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

So pleased to see this judgement. As a pp said, there will now be a huge push to get the law changed to allow men to “own” the child from conception.

Hope the purchasers can explain to the product (Z) why they bought him and paid for the use of his mother's body and his growth, like the forcing of a cultivated plant bulb with an end result of refusing ANY relationship with his mother. Ban surrogacy now, it's disgusting and no matter how well intentioned, will always damage the baby at birth. Kittens are afforded more care.

Reinforces my view that all surrogacy should be banned. Good job she had got a court order for access rights in the first place and not relied on the couple doing the decent thing

'motherless'. Bloody hell.

This is the original article by Julie Bindel.

thecritic.co.uk/the-love-that-cant-be-erased/

(I know) my fingers slipped mid typing the second part of my message followed that.

It's a real win

This is absolutely ridiculous. The child is presumably going to mix with non LGBT people throughout his life. They can't keep him away from heterosexual people permanently.

These people are demonstrating their total lack of suitability to be parents but then I guess the customer is always right 😡

I hate reading about surrogacy. I feel so sorry for that poor, little baby.

One of the ‘arguments’ they put forward in court was that the child was being raised in an ‘LGBTQ environment’ (I’m paraphrasing) so seeing his mother would confuse him. And so I wonder what their reaction will be should he turn out to be heterosexual, later in life.

Let’s hope that, by then, they’re a little more flexible and accommodating of lifestyles that differ from theirs (the irony is not lost on me).

He's not. He's still with the fathers but the mother is allowed contact.

This whole sorry shit show is so wrong on so many levels.

The woman is the baby's mother. All the dehumanising words like "surrogate" are designed to reduce the woman to a non-human-incubator-machine. It's dystopian and utterly fucked up.

"Babies" should not be bought and sold. It's akin to trafficking. Reducing a human being to a commodity.

It's reprehensible.

*has right to see her child regularly

I'm glad the child is back with their mother

I’m glad you’ve posted about this OP as I saw it and was horrified. She’s the child’s biological mother, no matter how much these shitty ‘parents’ wish to erase her despite it obviously not being in the best interests of the child. Homophobic my arse and to use that as a shield to try and leverage a harmful outcome for your child is despicable.

And in what other situation do we as a society prioritise adult wants at the expense of a child’s needs - that’s the whole premise of surrogacy and you can see it in the behaviour of these terrible parents years after they procured their child.

That poor baby, my god. I’ve not even clicked through and it’s heartbreaking just based on content in this thread

ETA as for how the mother must feel — I can’t even imagine, it’s awful for her too of course. Horrible to contemplate

She doesn't want custody, she's not tried to remove him from the dads or take their place, she just wanted contact and a relationship with him. They offered twice a year supervised by them, she's been given a day a fortnight.

How much access does she have after this ruling? Depending on how these men behave she may have a case of parental alienation eventually... she could end up with the majority of custody if she so wishes and it's obviously her child's best interests, which I don't think is far fetched.

Apparently, she had an agreement in writing that she would have contact with the child, after birth. When she went for her access visit, she was met with a tirade of abuse, threats of violence and having the Police arrest her.

It's staggering that the SS and council supported this vile, nasty pair, knowing full well how they'd behaved. They don't seem like ideal parents to me.

That poor kid. How long before they're turning the child against her so he doesn't want to see her.

Purchasing another human to satisfy your own wants never ends well. I’m glad the biological mother in this case was allowed to maintain a relationship with the child, but god knows what the baby purchaser fathers are saying about her to the kid.

I'm starting to really hate men. So entitled, selfish and no thought to the interests of the child. And how is she a surrogate if she's the biological mother?

IMO surrogacy needs to be illegal. It's buying and selling of human babies. It means removal of a baby immediately at birth from its mother. FFS we treat dogs better than that, puppies are legally required to have at least 8 weeks with their mothers.

Then there's this weird idea that if the egg was donated the woman who gestates and births the baby is not the mother. We're writing women out of motherhood with that one. Pretty sure there's still a very strong bond between the baby and mother in that instance and babies and women suffer terribly when that bond is severed.

'An inappropriate relationship'.🙄

Entitled fuckwits.

From the court papers www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2024/20.html

we felt that [G] was unlikely to be flexible in her approach to contact and harboured desires for an inappropriate relationship with [Z]. However, we hoped, we could make the arrangements work for [Z] and [G] would have more respect for our family and accept her role as [Z's] surrogate'.

Woman, know your place

Very interesting decision. Curious what the legal framework was for her to have won as I thought it’s usually pretty airtight. (Side note I’m against surrogacy on principle for anyone of any sex or sexuality )