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 lesson to learn is that parents need to stop thinking about themselves, put the child first, sort it out between them and keep,it out of court. If they can't do that they should now realise that being as obstructive and difficult at every turn may work against them.

Am I right in reading she can't make an appeal so as not to put a strain on the settling in period. However, the child was living with her when her household was put under strain for a considerable length of time due to court action.

So far as I can see from the judgment, there hasn't been any order that she can't appeal, Pangurban.

"However, the child was living with her when her household was put under strain for a considerable length of time due to court action."

That struck me as an odd way of putting it. Because was that strain not a direct result of her actions in trying to cut out the other parent, requiring court orders for contact. Then her flouting those orders, repeatedly?

Something that she did with her elder children too.

Very true AuntieStella - she brought it all upon herself by her actions.

Ehm... Wait, so in the UK, if you paid someone £££££ to be a surrogate, that woman could choose to keep the baby and essentially bring havoc into your marrital life?!?

WTF!!! The men should have gone to the U.S.

I know this is old news now, but I just feel really sorry for the woman. Anything she has said or done has been picked at to prove insuitability as a mother. Of course she didn't behave rationally - she was on her own, struggling with a baby, and trying to fight a legal case, while a system bigger than she was was trying to take her baby off her. I can't bear it.

I'm in a support group with women who have had their children taken away from them by the courts. And there is always a 'calm rational clear talking' man waiting to prove he needs the children. That whatever he says has so much more importance than what the mother says. I can't understand why so many people listen to them. I thought a solution would be more female judges and lawyers, which is why I mentioned that in my OP. I really don't know what the solution would be now.

I really don't understand it. Women need support on motherhood. They don't need an army of people trying to take their children away from them. i think if you're in this situation there is almost nothing you could do to prove that the child should be with you. it is sick. And I can't undrstand why so many people on here rush to say it's the right thing. it's not. It's like witch hunts all over again.

Of course you feel sorry for her - I would guess we all do. You'd have to have a heart of stone not to.

But you do understand that in recent decades courts have generally placed so much more importance on what the mother says?

It was pretty rare until fairly recently that men got custody/residency, Courts seem to try to take a more even handed approach these days.

I'm sure there are cases where that isn't the case but its a dangerous thing to take the situations of a few women in a support group you know and apply it to a stranger.

It isn't sick that a child lives with one parent over another. They are both parents, one doesn't rump the other. It's not even vaguely like witch hunts. And nobody "rushed" many of us took the time to read the very long and comprehensive court proceedings carefully and many though not all came to the independent conclusion that the decision was probably right. And we are probably 90% mothers.

trump

I do actually agree with Darcey.
I had an experience where everything I said was picked on and often twisted. I literally couldn't win.
Even with hindsight it still is truely frightening what happened.

If I told you some of the things that happened, you would be really shocked.

For those of you that think these things can't happen, or are so naieve to think they don't, let me assure you that they do.
The NAS (autistic Society) has recently been petitioned , by a health professional who found that over 200 families had been bullied.

Although I feel sorry for the way she ended up I feel that she had every opportunity to behave rationally and make an arrangement with the father- but she chose to put herself before the child and cut him out.
If nothing else it should make other women think before they try to manipulate things their way.
The message is- be reasonable, acknowledge the father is an equal partner and keep it out of the courts.

cactus

I have a HUGE respect for surrogates in the U.S. who give couples without children a chance of having a child. But if I couldn't bear children (there are many medical reasons you can't do so) and I wanted to use my eggs, DH's sperm and a surrogate to bear the baby, I would be massively p*ssed off if the surrogate said she'd rather keep the baby for herself. Hence, in the U.S., the surrogate wouldn't even be the birth mother on the birth certificate. If you're in that situation already - having to use a surrogate - you probably have had a lot of challenges in life already (e.g. women who have recovered from cancer). You don't need anyone putting you down further, and threatening not to give you your child.

With same sex couples, it is grossly unfair. Only women can have babies, unless science creates some sort of artificial womb (which I would welcome). Lesbian couples can just get sperm from a sperm bank, but two gay men can't quite do the same. They need a surrogate.

