Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

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

528 replies

Darcey2105 · 06/05/2015 13:13

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.

OP posts:
Buxhoeveden · 07/05/2015 11:13

Yes. It was ruled that if the child lived with its father it would be able to have contact with both parents. If the child stayed with the mother then it would not have contact with the father.

Supervised contact.

No attempt has been made at a more balanced order.

DuelingFanjo · 07/05/2015 11:14

Sorry - my posting of all those examples of contact was really just to show that people are wrong to suggest that the father was not having contact with the child. Clearly there was large amounts of unsupervised contact taking place so the child would have known her father and felt comfortable with him and he was getting to spend hours with her - just not able to have her overnight. Which at 4 months, 6 month, 9 months is not really that unusual.

shewept · 07/05/2015 11:14

Which clearly is the point where the contact started to go wrong and the mother started to escalate her behaviour through fear that the child would be taken away over-night

And what is the problem with a child staying over night with its father. Her fear is unfounded. She just didn't want the child to stay there. For no other reason than she just didn't want the baby too. The baby is not her possession.

shewept · 07/05/2015 11:17

Yes bux supervised for now...why?

Because the mother has already removed 2 children from the country under similar circumstances and has lied to the court about those children's passports.

What court would allow unsupervised access to a parent who would stoop to that to get their own way?

Devora · 07/05/2015 11:18

The law doesn't recognise three parents, or surrogacy arrangements, so there is no legally binding agreement that could be drawn up for this situation.

A legal agreement is useful, though. It is really useful if expectations change or get misremembered. It forces you to really talk through how you would handle difficult situations (which it is very tempting not to do). And should you end up in court, it shows clearly which of the parties is behaving badly.

It's a really tricky area. But, going forward, the law is going to have to do something in this area. Now that gay people can get married, but still need somebody of the other sex to create a child, some stronger framework is necessary. Right now, the options are to adopt (which is not right for everyone), to have artificial conception through a licensed clinic (which denies the child the right to know their other biological parent), or an informal arrangement (which risks the outcome we see here). It's very complicated, but gay people will start families and we need a better legal framework that recognises that.

shewept · 07/05/2015 11:18

Fanjo by October 2014 the child was over a year old I believe

Buxhoeveden · 07/05/2015 11:18

He is not a "non-bio parent", he is the partner of one of the biological parents and in this case there wasn't even a legal surrogacy or adoption agreement.

Are you saying you think he should have equal rights with the child's father and mother?

Agreed Cactus. He is a step-parent.

But the Judge has gone as far as she can to create the situation that a formal surrogacy contract would have created:- The stepfather has been given PR; The DD's surname has been changed and a forename added; The two men have sole residence; The mother completely sidelined with supervised contact only.....

shewept · 07/05/2015 11:19

No sorry not a year old but 10 months, which I think is entirely reasonable.

Buxhoeveden · 07/05/2015 11:20

shewept

But confirmation that the DD has no Romanian passport was expected from the Romanian Embassy. So that situation was a short term problem.

shewept · 07/05/2015 11:20

bux the surname has been double barreled and I believe a middle name was added.

AuntieStella · 07/05/2015 11:20

"just not able to have her overnight"

That's not quite right. He had a court order for overnights from October, by which time M (9 months) was eating solids and drinking from a bottle, and the mother was able to express.

He was frequently denied this court ordered overnight access, by the actions of the mother (including fabricated illness).

CactusAnnie · 07/05/2015 11:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Buxhoeveden · 07/05/2015 11:23

The law doesn't recognise three parents, or surrogacy arrangements, so there is no legally binding agreement that could be drawn up for this situation.

The Law most certainly does recognise surrogacy, once ratified by a Parental Order.

shewept · 07/05/2015 11:24

But confirmation that the DD has no Romanian passport was expected from the Romanian Embassy. So that situation was a short term problem

But they haven't confirmed it. And the British passport for the child is with the mothers solicitor, what is to stop the mother applying for a new one. Claiming the old one is lost.

She can still remove the child from the country. She has done it before even though it meant she didn't live with the children. She is quite happy to not have her kids with her, as long as the fathers don't.

DuelingFanjo · 07/05/2015 11:25

"And what is the problem with a child staying over night with its father"

it depends on each case I imagine. A 4 month old breast fed baby who doesn't have a bottle probably shouldn't be staying somewhere without it's mother. A nine month old ? maybe not so much but each baby is different.

