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.

The important thing is to put the child first-which is what the judge did. A pity the mother didn't do the same and then she wouldn't find herself in her present situation. Had she cooperated they need not have gone to court in the first place.

*... a case which has similar facts to this one, in which the Court of Appeal endorsed the following approach as an impeccable statement of the issues the trial judge had had to decide:

'…the test here is…as between the two competing residential care regimes on offer from the two parents (with their respective spouses) and available for his upbringing which, after considering all aspects of the two options, is the one most likely to deliver the best outcome for him over the course of his childhood and in the end be most beneficial. Put very simply, in which home is he most likely to mature into a happy and balanced adult and to achieve his fullest potential as a human?'*

She certainly does seem to have exhibited some operatic behaviours at points.

However, it also reads as though recreating a de facto surrogacy became an aim of the court.

Changing the child's name is rather shocking to me.

As is citing the mother's likely distress at the judgement as reason for supervised contact.

No, the reason for supervised contact was the very real danger that she would use it to flout court orders again and to try to undermine the court's decision. Her past conduct fully justified that.

How does it read as if they were creating de facto surrogacy? The whole judgment is based fairly and squarely on the best interests of the child, and in that respect follows exactly the lines of judgments in all disputes about custody and access which. And can you seriously say that unnecessary visits to hospital and deliberately revealing the father's sexuality to his family were simply "operatic" rather than abusive and spiteful?

This whole sorry tale should be a warning to people not to enter into such agreements with "friends". I'm sure there are some happy endings, but it's not worth the risk IMO.

This is exactly how I conceived my eldest child. You are right, Lynette, that it is fraught with problems. However, 10-15 years ago the options for wannabe gay parents were much more limited (they're still not great). I shudder when I remember how absolutely desperate I was, and how vulnerable that made me to making really woolly, unsustainable arrangements with unsuitable people. Luckily, I found someone with integrity and we drew up a formal agreement (not legally binding, but incredibly useful). We've had some tricky times since, not least in the hormone fest of early motherhood, and I'm really glad that we had a clear arrangement that everybody stuck to.

This was not a surrogacy arrangement, in my view, but a rather woolly co-parenting arrangement that fell apart due to conflicting/changing expectations of who the primary carer would be. But the judgement was not about surrogacy - it was about the child's welfare. I agree with Mrs DV that none of the parents seem to have engaged brain sufficiently, but the bottom line is the child's welfare is best served by growing up knowing all her parents. The fathers will deliver that; the mother has shown that she will not. Further, the mother has behaved in such a way that the judge believes M's childhood will be dominated by court proceedings, conflict, histrionics and lies.

correct decision. well done judge

OP you should read the judgement which is available online.

I think that in this case, the correct decision made.

However, it also reads as though recreating a de facto surrogacy became an aim of the court.

No it doesn't. It looks like a case of a mother doing all she can to prevent ger child having any sort of relationship with her father. It looks like a case about a mother who has no issues removing her children from the country and being brought up by people other than her parents.

I really hope if a father had previous form for removing children from the country, away from their mother then he wouldn't get more than supervised contact. The guardian and Judge think there is a very real risk she will take this baby out of the country. The mother has a British passport for the child (that the father wasn't aware of) and claims to not have Romanian one. However the judge is wary of believing her as she said the same about ger older daughters, when they did have a romanian passport...then she removed them from the country.

I can't help wonder why the baby has a passport when the court ordered that she was not to leave the country with the baby.

The false accusations she made to the police in respect of the fathers about addiction, porn and child abuse probably didn't help her position much either.

The Daily Wail is bemoaning the fact that they can't interview S, due to court secrecy orders.

The Daily Wail is bemoaning the fact that they can't interview S, due to court secrecy orders

I can bring myself to click on their site, but I am not shocked. Doesn't matter what's best for the child, as long as they get their 'poor earth mother has child ripped away by evil gays' story. That's all they give a shit about

I can't bring myself

Having read up about the case I'm not clear about what makes her an unfit mother except for things she did in response to pressure from the couple and the courts. I can't find anything at all.

She has responded badly and in a misguided way. To my mind the homophobia in an attempt to paint the couple as unsuitable parents is the worst. But this was in response to the couple taking her to court.

It is terrible to go back on a surrogacy agreement. Really terrible. But utterly permissible by law in this country.

