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.

If she is unsuitable as a mother, why didn't welfare take the baby from her before, independently of a tug of war case?^ Yes, I agree this is strange.

Not at all strange. The factors that made her unsuitable emerged after the birth. And, in any case, she wouldn't have been on the social services radar.

Should also add that this was not a child protection case, and we can't deduce from it that the decisive factors would have been enough to have had the child taken from the mother for child protection reasons. They probably wouldn't. So you can't extrapolate from this case (which judged which living/parenting arrangements would best suit the child) to a child protection case (which assesses whether the child can be safely left within her birth family). Two very different things.

Pangurban
Its not a report, its the Judge's written judgement. It is usual practice for court judgments to be published partly because we have a precedent based system so Judge's do look at previous judgments when deciding how a law should be interpreted and applied.

The question of homophobia is not about general prejudice but about the fact that the child is the daughter of a gay man. Consequently, the Mother's homophobia is seen as undermining the child's identity and her bond with her own biological father.

No parent has the right to arbitrarily decide how much contact the other parent is allowed to get. Contact is for the benefit of the child not the parents. The Mother was seeking to frustrate contact with the child's biological father even when the court had ordered contact.

The Judge didn't have an issue with the parenting style per se, her issue was with the parenting style being adopted to make contact with the Father difficult rather than to benefit the child. The Judge wasn't convinced that the Mother was acting in the best interests of the child.

Devora, I absolutely support Social services. My mother was a social worker in child protection for years and so I completely understand how vital their work is.

That's why I am surprised by the fact that this mother's parenting was not viewed as damaging enough for the child to be removed from her care during the court case, but damaging enough to reduce her contact so significantly afterwards.

I DO think the breastfeeding/sling wearing stuff is irrelevant so I am surprised it played such a large part in the decisions made by the Judge.

"The guardian has the experience and expertise of a social worker of many years and had carefully assessed the impact of overnight contact on M and had observed her at her father's home at bedtime; she reported that M is content and settled in her father's home. The guardian was well able to consider M's relationships with S, H and B. The guardian's conclusions and observations did not suggest that there was evidence that M has any difficulties in forming an attachment with any of the parties to this matter; she recognised the bond and attachment between M and her mother. Her concern was that S sought to have an exclusive parental relationship with M and did not give proper regard to the significance to M of other important adults in her life, particularly her father and his partner "

It just seems so strange that the final judgement be so dramatically in favour of the father's contact and so disruptive of the contact between the child and the mother.

Though obviously abduction is/was a real fear.

"The factors that made her unsuitable emerged after the birth."

So is that when they removed the child from her care? Just after the birth?

It is completely normal for PR to be conferred on anyone named in a residence (sorry, can't remember the new name) order, whether it be parent's new partner, grandparent, other family member etc. It doesn't make them a 'parent' in and of itself.

I don't often agree with the Daily Fail, but have to say I do agree with these sentiments...

Quote ..... "If she were a violent heroin addict or alcoholic, there might be a case to take away her child, but there is no suggestion that she is unfit to be a mother.

All the judge could say against her was that she was ‘duplicitous and manipulative’ and homophobic, and that she had tried to smear the gay couple.

These may be unpleasant traits, but they are not proof of the woman’s defective maternal instincts.

Moreover, one objection in particular raised by Ms Justice Russell is very hard to accept. She said the mother had breast-fed the child in order to demonstrate her closeness to her baby. Surely breast-feeding is a natural and desirable activity for which a woman should not be castigated?

Whatever the mother’s flaws, it was her eggs that had been fertilised by artificial insemination. She had carried the baby for nine months, and undergone the pain of giving birth.

We can’t know what her intentions were when she undertook to act as a surrogate mother, but it is possible that she changed her mind — or that at any rate that her determination to keep the baby strengthened — as the pregnancy progressed. That would be entirely understandable.

Now she will be granted only limited rights to visit her child, while the gay couple, who are neither married nor civil partners, are given joint parental responsibility.

It’s impossible to know how permanent their relationship will be.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this case is the gagging order which prevents any of the characters involved ever speaking about the affair in public. " unquote

"Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this case is the gagging order which prevents any of the characters involved ever speaking about the affair in public"

I don't agree.. It's not disturbing, it's to protect the child and I think that is right.

BTW, has the Mom been blocked from appealing the decision also?

I can't see how this woman could be classed as homophobic, when she had been friends with this gay man since they were teenagers, had lived with him for a period of time and had initially agreed to bear a child for him and to co-parent a child with him and his gay partner.

