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 BBC report says the baby had her first birthday earlier this year, so the breastfeeding issue maybe missing the point?

The comments on this thread so far show how many people really just see mothers as incubators who need to remember that men are the ones who really matter.

The laws on surrogacy are perfectly clear - if you are pregnant, the baby you are gestating is your baby, because it is inside your body and your body is making it.

The fetishisation of genetics to make it seem as though a father's input into the creation of a baby is equal to a mother's is deeply political.

Genetics might be 50-50, but having one orgasm is nowhere near the same as growing a baby inside you for 9 months, giving birth to it, and then providing all its sustenance for 6 months.

Women are people. We should never be treated as incubators. Surrogacy arrangements need to accept that the mother of the child has the right to change her mind.

If you've tried to stop Bfing a 1yo child you will realise how traumatic it can be for them; the attachment significance can be HUGE.

I have no idea how this is irrelevant.

Apart from the fact that the child has had a main carer for all this time, to be taken from that person, well I can't see anything good about that.

How to cause attachment issues 101

was she though?

I've just read the ruling. It sounds to me like the correct descion was made. The woman has already sent her older children to Romania so they couldn't see their father, they were brought back and are now living with him.

It doesn't sound like it would be in the best interest of any child to live with her IMO.

I'm horrified by this case. It treats the birth of a child as a transaction, and of the mother as merely a vessel.

There's already another thread about this. The full judgement is very clear that the decision is not based on the surrogacy agreement but on the fact that the mother has consistently made decisions which were not in the best interests of the child, some of which could be damaging to the child, for her own benefit and desires without putting the health and wellbeing of her child first. She was also show to be deceitful, manipulative and untrustworthy.

The court decided that the child's other biological parent would be better for the child. Sexuality was irrelevant. The same insane behaviour from one parent of a divorcing heterosexual couple would be equally likely to result in the child being resident with the non-insane parent.

there is already another thread on this. if you read the judgement you will see the judge mmade the right decision. the mother was using the child as a weapon and refusing access to her biological father by making up doctors appointments, claiming the child needed to be breastfed but was quite happy to express during the court case etc. she was not acting in her child's best interests, rather she was being selfish and was homophobic towards the father. making up unfounded and completely untrue accusations simply because of his sexuality .

Hmm ok - are you two men who are replying to my post?

have you actually had a baby? have you ever breastfed?

Are you thick?

there are already grounds for concerns about her mother’s over emotional and highly involved role in this infant’s life. Ultimately the role of a parent is to help the child to become independent. This is a child who at 15 months old is still carried by her mother in a sling on her body. M spends most of her time with her mother who does not set out any timetable for returning to work, as S would have to, to provide for M and for herself. There is a potential for enmeshment and stifling attachment rather than a healthy outward looking approach to the child’s life. The question is who benefits most from this chosen regime which points towards an inability to put the child’s needs before her mother’s need or desire for closeness.
The attachment which will develop in an infant who sleeps with her mother, spends all day being carried by her mother and is breastfed on demand through out the day and night raises questions about the long term effect on M.

Details of the case aside... as a co-sleeping, sling wearing and potentially extended bfing mother, this attitude towards these specific parenting choices concerns me. The child is 15 months old, still a baby and close attachment is important but this makes it look like it was used against the child's mother. The other details I can understand being a concern but I don't understand why this also is?

OP, what makes you conclude that being with the mother is in the best interests of the baby?

You may need to open your mind a little (or a lot) to understand.

She was also show to be deceitful, manipulative and untrustworthy.

If anyone had tried to take my baby away, I'd be deceitful, manipulative, untrustworthy, aggressive, anything which I thought would help. I'd have set the fucking court on fire if I'd have thought it would help. And if I was faced with a rich couple of men trying to take my baby away, I would not necessarily have been entirely rational about what might have helped.

And criticising the mother for being "highly involved" in her 15-month old child's life - that makes it sound as if the court would have looked on it more kindly if she'd packed her off to a nursery. Having your baby in a nursery is fine. Having your baby at home is also fine. Having your baby at home being treated as a cause for concern is not fine.

OP, have you actually read the judgement?

ArcheryAnnie she has breached a previous court order prohibiting her from having the baby baptised. She has sent her other children to live in Romania having lied about them, having Romanian passports, in order to deny their father access. She deliberately deceived the father by embarking on a supposed "surrogacy" with the single intent of having another child....

what a sorry tale-

OP, have you actually read the sentancing notes? you should if not

Pourquoi I literally just C&Pd that exact extract and was about to comment as you did! Guess I don't need to now.

I find the judge's reasoning very suspect. And regardless of what the child's parents may or may not have discussed prior to the birth, this is a child who now exists and is closely bonded to her mother. Unless there is neglect or abuse (and no, co-sleeping, breastfeeding and sling usage are not abuse ) then removing her from her mother as if she were just an object to be won seems totally wrong to me.

At 15 months my DS was also breastfed, slept with me and was occasionally carried in a sling. If he had been removed from me and sent to live elsewhere it would have been emotionally devastating for him. I can't get away from that.

And as for comments of "well bottles exist so it's fine" - FFS.

Seems the outcome of this was influenced by the mother's conduct. Not going to say she was right, but jeez, if someone was trying to take my DC away I can't say I'd be a model of decorum.

The whole thing stinks IMO.

From the judgement I am concerned with M and there is more than sufficient evidence before this court to reach conclusions about S's parenting abilities, her conduct and her credibility in relation to the matters which concern M.

PourquoiTuGachesTaVie

I winced a bit at the way her parenting choices were criticised too. I think there are other issues that should have been the focust

reading between the lines she was a clearly an absaloute fucking nightmare, who put peoples back up- unfortunately for her

its just really fucking sad

Pourquoi the same extract made me shiver as well. Regardless of the rest of the judgment, the fact that breastfeeding, co-sleeping and using a sling were, in the opinion of the judge, seen as a negative aspect of parenting, with potentially harmful consequences for the child, sent chills through me.

PourquoiTuGachesTaVie I still occasionally sling my 3 year old so I'm not against them at all, still sometimes co-sleep but I get the impression from the judgement that the mother was doing it excessively and yes it is possible to do too much. The phrase used was spends all day being carried by her mother

I did note that the mother has only been given supervised contact and less than the father was prepared to offer.