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.

I've read this thread thoroughly depressed at so many posters' willingness to ignore the expert judgment. I absolutely agree with this.

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.

And what's wrong with that?

What really pisses me off is that mn are told they have to be equally hands on to be a decent dad. That they are equally responsible for the child. But they should also accept they are equally as important to the child or have anywhere near as many rights as the mother. They shouldn't rock the boat if the mother is limiting contact, then men who don't rock the boat are told they should have done more.

If we expect men to be equally responsible for a child it has to be equal. Not as an when it suits.

I've read this thread thoroughly depressed at so many posters' willingness to ignore the expert judgment.

The judgement lost credibility by asserting things about BF, slings, SAHMing etc that are patently dubious.

They aren't equally as important

Giving a bio-parents partner PR is seen as an acceptible alternative to adoption (indeed preferable) which totally severs legally the tie of a child to a biological parent.

It is more common for step fathers to be awarded PR these days than advised to adopt the child.

I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't think in this situation adoption is preferable?

What has become clear to me is that the majority of you who think that the decision was wrong don't believe that a non-bio parent can feel as deeply for a child as a bio parent can and that mothers "bond" trumps everyone else's bond regardless of whats considered the best for the child.

bux you think its in the Childs best interest to be in a sling all day? Really?

The judgment was not based on that. You need to read it all in context of the whole judgment.

In what sense, Bux? Well, I think that if there were an option to create a family unit with two resident parents (one non-bio) and a non-resident bio parent, that could have been signed up to by these people and there would have been less room for misinterpretation/misrepresentation of the set-up.

In my own situation, one example of how it would help is if i died suddenly. Obviously, the ideal situation would be for my dp to carry on being primary carer for both our children, continuing our current access arrangements for the father. But if he chose to challenge that, there would be a court battle. Now, I like to think that the odds are strong that a sensible judge would rule in our favour (thanks to the huge social change in attitudes to homosexuality) but it would undoubtedly be less clear-cut and more protracted than if the law recognised her role. That continuing uncertainty and instability would obviously not be good for my children.

"What really pisses me off is that mn are told they have to be equally hands on to be a decent dad. That they are equally responsible for the child. But they should also accept they are equally as important to the child or have anywhere near as many rights as the mother. They shouldn't rock the boat if the mother is limiting contact, then men who don't rock the boat are told they should have done more."

what's so special about night time?

A father can do a million other things for their child but breastfeeding is not a man's biological norm. Them's the breaks. Sorry about that but it really is just biology. In many other cases of relationship breakdown the young breastfed child would stay with the mother and build up to overnights as they are weaned.

Clearly this was what the court repeatedly worked towards and clearly the mother was trying to stop it happening but I think for some of the time her concerns were very valid. Not because I think men can't play an equal part but because i know that men find it very hard to breastfeed.

Well, bux, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

You think that the vast majority of gay families are not 'real' families. I disagree.

cactus I have 1 mother and 2 fathers. my children have gained an extra grandad who has been there for them since they were born, as well as a great grandmother who worships the ground they walk on. my second Dad, or step dad if you prefer has been. there for me and helped me through some difficult times and held my hand and guided me when I needed it. he was a shoulder to cry on when I suffered heartache. how is that not a parent? he does more than my biological Dad ever did for us and accepted my children into his life and would not be happy of someone said he wasn't their grandaddy just because we don't share blood.

Sorry, I meant that for Cactus Annie.

You also said: Devora I haven't adopted, but I have family members who have done and I think it's somewhat unreasonable to expect to "parent from the start of conception". I was responding to you saying, "What is wrong with adoption as an option?". Adoption is a wonderful thing (or has been for me) but it is not right for everyone. Ask your family members; I'm sure they'll agree. And if gay people should parent through adoption, why not heterosexual people? Why didn't you choose it as an option?