There are a few observations in the summing up, the breastfeeding, the sling wearing, the homophobia that appear very weak to me as a reason to remove the Mom's parental rights.

"BTW, has the Mom been blocked from appealing the decision also?"

I think for a period of time she can make no further applications, though someone who understands the law better than me would know more

In respect of s91 (14) CA 1989, time and again the court has been reminded that this power must be used with care, and sparingly, and should be the exception rather than the rule. It is submitted on behalf of the Applicants and the guardian that although there is no history of making unreasonable applications I can be satisfied that the facts go beyond the commonly encountered need for a time to settle to a regime as ordered by the court and the equally common situation where there is animosity between the adults in dispute, and, secondly, I can be satisfied that there is a serious risk that, without the imposition of the restriction, the child or the primary carers will be subject to unacceptable strain Re S (Contact: Promoting Relationship with Absent Parent) [2004] 1 FLR 1279.
In considering this issue I considered, as I was asked to, S's conduct since the order made on 1st October 2014 and her attempted justification for her repeated non-compliance with the provisions of that order in relation to overnight contact. S submitted that she was placed under duress to agree overnight contact by the extremely experienced counsel who represented her pro-bono at that hearing; the application to appeal was rejected. The fact that S has now accepted that she should abide by court orders must be viewed with some scepticism given her previous breaches of orders.
I find that these proceedings were brought about by S' conduct starting with the manner in which she deceived the Applicants about M's conception and that they have been drawn out by S who could have reached some agreement about M's care being shared earlier on. The nature and duration of these proceedings on the Applicant fathers must have been very stressful and was certainly very costly. They have undoubtedly been subjected to the strain and provocation as a result of S's course of behaviour over the currency of the proceedings including her informing H' family in Romania of his sexual orientation and of his relationship with B; S repeated disparagement and allegations about the nature of the relationship between H and B caused personal distress to both men; and her antipathy towards B which caused practical difficulties in contact arrangements.
If I were to make an order it would be as a result of S's conduct and the likelihood that if it were to continue it would cause unacceptable strain on H and B; the length of the order is a matter of discretion of the court Re C-R (Children) [2014] EWCA Civ 1627. I would ask that the parties address me further on this once the child arrangements order is finalised and keep in mind that since February S has not made further applications.

info on section 91

Sorry - the most important bit of that being

" It is submitted on behalf of the Applicants and the guardian that although there is no history of making unreasonable applications I can be satisfied that the facts go beyond the commonly encountered need for a time to settle to a regime as ordered by the court and the equally common situation where there is animosity between the adults in dispute, and, secondly, I can be satisfied that there is a serious risk that, without the imposition of the restriction, the child or the primary carers will be subject to unacceptable strain Re S (Contact: Promoting Relationship with Absent Parent) [2004] 1 FLR 1279."

which I think is an application by two men and teh Guardian to use part of teh children's act to stop the mother rom bringing any more applications to court within a specified time?

here they say they are commonly known as barring orders.

I can't work out if the judge did impose one though?

Interestingly the judgement says that "On 23rd January 2013 the court made a s91 (14) (CA) order preventing either parent making any further application in respect of either child without permission of the court." which is a bit strange as the child wasn't born until 2014 but there do seem to be several mistakes in the written judgement which really should be corrected.

I find this whole attitude odd. By citing sling wearing and not returning to work they are making an issue of those two things regarding a child's independence. There are thousands of families (Mothers) who do the same with their children.

The point of the sling wearing is that (a) it's moderately odd with a 15 month old - how many mothers routinely carry a child of that age around in a sling (as opposed to just doing it say when they go out shopping or for a walk); and (b) that it was all day. Thousands of mothers really don't do that. I suspect it was the mother who said that that is what she did, as it seems to have been in the context of her argument that the child couldn't go to her father for long periods. And the point about not returning to work was that the mother was going to need to do that at some point in order to provide for the child.

The gagging order was not temporarily in place before judgement. It is still there after the judgement.

That is standard in child custody cases, to protect the child - nothing to do with whether she might say anything defamatory.

Can you really have a report released publicly like that and be unable to comment on it?

She has had a court hearing to enable her to comment on all the issues. The document in question isn't a report, it is a final judgment.

If she is unsuitable as a mother, why didn't welfare take the baby from her before, independently of a tug of war case? If it was solely in the interest of the child.

Taking a child into foster care for child protection purposes is always a last resort, and I suspect that social services felt that with a father ready, willing and able to take over it with daily contact and twice weekly overnight contact that wasn't necessary.

