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.

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

I said the majority if you choose to include yourself in that majority I can't stop you.

People have repeatedly expressed horror that a biological mother should be separated from her baby. There is very little discussion of the horror of both the biological father and his partner - you can't say there has.

People really don't think its comparable. Yes I get that people empathise more with the mother because they are biological mothers themselves but what I take out of that is they really don't think all bonds are equal.

And you can make all the facile assumptions you like about me.

For someone who is not 100% sure the decision is wrong you give a very good impression of it - I can only judge based on what you say not what you don't say.

but my Dad won't give up responsibility. he refuses point blank as he is our Dad by law. and because of the law he's right. he doesn't want us but won't let anyone else have us either. so why can't my stepdad be legally classed as another parent, in which case, we would legally have 3 parents.

And you can make all the facile assumptions you like about me.

I wouldn't dream of it. This thread is quite thick enough with assumptions.

For someone who is not 100% sure the decision is wrong you give a very good impression of it - I can only judge based on what you say not what you don't say.

I've said repeatedly what I am uneasy about. If you don't want to read what I've actually said, I can't make you.

Sorry Bux, see my post of 11.50 - I mixed you up with CactusAnnie!

Oh, that explains it

No problem Devora

I shall make Child Arrangement orders in the following terms; M shall live with H and B, by virtue of this order both will have parental responsibility

Bux what I meant was the because M is living with her father H who is cohabiting with B the child arrangement order already sets out that both have PR it is not something the judge has awarded separately it is already built into child arrangement orders quite near the start the judge states that is the order is for the child to live with them it will automatically confer pr on B

A child arrangements order that M should live with both Applicants would confer parental responsibility for M on B pursuant to s12 (2) CA 1989

what's so special about night time?

You need to answer that yourself. Why are they so special to the mother, but not the father? Personally I think nighttime are special for both parents

You will note that the mother did express and give the baby bottles and she had allowed other long visits.

What you are forgetting, is that this woman has done all this before. She drags things out and then removes the children from the country.

Nothing shows she is a victim or suffering from anxiety.

Fathers are either equal or not. It can't be all ways. The fact that you are so willfully ignore the huge manipulation of the court, nhs and legal resources suggests that Mothers and fathers are not equal.

People have repeatedly expressed horror that a biological mother should be separated from her baby. There is very little discussion of the horror of both the biological father and his partner - you can't say there has.

People really don't think its comparable. Yes I get that people empathise more with the mother because they are biological mothers themselves but what I take out of that is they really don't think all bonds are equal.

The uncomfortable reality Kew is that the relationship between a BFing mother and baby is a deeply biological, pheremone-drenched, nourishing, highly attuned thing. It takes quite a bit of intense and deliberate bonding to replicate. (I watched a few years ago as a friend became a parent by adoption to a toddler, and the 'funnelling' regime she followed was incredibly intense, and - it seems- very effective).

So, no - it shouldn't be entirely ruptured lightly, or even with moderate gravity for the sake of the child UNLESS ^actual harm is being visited on the child.

The paternal bond is just as close and valuable (but of a different texture) and shouldn't be completely ruptured either.

I can't help wondering why a shared care order wasn't made with stern warning to the DM to pull herself together and then the whole thing revisited circa 2nd b'day.

If at that point the mother was still being overly reactive and hadn't adapted to shared care, then maybe a transfer of residence would have made more sense. More importantly, the ittle girl would have expereinced a transitional phase of two homes and thus the trauma would have been less.

I can't help wondering why a shared care order wasn't made with stern warning to the DM to pull herself together and then the whole thing revisited circa 2nd b'day.

Because there is a very real risk that she will abduct the child and go to Romania. Because that's what happened last time.

So it all comes down to the speed of the Romanian Embassy's response?

The mother completely sidelined with supervised contact only.....

But she isn't completely sidelined, Bux. For the moment, that is what she has, for reasons which are amply explained. It's been made very clear that if she demonstrates that she can be trusted with the child, and specifically that she won't continue to try to undermine her relationship with her father and that there is no danger of an attempt to abduct her, that can increase. And if she'd been prepared to recognise her child's right to relationship with her father, the father was prepared to agree to her having much, much more contact than that.

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

It doesn't assert that at all. What is says is that the mother was using all of that not in the baby's interest but in her own, in order to prevent the father having contact. It is worth noting that daytime contact doesn't seem to have happened till it was ordered by the court, and even then the mother disobeyed the order. On any interpretation keeping a child tied to you all day in a sling is potentially harmful to the child. Remember that was also the view of the neutral guardian.

But she isn't completely sidelined, Bux. For the moment, that is what she has, for reasons which are amply explained. It's been made very clear that if she demonstrates that she can be trusted with the child, and specifically that she won't continue to try to undermine her relationship with her father and that there is no danger of an attempt to abduct her, that can increase. And if she'd been prepared to recognise her child's right to relationship with her father, the father was prepared to agree to her having much, much more contact than that.

I'm sure that rationale will be a great solace to the bereft 15 month old.

