it without her knowing. Row broke out which backfired as the police (then judge) heard Dads abusing DM.
Yes, she recorded them without them knowing. It must have been pretty bad, the judge described it as "horrendous" and sounded aghast. There seems to be quite a gap between how the dads wanted to portray themselves to the authorities and how they treated the mother.

I honestly think her understanding of surrogacy is only a small part of the problem here. The dads' ideology, trying to erase the idea of a mother and the very real, physical reality of her was the real issue here. They had reneged on previous agreements and the judge and the psychologist seemed to think they would do the same in future. Remember that a previous surrogacy attempt fell through - you have to wonder why.

plus the utter failure of the local authority to put the child's interest at the center of what they do.

How much money did the mother receive?

I think SS got involved cos the Dads called the police when DM turned up
to visit and Dads had cancelled it without her knowing. Row broke out which backfired as the police (then judge) heard Dads abusing DM.

Both sides were petrified the other side wanted to steal ‘their’ baby. DM with reason, Dads cos they didn’t want her around given DS had two parents.

But double dad isn’t origins, which is why DM, psych and the judge had to enforce DM’s parental responsibility. Origins matter to children, which DM alone had been battling to maintain.

The core issue is that the Dads’ wishes are contrary to the most fundamental wellbeing of their son. In court those wishes translated as trying to erase DM from DS’s life and replace her with a stepdad, which is what 2dads and SS were after.

DM fought back, alone representing the rights of DS and her parental responsibility to those rights.

The council’s child social workers were deranged given they’ve been trained in how damaging it is to wipe out a child’s background.

To erase one parent deliberately, when that mother is alive, has legal rights to
the child and wants contact…how low can you go.

SW behaviour really doesn’t get any more abusive: parental alienation is a crime in the same set of courts, as it happens.

SW aggravated the fight no end by representing the Dads’ wishes, not the child whose rights and wellbeing they’re paid to enforce. Retraining please.

The threshold for removal from the child's home is incredibly high (for good reason) and excluding the other parent would rarely approach the threshold.

They would have got involved because the court ordered them to. If a private court application is heard by a court and the court has safeguarding concerns they will order the local authority to carry out a section 27 assessment. They wouldn't have got involved voluntarily.

Awful entitled men.

The problem with this case is that the mother obviously either didn't understand what it really was going to be like as a surrogate, was sold a lie by the "commissioning" couple and generally was not prepared for the emotional rollercoaster that surrogacy is.

I like others do not know what was said to her to get her to agree to be a surrogate! My guessing is that she truly believed she would be part of the child's life.

All of this shows why commercial and semi commercial surrogacy should be banned and except in very limited circumstances should any surrogacy be allowed, that is truly altruistic surrogacy which quite frankly has always existed eg sister carrying for sister.

So sad for the child caught up in this.

I have no issues with 2 men raising a child but they shouldn't be able to buy one - adopt one of the many needing homes. I know three male gay couples who have adopted very successfully, make amazing parents and one couple have deliberately adopted children with extensive medical conditions and sn's who they have made a huge difference to their life chances

I am a bit shocked these 2 men were permitted to care for this baby- they are so clearly unable to put the child first. It's cruel. It also reflects poorly on the social workers who are failing to safeguard children where parents are LGBT.

UK is a signatory to the UN Rights of the Child, which outlines how important it is children know who their mother is.
It's why programmes like 'Long Lost family' as so popular- humans have a longing to know their true parentage.

www.unicef.org.uk/what-we-do/un-convention-child-rights/

You're right, she was initially given fortnightly, which the dads then stopped, then indirect contact only, and the latest judgement gave her direct contact 4 times a year and indirect twice a year.

1. Turning to the issue of frequency of contact I agree with Dr Willemsen that direct contact twice a year and indirect contact at the same frequency is unlikely to meet Z's identity needs. I consider that direct contact on four occasions a year, to include any birthday or Christmas contact, strikes the right welfare balance between meeting Z's welfare needs to have lived experience of G, be able to effectively maintain that relationship and not to interfere too much in the day to day life of X, Y and Z. In addition, there should be two periods of indirect contact

Glad she took them to court and this is a good result in the interest of the child (though what an awful start life for the baby) and this child will be so upset when he discovers his dads intentions.

@BooToYouHalloween I know it's the Fail but click on the article and the legal situation becomes clearer. They signed an order giving her contact and then reneged on it.

Soon afterwards she signed a parental order handing responsibility for the child to the men along with a second order ensuring that she could have regular contact with the child, who lived permanently with his dads.

Surrogacy is sold as an amazing selfless act, that the woman is giving an amazing gift to a family who will be forever grateful.

As I understand it the dads are close friends of her sister, and are godparents to the sister's child. It seems like she agreed to help after a commercial surrogacy plan they previously had fell through. I can see how she could see this lovely couple who desperately wanted a baby and had had their hopes dashed, and naïvely wanted to help them achieve their dream. Female socialisation to help and give and be selfless can be strong. And she was promised whatever she asked, until the dads felt she got 'uppity' and started moving the goalposts.

Totally agree

She never tried to take the baby back, she accepts the two dads as his dads, she just wanted contact, to be part of his extended family and for him to know who she was. Which the dads agreed to beforehand, then went back on and wanted her to 'accept her place as the surrogate'.

What about you, do you understand reproduction and how babies develop?

Clearly the 'mother' didn't understand surrogacy, why agree to this and want to stay in contact? how is this explained to a child?
All horrible thoughtless people

I think it's time the local authority was held to account for how they are spending public money - why are they getting involved in what is essentially a dispute between parents? I know the answer of course - because in the pecking order of importance, women aren't even on the list. We can have rights, so long as they aren't in conflict with anything a man wants!

Women are totally shorting themselves n the foot in agreeing to these arrangements though - I get why a woman might do this for her sister or a very close friend, but not for strangers, who essentially view her as a walking womb.

What kind of 'mother' has a baby for money and hands it over to two men? Not a very good one (even if she wanted contact after birth). All three of the adults in this shit show are repulsive.

Not the least bit surprised at this. Depressed, but not surprised. It is an up to date version of bygone days. When the Bros were at the top and beneficiaries who policed women. Engaged in, and cover uppers of abuses against women and girls. Where the previous handmaidens went along with locking women and girls up in Magdalen laundries and mother and baby homes. Also a State that turned a blind eye to the trafficking of children’s and babies, and the alteration and falsification of official documents.

Only cosmetic changes. Same old, same old.

I find it incredible that the Gardaí returned ‘escaped’ women to the Laundries where they were effectively kept prisoner. Women who had committed no crime whatsoever. Run by previous Bros, and women who prioritised them. The current Bros are also masquerading as being the good boys (and ‘good’ girls who prioritise what benefits the boys).