Baby girl taken from mother to live with dad and his boyfriend

[Darcey2105]

I'm horrified!! Have you seen this story this morning?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32603514

A baby girl was taken from her mother and is now in sole custody of the dad and his boyfriend. The reason being that he said the baby was conceived to be their surrogate child. but she says he agreed to be her sperm donor so she could have the baby.

What is going on? Surely even if the mother had changed her mind about surrogacy she could still be allowed to keep her own baby. I am totally appalled. The men had a top female lawyer fighting their case. And it looks like it was a woman judge who ruled it was in the baby's best interest to live with the dad and his boyfriend - even though the baby was still breastfeding!!

how can there be so little support of mothers? Please tell me I hallucinated the whole awful story.

Buxhoeveden, what you said was "OF COURSE babies need a mother". You didn't qualify that statement in any way, and it was therefore reasonable to read it as indicating that all babies need a mother no matter how useless she may be - particularly in the context of this thread and your post as a whole. Of course the lack of a good mother is damaging. However, there is an absolute mass of evidence cited in that judgment indicating that this was not a good mother.

You suggest that the judge made "utterly idiotic" remarks about the use of slings. Do you really think it's in the interests of a 15 month old to be carried around in a sling all day? Other considerations apart, what does that do to the child's spine and the development of her leg muscles? The judge acknowledged the benefits of breastfeeding, but was pointing out that this mother was using the fact that she was breastfeeding principally as a reason to prevent the child from seeing her father, not because the child actually needed it.

Perhaps she was panicky and hormonal and mistrustful because of HIS lies and U turns and litigousness.

What lies? He was only litigious because, having agreed to an arrangement which she knew was incredibly important to him, she backed out of it on birth and started doing her utmost to prevent him from seeing his child, to the extent of taking actions that harmed the child. Is it wrong to resort to the law in that situation rather than rolling over and leaving your child in danger? And what U turns? The father's position seems to have been consistent throughout.

Perhaps the awfulness of her previous relationship and custody battle are precisely what made her seek an amicable coparenting arrangement in which to have her last DC.

But that was what she was offered. And, even once it went to court, the father was offering her much more contact than she eventually ended up with. She simply wasn't prepared to put her child's needs above hers.

So it was actually manufactured illness? Not anxiety?

There are an awful lot of other issues.

The mother tried to make it about 'baby pulled from the mothers breast' and breast feeding & cosleeping... Because it's sensationalist and sympathy generating.

But it wasnt about that, beyond one paragraph in a multi page summary.

Oh yeah just give a breastfed 15 month old a bottle. Ffs.

maroonedwithfour, I take it that you also haven't read the judgment. If you had, you would know that this child was regularly bottle fed. She had started having overnight contact where she is recorded as being perfectly happy. And, of course, the mother deliberately interrupted the proceedings during the evidence of the father and his partner in order to express milk.

It is horrifying. Handmaiden's tale. You are rightly shocked. Surrogacy is an appalling practice and could only exist in a society where women were second class citizens. I actually think it's a worse use of a woman's body than prostitution because the risk of death to the woman is quite high in both instances but there's some deeper evil to surrogacy than to prostitution. A palpable evil to say: I will use your body to produce something that I want but nature did not allow me to have. I can do this because society is organized so that I have more social and financial power than you. I will exploit you.

At least us women who keep our babies weigh up the risk and decide that yes, potential death is worth the risk of having a child. (Anyone caring to dispute potential death: please read up on maternal death rates in developed countries).

She quite rightly did not willingly concede access of her children to a piece of shit who used her body to his own ends.

"Oh yeah just give a breastfed 15 month old a bottle. Ffs."

Um, like has been happening in parallel for about 8 months now, you mean?

Having read the full judgement I think it was the right decision.

Or judgment even.

Look, I'm the first to point out when women get handed crap to them as a result of institutionalised sexism. This just happens to be an example of a father genuinely being a better carer for this particular child in these particular circumstances.

Your comment, Buxhoeveden about whether the Judge has children and if not, why not, is more sexist than anything the Judge said. Women get judged whatever the hell they do. This particular mother got judged because she failed her child according to numerous people. My form of feminism doesn't let me prioritise the acts of one particular woman acting unfairly over the needs of a baby girl to have a life free of conflict and upheaval.

This is woman who despite claiming not to know the father's partner or want him involved, insisted that a DNA test was performed because she didn't know which one of them was the father ? This is a woman who has years of extended court action with her other children - that's not helpful and the Judge saw this case as going the same way.

Let's hope that sanity prevails and that this family finds the stability it needs.

Im sure if she suffered from anxiety disorder she would have used that in her case

Now THAT kind of thing is what makes me uneasy. What kind of budget do you imagine she had for legals? And psychological reports? Nothing, I'll wager.

I've lapsed back to skim-reading two tabs at once, now, though

Sounds to me from reading the judgement,the judge absolutely made the right decision

wow! never heard the argument of surrogacy being evil! I thought that women entered into such an agreement knowing the risks, just as the parents know the risk of the surrogate changing her mind. I also thought that it took a wonderful person to want to bring such happiness to a couple that have been denied that themselves for whatever reason. honestly!

anyway this was a straight forward case of biological father wanting to see his child. judge ruled that he was the more competent of the two, quite rightly if anyone bothers to read the judgement, end of.

Your comment, Buxhoeveden about whether the Judge has children and if not, why not, is more sexist than anything the Judge said.

I made no such remark.

And what I actually DID say was not capable of a sexist interpretation. Other than by a victorian or a fool

Thanks for the insult. I see you've thrown insults at other posters so it's nice to know I'm not being singled out.