"Why are they so special to the mother, but not the father? Personally I think nighttime are special for both parents"

Yes, but at such a young age nighttime feeds are are important than overnight stays.

I can't help wondering why a shared care order wasn't made with stern warning to the DM to pull herself together and then the whole thing revisited circa 2nd b'day.

Probably because the mother had shown herself as being repeatedly willing to break court orders, and not only in relation to this child. Hence also the initial supervised contact arrangement.

IMO once a month supervised contact is an awful situation for both the mother and the child. Hopefully this will be increased. It seems very unfair that a judge would go from granting a father six hourly unsupervised visits several times a week and two overnights to only allowing the mother to see her child once a month.

However - the Judge has said

"Moreover it is intended that a regime of supervised contact should not continue for long but that once M is settled and living with the Applicants the parties will be able to reach their own agreement and arrangements over contact which was always the intention of H and B and so that M can spend time with S in a relaxed environment including in S's home."

I sincerely hope they come to a more suitable arrangement for the sake of the child.

Bux, if the 15 month old is bereft, unfortunately that is the mother's fault. But is it necessarily worse for her than being in a completely smothering relationship where her mother never allows her to leave her side day after day? And it's not as if it's going to be a complete change for her as she's been seeing her father for long periods at a time including overnight visits twice a week.

Again, I have to point out that the guardian, who knew much more about the family than you or I do, and who would have been exploring the situation over a period of several months, took the view that that was what was in the child's best interests and the least damaging of the options available. The judge, with the benefit of all the evidence including long periods of seeing the parties in court and in the witness box, also believed that to be the case. I really don't see how you think you know better.

Yes, but at such a young age nighttime feeds are are important than overnight stays.

At 15 months? A child that age doesn't need nighttime feeds apart from one before she goes to sleep, and if she does she would be fine taking them from the bottle which she was perfectly used to using.

RE the contact... the judge said this about how the contact with the mother should be managed...

"It should not be so frequent as to lead to any confusion in the child's mind about where and with whom she lives and who are her main carers; nor should it be so infrequent as to lead to distress or anxiety. M is very young and will settle quickly; the role of S will be more peripheral than it has been in the past and its importance and frequency for M will be dependent on its quality; the purpose of time spent with S is to assist M's security, sense of identity and to enhance a settled existence for her. There will be an order setting out the time M is to spend with S (s11C (1) (iii) CA) and it would be prudent to have a Monitoring Order pursuant to s 11H."

Clearly the Judge believes that the main carers should be the father and his boyfriend, she has given the boyfriend parental responsibility.

This is what I find hard to understand, because as a mother it would be the very worst thing to happen to me and I would have serious worries about how my child would cope with completely new main carers and only seeing me once a month. That's why people feel sad about it I think.

I've just read the case notes and the mother seems absolutely bonkers.

The judge has made absolutely the right decision in this case.

"At 15 months? "

This isn't about 15 months, this is about the whole proceedings and earlier requests by the father for overnight stays. I am trying to discuss why, overall, I think the mother behaved as she did. She was scared very soon after the birth that the father would take the baby away, she was then put in a position where people had to come to court and explain why taking a breastfed baby away from her mother at a younger age was not advisable. I think that's an awful situation for a mother to be in and so I can see why, over the course of the many applications to court, her behaviour got worse.

Again, I have to point out that the guardian, who knew much more about the family than you or I do, and who would have been exploring the situation over a period of several months, took the view that that was what was in the child's best interests and the least damaging of the options available. The judge, with the benefit of all the evidence including long periods of seeing the parties in court and in the witness box, also believed that to be the case. I really don't see how you think you know better.

What I'm querying Ici is how child-centred the outcome actually is, the extent to which the DF's surrogacy assertion has coloured the outcome (despite no surrogacy existing in law) and the extent to which opinions on parenting styles and methods influenced everyone involved (including the guardian).

I'm not disputing that the mother sounds a bit volatile (I'm picturing Romania's answer to Princess Di) what I am suggesting is that the DD doubtless needs her.

An assertion that the child needs both parents seems to have led to an outcome in which one parent is entirely excised from the child's life. Whatever the intervening steps and arguments the process isn't supposed to be punitive to the parents. It is supposed to provide the child with what she needs.

It's striking that the Judge didn't even set a minimum frquency for supervised contact. That seems quite an omission and terrible for the child.

Bux, if the 15 month old is bereft, unfortunately that is the mother's fault.

That's a singularly heartless remark Ici

it does seem contradictory to say that the case is not about deciding on if there was a surrogacy agreement but to then judge in teh following way

"The pregnancy was contrived with the aim of a same-sex couple having a child to form a family assisted by a friend, this was ostensibly acquiesced to by all parties at the time the agreement was entered into and conception took place. Therefore M living with H and B and spending time with S from time to time fortunately coincides with the reality of her conception and accords with M's identity and place within her family."

The fact that it was a surrogacy arrangement between three people has never been proven (As this was not the function of the court) so saying that this was akin to the natural intended outcome is a bit strange IMO.

Exactly Fanjo

(Well found )