You can't tell a mother to feed in a certain way - I think that's unfair. Particularly given the various health guidelines out there.

My 4 year old would survive a night on his own with his dad, at 4 months old the only thing that would have made me agree to it would be an emergency of some kind where separation was unavoidable.

Buxhoeveden · 07/05/2015 11:26

But they haven't confirmed it. And the British passport for the child is with the mothers solicitor, what is to stop the mother applying for a new one. Claiming the old one is lost

I should imagine an advance objection has been lodged with the Passport Office.

CactusAnnie · 07/05/2015 11:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Devora · 07/05/2015 11:27

'once ratified by a parental order' - yes, in the same way that non-bio parents can apply for PR. But surrogacy agreements are not binding in law.

DuelingFanjo · 07/05/2015 11:30

"by October 2014 the child was over a year old I believe"

The baby was born on 27th January 2014.

The judge said the baby would have the first overnight on 10th october 2014.
The baby was less than 9 months old. The overnight was 24 hours from 11am to 11am twice a week.

The judge therefore wanted a 8 and a bit month old breastfed baby to spend 24 hours away from her mother and the breast twice a week.

That's just the facts.

Buxhoeveden · 07/05/2015 11:30

once ratified by a parental order' - yes, in the same way that non-bio parents can apply for PR.

It's rather more powerful and binding than that. More akin to adoption.

ArcheryAnnie · 07/05/2015 11:31

How was that not "using" him?

Icimoi that was in response to a post claiming that he wasn't using her. He was not in a relationship with her, wanted a child, did not possess a womb himself, and so "used" her to get a child.

If everything had gone well, this mutual "use" wouldn't be a problem, but it did go wrong. What I am objecting to is all the posters claiming that she used him, but he didn't use her. You can't have it both ways.

DuelingFanjo · 07/05/2015 11:32

"No sorry not a year old but 10 months, which I think is entirely reasonable"

nearer to 8 months I think. 8 months and 2 weeks.

SidandAndyssextoy · 07/05/2015 11:33

I've read this thread thoroughly depressed at so many posters' willingness to ignore the expert judgment. I speak as a co-sleeping, slingwearing breast feeder, but also as the stepmother of two very damaged children who suffered emotional abuse at the hands of their mother. Including unnecessary visits to the GP and hospital, and outrageous, offensive lies and non-stop hostility about their father. The little girl M was already being harmed by the actions of her mother. Her mother had been identified, as my stepchildren's mother was, as unable to put her child's needs first.

Both stepchildren have what seems to be a level of attachment disorder, diagnosed through years of therapeutic intervention which hasn't exactly solved all their problems.

And guess what? If you listened to their mother, or read her accounts on social media, she is a victim of poor legal representation (two sets of fired legal aid lawyers because she didn't like their advice), my husband's expensive lawyers (he bankrupted himself), domestic violence, a biased judge and misunderstanding of her health condition. When she was asked to remove postings that used my husband's real name he was a stalker and a bully, even though she was the one with police warnings for harassment.

So I take a slightly dimmer view of the sanctity of the mother-child relationship, much as it breaks my heart to imagine either of my children going to live elsewhere. But then again I really would not do absolutely anything to stop that happening, if my actions were against their own wellbeing.

Devora · 07/05/2015 11:33
  1. What is wrong with adoption as an option? I assume you haven't adopted yourself? I have, and know that it is not right for everyone. And it is certainly not an answer to the needs of those who really want to parent from the start of conception, which is a completely valid aspiration. (Anyone who thinks it is not should question themselves on why they haven't adopted themselves - no adoptive parent I know would take issue with this.)
  1. How many parents do you think a child should be able to have legally? Please note that I did not say what I think the law should do, only that some change is needed. The reality is that many, many children do in fact have multiple parents, and we need to make sure the legal framework is in the best possible shape to support the stability and clarity that these children need.

The law currently requires that even when the reality of a child's life is that they have three parents, that will not be recognised. So my dp - who is primary carer for our eldest child - cannot legally be her parent unless her father relinquishes his own status as parent. I can't see that that is helpful to any of us.

Buxhoeveden · 07/05/2015 11:37

The reality is that many, many children do in fact have multiple parents, and we need to make sure the legal framework is in the best possible shape to support the stability and clarity that these children need.

In what sense?

Swipe left for the next trending thread