Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

to wonder if people will be as outraged by this judge as by Farage

63 replies

retrorobot · 06/05/2015 01:51

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11583794/Surrogate-mother-launched-hate-campaign-against-babys-gay-father.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3068796/Deceitful-surrogate-mother-carried-baby-wealthy-gay-couple-refused-hand-desperate-child-herself.html

Genetic and birth mother has daughter taken away from her and given to a gay couple, one of whom is the father. There was no surrogacy agreement in place between the mother and the gay couple and the judge found on the balance of probabilities that the mother deliberately misled the gay couple in order to conceive a child for herself rather than changing her mind at a later date.

The mother was criticised for:

Keeping the 15-month-old girl with her 24 hours a day, sleeping in the same bed, being carried around in a sling, and breast-fed on demand day and night. I have two daughters under three and that's only a slightly exaggerated description of their relationship with their mother for the first 15 months after birth.

Using requests to take breaks to express milk to disrupt the other side’s evidence.

The mother was Romanian. Query whether the result would have been the same if the mother was middle class English rather than poor immigrant.

The judge involved does not have children.

OP posts:

ReallyTired · 06/05/2015 08:07

I find the whole thing incredibly sad. There is a cultural dimension and a woman who might not be wealthy or educated or intelligent being expoited. She behaved badly, but she was desperate to keep the child that she had carried for 6 months.

The child does not know his father. There has never been a relationship. I feel the child has nothing to gain going to live with the gay couple.

Collaborate · 06/05/2015 08:13

*I find the whole thing incredibly sad. There is a cultural dimension and a woman who might not be wealthy or educated or intelligent being expoited. She behaved badly, but she was desperate to keep the child that she had carried for 6 months.

The child does not know his father. There has never been a relationship. I feel the child has nothing to gain going to live with the gay couple.*

I'm willing to take a shot in the dark here - not read the judgement have you?

Icimoi · 06/05/2015 08:20

She behaved badly, but she was desperate to keep the child that she had carried for 6 months.

That really does not explain or justify the way she behaved. The reports indicate that she was prepared to lie, to take her child on unneeded medical visits, and to make totally fictional and extremely serious allegations against the child's father. She wasn't being exploited: the indications are that the reverse was the case.

OrangeVase · 06/05/2015 08:27

Did she also take money from the father as expenses - was that part of the agreement?

Very sad for the child of course. Very sad.

What is the UKIP link? Are they connected in any way? I haven't seen any connection anywhere.

ConnortheMonkey · 06/05/2015 08:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

morage · 06/05/2015 08:34

Surrogate arrangements are not legally enforceable in Britain. Which is correct. A woman does not really know how she will feel about giving away her baby until she gives birth.
It is very unusual for a parent who has had no contact, whether their own fault or not, to win custody.

Badgerlady · 06/05/2015 08:36

For those who want to read the actually judgment, rather than the newspaper 'digest' it is here:
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2015/36.html

There is also a good analysis of it on the Suespicious Minds Blog suesspiciousminds.com

Badgerlady · 06/05/2015 08:37

X post with Connor

The father and his partner had had contact with the child. It was limited and frustrated by the mother but it included overnight contact.

morage · 06/05/2015 08:52

I have just read the full judgement. If the mother had complied with earlier court judgements about contact, I am sure the child would have remained with her. The OP does present a very one sided view of the case.

namechange0dq8 · 06/05/2015 09:02

Am I being very thick to ask if being an "antibiotic addict" and getting "[your] own supply of very strong antibiotics from Belgium" is a thing? Since when were antibiotics recreational street drugs?

namechange0dq8 · 06/05/2015 09:08

I've just skimmed the judgement. The woman has two other children, and had engaged in wild accusations against the father and breach of contact arrangements in that case as well. One thing that surprises me is that John Hemming isn't involved.

I note from another blog that there are reporting restrictions on this case. It would, therefore, be a Very Bad Idea Indeed to link to any past MN traffic people think relates to this case. The victim in this case would be a small child who, whatever the rights and wrongs of the behaviour of adults in this case, is entirely innocent of wrong-doing.

PastPerfect · 06/05/2015 09:15

namechange I'm pretty sure the previous thread was deleted since the OP had provided so much info that other posters were able to pull up official documentation relating to the case.

All very sad.

FenellaFellorick · 06/05/2015 09:16

No, it's not, namechange. To the very best of my knowledge, it is not physically possible to become addicted to antibiotics because they simply do not work that way. They aren't a drug that changes the brain in any way or creates dependence.

Antibiotic misuse/abuse is about repeatedly getting antibiotics when they are not needed which can lead to antibiotic resistance, not about being physically dependent.

I am not a doctor, this is just what I read and how I understand it.

Icimoi · 06/05/2015 11:13

The mother was Romanian. Query whether the result would have been the same if the mother was middle class English rather than poor immigrant.

Thinking about it further, I am guessing that it is this which leads OP to make the connection with Farage, i.e. it is suggested that the judge was as racist as Farage. I can't really see it as one or both of the other parties was also Romanian, and there is ample evidence in the law reports demonstrating that the same principles are applied to English parents.