And really, if someone wanted to take your baby to live with them, wouldn't you do anything to try to prevent them?

I see a picture of a woman who is utterly terrified that her baby is being taken away from her and is responding accordingly.

As for the pp who quoted the woman trying to control proceedings as evidence that she doesn't have an anxiety disorder - well you don't know much about anxiety do you?

Yetanother, before any of this started the mother took steps to register the birth using the names she chose without naming the father and in direct contravention of the agreement with him. She wasn't just going back on the surrogacy agreement, she was plainly trying to shut the child's father out from her life. That in itself was designed solely to achieve what the mother wanted - she had no regard to her child's right to a father. There was no court action at that stage. What choice did the father have other than to take the matter to court?

Why does the fact that the mother's abusive conduct was allegedly a response to the court proceedings excuse it? She was repeatedly taking her child to hospital with fictitious illnesses, subjecting her to intrusive examinations in an alien environment in order to deny her the right to contact with her father. She was carrying her around in a sling all day: not only would that seriously inhibit her independence and learning opportunities, it would develop a potentially unhealthy reliance and attachment in addition to harming the child's spinal and muscular development.

You do also have to look at the fact that she had been found unfit to have care of her older children in entirely separate proceedings.

And why do you refer yet again to an anxiety disorder? There was no suggestion that that is what the mother had this. She did have legal aid by the end and I am sure if the solicitor thought it was a factor they would have put the relevant evidence before the court.

SHE USED HIM FOR SPERM SO SHE COULD HAVE A CHILD

He was the one used not her!

Being a woman doesn't make you a fucking victim of everything

Because a quick wank into a jam-jar is in every way the equivalent of the physical, emotional, hormonal and life-changing process of carrying a baby to term and giving birth to it.

I could as easily type HE USED HER FOR A WALKING WOMB SO THAT HE COULD HAVE A CHILD.

i find it interesting that people have such black and white views on this

I have huge compassion for both parties, I think the Judge clearly took a dislike to this lady-thats my opinion

I thin that the judgement was way too draconian

Were I the judge, I would have gone for 50:50 custody

This story has haunted me, mainly cos I imagine the mothers pain.

"And really, if someone wanted to take your baby to live with them, wouldn't you do anything to try to prevent them?"

That's what this baby's father did. Because she was denying him access to his child, again and again.

And the fabricated illnesses, plus history of not returning her other DC to their resident parent after contact, and taking them abroad in breach of court order, must all have been extremely concerning.

Well for a father the physical, emotional life changing stuff comes once the child is born..... Just a mere 9 months later.... No time at all in the grand scheme of things. It's not exclusive to a female

Seems she would do almost anything to prevent the father having any contact..... Maybe the judge and all concerned ( there would be a detailed cafcass report) felt she might go too far.... And let's face it, plenty of parents do take their children's lives. Mothers included

ArcheryAnnie, he didn't "use" her, any more than any other man does when he fathers a child. The evidence of the emails was that she fully agreed to this arrangements, and indeed she was fully in agreement with an arrangement whereby she would live in the same house which would have room for her older children also. However, it appears that the reality was that she never intended the father to have a part in his child's life and she regarded him solely as a sperm donor.

not just the views but the analyses are a bit all or nothing, Fromparis. People are talking as though the child was taken from the mother because her breastfeeding etc made her an unfit mother. What made her an unfit mother was her refusal to allow her child a relationship with her fathers.

It comes down to this: if the fathers have custody, the child has a fighting chance of sustaining a relationship with all her parents (if the mother co-operates with the access arrangements, and hopefully in time will be allowed more and unsupervised access. I really hope this happens).

If the mother has custody, the child has no chance of a relationship with her fathers.

Courts give high value to children's rights to a relationship with all their parents. And a dim view of parents who obstruct this. This ruling at least allows for the possibility that all the adults involved will work to improve a shitty situation.

I think it does have to be borne heavily in mind that this was not just the view of the judge. The arrangement for the father to have custody was fully supported by the child's guardian, who was neutral and who had every opportunity to investigate the facts and talk to the parents before the hearing. It was actually the guardian who recommended a supervised access arrangement because she was so concerned that the mother would continue to abuse the child emotionally.

he didn't "use" her, any more than any other man does when he fathers a child

And yet so many people are insisting that she used him.