Pangurban, the homophobia was only a small element and would not on its own have resulted in this decision. It has to be seen in the context of the father being gay, with the result that it was clearly designed to alienate the child from her father and, in particular, to support particularly unpleasant insinuations that he would be an unfit and abusive parent. The mother's action in trying to alienate him from his family by contacting them to tell them about his sexuality was particularly vicious and suggests that she would have been completely unscrupulous about continuing to try to use this against him. None of that would have been in her child's interests.

mkz10, that piece from the Fail that you quote is, I am afraid, very typical of the dishonest reporting that they regularly engage in. To take only one example, they single out the breastfeeding without bothering to explain that the concern around this was solely in the context of it being used to frustrate contact with the father.

As for their statement that "Whatever the mother’s flaws, it was her eggs that had been fertilised by artificial insemination. She had carried the baby for nine months, and undergone the pain of giving birth", it's utterly ridiculous. Suppose social services had got their act together in order to take Baby P into care. His mother could have said almost exactly the same, bar the artificial insemination reference. Should she have been allowed to take him back solely because she carried him and underwent the pain of giving birth to him?

And before anyone says "It's not the same", of course there's no suggestion that this mother would have harmed her child in the same way as Baby P. But she is a woman who has been deemed unable to act in her older children's best interests either.

I can't see how this woman could be classed as homophobic, when she had been friends with this gay man since they were teenagers, had lived with him for a period of time and had initially agreed to bear a child for him and to co-parent a child with him and his gay partner.

What? She "repeatedly made allegations, wholly unsupported by any objective evidence, about H and B; about their relationship and about their lifestyles... She repeatedly relied on stereotypical views on the nature of their relationship suggesting that she knew 'they have an open relationship, what gay people call it, have sex in groups.' She made other allegations, for example that the father's partners wore clothes that showed his pubic hair. The judge, who saw the emails and other documents filed by the mother, said that she had made a deliberate attempt to discredit them in a homophobic and offensive manner.

And the mother, of course, absolutely denies that she agreed to bear a child for the father and his partner: she says that the father was nothing but a sperm donor.

Is bringing Baby P into things some kind of Godwins law of Child custody cases?

I have read the judgement.

Some thoughts:

1. It is the general rule of dealing with children's services and court orders, that if you do not follow them, things (as a general rule) do not go very well for you. The mother failed spectacularly to adhere to this.

I understand the dilemma the judge faced. That she had two choices: let the child stay with the mother with the likely chance that the child would not be able to have a relationship with the child's father due to the mother's actions, or make a ruling that in practice gives the father primary custody, even though this means removing the child from their primary carer.

I understand the judge's choice, but I am uneasy about certain aspects of the judgment.

I do feel the judge has underestimated the distress this ruling will cause to the child, it could be argued that the child is being punished for the actions of her mother.

Aside from actions related to frustrating the father's access, there are no other indications that the mother has failed to parent this child properly (I can't comment on the other two daughters as there aren't enough details given).

Carrying around your 15 month old round all day long might not be considered normal, but it isn't likely to cause your child to be viewed at risk of harm in any other circumstances and I think the judge has muddied the waters by referring to this as a point of concern. Whereas saying "dad will let child see mum, mum will not let dad see child, therefore child should go with dad to have access to both parents", is understandable.

I do think this is an area of the law that needs much more clarity.

This is one of those threads which really highlights that not everybody else has the same views as me.

I generally potter through life believing everybody around me is of a similar opinion as myself.

Then I read a thread like this and find many people passionately disagree which is odd because of course I'm right about everything

What I have learned from this case is that it's important to go along with demands from a court, SS, etc. Not because they are always right, but it's playing a game to win. It seems to pay to be cool headed, even when you are fighting for your child.

I left my BF DS1 over night when he was 4 months...I fed him at 10 pm, and by 7am I felt physically ill and actually sick as my body needed to feed him. Maybe I didn't have a great pump, but pumping just didn't seem to work as well. I arrived home at 8am to find a baby who had had to be fed expressed milk form a tea spoon as he'd refused a bottle.

Of course the baby would have been fine, because they could have had formula, and it's all about the child.

I suspect many more similar cases, involving women having babies for gay men and women with fertility problems, or just two people wanting to co-parent will come to light in the future, so the law does need to be very clear, for the sake of all concerned.

The barring order referred to above relates to proceedings on the mother's elder children, which is why it dates to 2013. The judge did not make one in this case although suggests the matter will be kept under review.

I'm not sure you can say that the mother has shown no signs of failure to parent other than her actions in this case. Parental alienation, unwarranted trips to the hospital, difficult handovers - all signs that she puts her own needs above those of her child.