WhetherOrNot · 06/05/2015 11:23

She behaved badly, but she was desperate to keep the child that she had carried for 6 months.

So why didn't she cancel the surrogacy agreement, during pregnancy, instead of carrying on?

Original poster

retrorobot · 06/05/2015 11:26

"So why didn't she cancel the surrogacy agreement, during pregnancy, instead of carrying on?"

The court determined that there was no surrogacy agreement. There was nothing to cancel.

The reference to Farage was re his comments on women breast-feeding in public. I don't think that a mother should be criticised for breast-feeding on demand nor for having to breastfeed during a court case.

OP posts:

WhetherOrNot · 06/05/2015 11:31

She wasn't criticised for breastfeeding during a court case - it was the frequency, and timing, with which she did it - and demanding to be adjourned so she could express milk. You don't need to express milk for a year old child.

MammaTJ · 06/05/2015 11:31

The court determined, from emails, that she had led them to believe that she wanted to be a surrogate for them, rather than have him be a sperm donor for her.

fattymcfatfat · 06/05/2015 11:32

there was no formal agreement but there were emails from the mother to them stating that her intention was to hand the baby over to them that the judge obviously took into consideration. and the BF thing is a non argument. why couldn't the mother express for the father to see the child? she was willing to express during the case.

MrsGentlyBenevolent · 06/05/2015 11:40

As soon as I read the news this morning, I knew someone on here would have the rage about it. I really do not see any UKIP connection, as for the breastfeeding/co-sleeping comments, I believe the judge said they were not essential in the child's welfare to be raised by loving parents.

This type of ruling is highly unusual, as far as I'm concerned the judge must have found significant evidence in favour of the fathers. I can understand if she did not want to carry on a surrogacy, but she has no right keeping the child away from other parents and lying about their lifestyle.

shewept · 06/05/2015 11:43

From what I have read, the judge did believe there was an informal agreement

However that's not why custody was awarded to the father. It was awarded because the judge believed it was the best interests of the child.

Regarding the carrying in a sling etc. She didn't lose custody because of those things. She lost because the judge believed she did those things to create barriers to the biological father having contact, rather than because she felt it was best. The mother also accused them if having sex parties and being addicted to antibiotics .

Simple fact is, the judge believes thus woman does not act in the best interests of her child and so the child was given to the biological father.

Nothing to do with being an immigrant or punishing her for carrying her child in a sling.

The fact that judge does not have kids is not relevant in the slightest.

HumourlessHarpy · 06/05/2015 11:46

OP, you are clearly confused. It is clear from the full judgement that the judge has interpreted a mass of evidence, and the mother's behaviour in court, as suggesting that for her, breast-feeding and co-sleeping, both entirely normal practices in themselves, are here modes of frustrating contact between the child and her father - just as she has repeatedly taken the perfectly healthy baby to hospital and to her GP at times when contact couldn't happen as a result.

I still have no idea what, in your mind, this judgement has to do with Nigel Farage.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 06/05/2015 11:55

OP
You clearly haven't read or haven't understood the judgment. The Judge took the view on the basis of the evidence that the Mother was not prepared to act in the best interests of the child but was instead acting in her own interests. That quite a lot of her parenting behaviour was designed to frustrate the child's relationship with her other biological parent rather than to benefit the child. I really can't see the issue here.

Icimoi · 06/05/2015 11:56

The point about breastfeeding was that the mother had initially limited contact because she claimed to be unable to express. Once the child was able to eat other foods, she apparently became able to express without difficulty. During the court hearing, she asked for adjournments to enable her to express and this appears to have been on the basis that she couldn't wait, but it only happened when the father and his partner were giving evidence; at other times her need to express could apparently be fitted in around the case.

There was no suggestion whatsoever in the judgment that the judge's view is in any way similar to Farage's opinion that breastfeeding women should hide themselves away.

Original poster

retrorobot · 06/05/2015 12:17

There are certain conditions that must be met for surrogacy rules to apply. The court found that they were not met. To the poster who referred to the judge believing that there was an informal agreement, that should not be relevant. The Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 lays down certain requirements to be met. If those requirements aren't met (and they were far from being met in this case) then it doesn't matter what "informal agreement" there was. To the poster who referred to "other parents", there is only one other parent, the father. There was no surrogacy agreement. The father's boyfriend does not have any rights in relation to the child.

The rules governing the relationship between the parents in this case are no different that they are in the case where a man and a woman have a relationship that leads to the woman getting pregnant and having a child.

What the court said in respect of the mother deliberately getting pregnant to have a child even though she did not intend to stick to the arrangements she had with the father is no different from what happens on occasion with straight couples. However, I've never seen that used as the basis for giving custody of a child to the father. Equally, the mother's critical comments about the father's relationship here are no different from a mother's comments about a father's subsequent girlfriend. Again, I've never seen that used as a basis for giving custody of a child to the father.

"It was awarded because the judge believed it was the best interests of the child."

The best interests of the child test is meaningless. It amounts to complete judicial discretion over which parent a child resides with. Logically, it is in the best interests of a child to be taken away from poor unemployed uneducated parents and given to well-off educated parents with significant financial resources to invest in the child.

OP posts:

Flip

1 2 3