To be shocked and offended by this judges comments.

[ifgrandmahadawilly]

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!

Just keep thinking about how the little girl would have felt not snuggling up to her mum at night suddenly when that had been her norm.

Yes it's sad that the mother could have avoided all that. By putting her child first and not herself.

When this case comes up I think about the child growing up with a mother who can't put her children first and puts her own needs and wants at the top of the priority list.

How do we know she stayed happily at her dads? Only their word for it. And somehow if she's used to co sleeping being in a room alone suddenly might upset her.

How do we know she stayed happily at her dads? Only their word for it.

And no one has proven them as liars....unlike the mum.

Nowhere along the process have they acted in a way that would make anyone think the child is not their primary concern.

The mother however has been proven to be a liar and selfish.

Just keep thinking about how the little girl would have felt not snuggling up to her mum at night suddenly when that had been her norm.

And that's entirely the mother's fault.

The bottom line is that the judge was upholding the child's right to know both her parents. The dad was up for that, the mother clearly wasn't. If I remember rightly from the earlier thread, it was hoped that supervised contact would in time lead to unsupervised, and more time with the mother. But basically it's up to the mother to show that she can be trusted to co-operate. I guess the judge also was aware of the risk that the mother would abscond or send the baby abroad, as she had done with her previous children. It is desperately sad for the child to be removed from her mother, just awful, but I suppose the courts need to show that you can't get away with flouting court orders through unreasonable behaviour. Nobody involved with this case has criticised extended bf per se (and I was an extended bfer); but this woman seemed prepared to bf till the year 2050 if that's what it took - the bf was a means to an end, and that end was to keep the child's father out of her life. What is also missing from the article is how this case dragged on, and how the mother lost the sympathy of the court by her continued manipulative and dishonest behaviour.

A really hard case, but it's not about surrogacy law. I have a child conceived with a gay friend; he is her dad just as much as if we were in a relationship; and it's unthinkable to me that I would deny him access and resort to homophobia to keep him at bay. These informal arrangements are very tricky and all parties are vulnerable - we had a contract drawn up, but they are not legally binding - everyone has to accept an element of risk. IF the men were expecting her to hand the baby over to them at birth, then they have to accept that she has the right to refuse to do that. IF she was expecting the dad to be just a sperm donor, then she has to accept that he has the right to change his mind and ask for more. The judge has not enforced a surrogacy deal; she has chosen to disregard the father's sexuality as a material factor and treat them the same as any other couple who produce a child.

"M is obviously not in any danger and has a relationship with her mum."

Obviously not in danger...? I would think unnecessary medical tests is very dangerous. Emotional manipulation is dangerous. Keeping a child from contact with another (loving) parent is harmful to emotional wellbeing. Ignoring a court order and taking a child out of the country without permission is dangerous.

Twowrongs, what value do you put on her relationship with her dad? A relationship that her mum was absolutely determined to stop.

Obviously you'd want a child to have a good relationship with both parents. And yes the mother was making things very awkward. She sounded desperate TBH.

From the child's perspective I can only think about how I'd have felt. Parents split when I was very young and I saw dad regularly. I loved him obviously but mum was my security and my world. I'd have hated being with my dad and only seeing mum occasionally.

How do we know she stayed happily at her dads? Only their word for it.

The judge who saw all the written evidence and saw and heard the witnesses - including when they were being cross examined - accepted that the father was telling the truth whilst the mother was caught out in some fairly blatant lying repeatedly. We have no reason to think she got that wrong.

Twowrongs, the mother was only desperate because for some reason she wanted to shut her child's father out of her life. She had countless opportunities to sort out an amicable agreement. Any desperation was self-generated.

But she was 'desperate' from the start, before there was any threat to take the child away. The dad didn't start out asking for custody - he asked for reasonable access, which from the point of birth she was determined to thwart. She was determined that he wasn't going to be any part of the picture, whereas the dad never sought to exclude her from a relationship with the child.

If she was allowed to get away with this, any parent could in effect kidnap the child away from a relationship with their other parent, keep it up for awhile, and then claim that the child was so bonded with them that it would cause them distress to allow access to the other parent. The courts simply can't allow those kinds of tactics to be successful.

My first reaction on hearing of this case was wtf, because taking a child away from its mother is one of the worst things we can think of. But the point is that the mother consistently and over a significant period refused to behave reasonably, even though she was given many warnings and chances. At what point do you step in and say, this has got to stop?

What would you have done, if you were that judge? The mother has subverted previous court orders, has refused to negotiate arrangements, has form for sending her children abroad in order to deny them access to their father. What would you have done?

I think this point needs repeating again and again: she sent her older two children out of the country in order to deny their father access. She was willing to forego THAT maternal relationship, to create that disruption in their lives, in order to win her fight with their father. And now she seemed headed down the same path with this one. Should the judge sit back and let that happen?

She was desperate. Desperate to win regardless of the impact it had on her dd

Good point Devora. Her other DD are in Romania aren't they? Not a great advertisement for her reliability!

Completely misses point

Judges still wear wigs over there? I thought that was just a movie thing.

Two I think they're back now, but living with their father. That's why there's that bit in the judgment though about whether or not M has a Romanian passport.

Yes, it does make you wonder if her dispute with the fathers was more important to her than the children's welfare - or indeed, just being with her children. We can't know that, of course. But she clearly made a very bad impression on the judge.

Really sad case. Poor child.

Really sad case. Poor child.

This. So very sad. I do think the judgment was right, but right or wrong I hope the child has stability and love.

I hope she does too but it must have been traumatic nonetheless. And for that I'm really sad. Even if it does work out for the best in the long run.

It could have been less traumatic if the mother had been less selfish and she would still have unsupervised access to the little girl.

Absolutely. I wonder how things are now for her. Happy I hope.

And yes mother should be paying child support (whatever the DM seem to think) so I hope that gets sorted soon too.

twowrongs "How do we know she stayed happily at her dads? Only their word for it. And somehow if she's used to co sleeping being in a room alone suddenly might upset her."

Paragraph 36 of judgment:

36. In considering the law in respect of the instruction of expert witnesses I am bound by s13 Children and Families Act (CAFA) 2014. Section13 (6) CAFA provides that the court may give permission for such an instruction only if the court decides that the expert evidence is necessary to assist the court to resolve the proceedings justly. The guardian has the experience and expertise of a social worker of many years and had carefully assessed the impact of overnight contact on M and had observed her at her father's home at bedtime; she reported that M is content and settled in her father's home. The guardian was well able to consider M's relationships with S, H and B. The guardian's conclusions and observations did not suggest that there was evidence that M has any difficulties in forming an attachment with any of the parties to this matter; she recognised the bond and attachment between M and her mother. Her concern was that S sought to have an exclusive parental relationship with M and did not give proper regard to the significance to M of other important adults in her life, particularly her father and his partner B. Had I considered that the guardian did not have the necessary experience and expertise to give an opinion on the matter of M's attachment to the significant adult carers in her life (and I did not) I would not turn to an educational psychologist to provide an expert opinion on the attachment an infant in particular or to their carers.

No one wants it to be traumatic for the child.

But the simple fact remains that the mothers behaviour was damaging to her child.

The court can't allow the child to stay just because they co sleep.

And yes I didn't get why the DM was belly aching about her paying child support. Totally ridiculous.