CactusAnnie, I have never believed, or claimed, that everyone who disagrees with me is a homophobe. I wouldn't get through the day with that attitude. But I do take umbrage at being told I am pretending to have a 'real' family, that I'm being muddle-headed because I want this so passionately.

Consider the possibility that I do have some intellectual grasp on this, not just emotional. I have spent the last 20 years immersed in the field of gay parenting and equal rights, not just personally but professionally. I am very appreciative of the changing social norms that have allowed me to have my own family, but it is evident to me that - especially since the legalisation of equal civil marriage - that the legal framework will inevitably change over the coming years.

You can keep telling me that my dp is not a proper mother, or you could stop patronising me and we could have a proper conversation about it. Your choice.

Giving a bio-parents partner PR is seen as an acceptible alternative to adoption (indeed preferable) which totally severs legally the tie of a child to a biological parent.

It is more common for step fathers to be awarded PR these days than advised to adopt the child.

Indeed. We operated quite happily with PRAs for more than a decade, only proceeding to adoption as the elder DCs approached adulthood. (Real DF was deceased, so a simpler scenario.)

I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't think in this situation adoption is preferable? confused

It wasn't strictly necessary for the court to either thing, was it? Why (!) are you portraying it as a PR or AO choice? It would have been just as suitable to make no order re the stepfather. The parents could have tackled PR between themselves later, if it proved necessary.

What has become clear to me is that the majority of you who think that the decision was wrong don't believe that a non-bio parent can feel as deeply for a child as a bio parent can and that mothers "bond" trumps everyone else's bond regardless of whats considered the best for the child.

On the contrary, Kew my husband has a fabulous (parental) bond with my elder DC, in no way inferior to any other parents. So I have seen that first hand.

It's rather ill-mannered to make assumptions about posters' inner beliefs, on the tenuous basis that you dislike their posts, isn't it?

Would it be fair to make facile assumptions about what is informing your standpoint? (Or Maryz's or Devora's).

FWIW, I am not 100% sure that 'the decision was wrong', I just have some distinct (and admittedly strongish) reservations, which isn't quite the same.

Devora I think you have misunderstood, I meant, the usual way for someone who isn't a biological parent to be recognised as a biological parent, is to adopt the child in question.

Yes, but that requires that one biological parent gives up their status as parent. Which is obviously not always possible or desirable.

but why shouldn't he have parental rights? let me put it this way, if my mum, (step) dad and youngest brother where involved in a car crash, my mum was unresponsive, my youngest brother needed a life saving operation my (step) dad should be able to sign the consent forms, rather than wait around for my deadbeat bio Dad to get his finger out of his arse and get to the hospital. so I think in some cases, (not all) then PR should be granted to an extra parent.

Dueljng the baby had bottles! The mother expressed (and in fact used expressing to disrupt court proceedings).

Well, bux, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

You think that the vast majority of gay families are not 'real' families. I disagree.

I beg your pardon *Devora?

What I said was that as a starting point, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the Law surely must work on the basis that the two natural parents are the parents.

I'll ask again - how else can the Law possibly operate in cases of dispute, where the adults involved haven't made a legal agreement?

I'm not sure how you've made such a huge leap.

And I'm staggered that what I've said could be at all controversial.

It wasn't strictly necessary for the court to either thing, was it? Why (!) are you portraying it as a PR or AO choice? confused It would have been just as suitable to make no order re the stepfather. The parents could have tackled PR between themselves later, if it proved necessary.

No specific order was made with regards to the step-father it is already built in to the residency order that was awarded.

The Judge specifically comments on the reasons for including the stepfather in that and on his 'parental role' Baroness.

Presumably the order could have been made in favour of the DF and NOT conferred PR on the partner?

My discomfort really is that the whole judgement seems fence-sitting.

Is it recognising a three parent scenario or is settling a dispute between two parents, one of whom has a partner? It reads as mixed.

Which considering how high-profile this is, doesn't really aid clarity as to the Law's approach.

Perhap's Devora is correct and a legal vehicle (template?) for multiple parents is needed.