What if the situation was turned on its head? Let's say a lesbian couple asked a guy to be a sperm donor, and after the child is born, the donor (of course, male) decided to keep the child for himself. What if the lesbian couple fights and wins, would people's reaction on here be the same?

There SHOULD be laws protecting those who wanted to be the parents of the child in the first place.

Women have long been wanting to be treated equal to men. EQUAL. That doesn't mean they should be treated any better than men in the eyes of the law. However, I feel that's what some people want.

Killers behind bars can bear children, as long as they are female, healthy and of child-bearing age. Giving birth to a child doesn't mean you're a saint, nor does it automatically make you a great mother.

Also, the way some people talk here... like being irrational is just normal state of motherhood... rings alarm bells. Morherhood shouldn't give you an excuse / a license to be irrational and adopt a selfish "me, me, me" attitude... which is what the mother in the case did. Cutting out the perfectly OK father is just so wrong and selfish.

"trying to fight a legal case, while a system bigger than she was was trying to take her baby off her"

That was not the intention - it was a father left off the birth certificate seeking PR and contact, both of which he was awarded.

If she had not repeatedly flouted the court orders, it would never have come to this. The only reason there was a 'fight' is because she tried to cut out the other parent, and he wasn't a deadbeat who walked away from his child.

I would think a baby would normally stay with it's mother if she wished this. But I think the courts usually start from this point too.
There could sometimes be reasons to make a different judgement of what is in the baby's best interests
I haven't read the details of the judgement here but note that some PP's think that in this case it was the right decision

I do think though that money exchanged and even intentions and promises shouldn't be overly weighted in the decision made. I think a "surrogate mother" (that is where carrying baby with intentions of surrogacy and baby conceived from another woman's eggs) should have a right to keep the baby she has carried and given birth to, other things (such as the adequate care she can provide for child) being equal.
(I guess you'd have to do something about any money that had been exchanged and can see that is a tricky aspect of things)

Juggling

Why do you think that the surrogate has more rights even if these were the eggs of another woman?!?

If a woman recovered from cancer, but can't bear children hersel, uses the eggs she had removed prior to her illness, with the sperm of her DH, and gets a surrogate... you think the surrogate should have the right to keep the baby?!?!?!?

In what world do you think this is fair? That probably would be the ONLY chance of the woman to have a child. And you want the surrogate to have the right to keep this from her following her ordeal?!?!

Why on earth do people think that giving birth to a child allows you THIS much power?!? What about the biological parents - will the surrogate re-compensate them, considering that her actions pretty much gave her a FREE embryo donation? You do know that in the case of embryo donations, the biological parents HAVE to consent, right?!? Your idea that the surrogate should have the choice is seriously f*cked up!!!

Seriously, I would want scientists to develop an artificial womb asap, if this was the case.

Because I'm a mother SnowBells

I've carried and given birth to two babies and know I couldn't have given them up to others following their birth - without immense heart-break

I guess I'm not that much of a supporter of the surrogacy concept
I'm not actually against it - it may work for some individuals
But neither am I surprised when it proves to be often fraught with difficulty

Perhaps it links with a feeling that women's bodies cannot be bought and an awareness of women's continuing inequality including economically and socially, as well as historically

We still have a long way to go!

Juggling, you are not a supporter of surrogacy? Really? Oh dear.

The surrogacy is a red-herring.

Which parent should the child live with?

The father who will facilitate contact with both parents.
The mother who will not and has form for trying to remove previous children from the country to prevent contact with the father.

The court decided that the long term benefit of the child was to have effective contact with both parents so there really wasn't any option was there?

In fact the mothers attempts to disrupt contact were so extreme that the court initially awarded the mother supervised contact for a period to allow the child to settle properly without disruption and because the judge doesn't trust the mother to not leave the country with the child.

She chose to have a baby with him. Therefore he is the father and the child has every right to a relationship with him. Sadly the mother was so focused on keeping the child away from him that she has scuppered things for herself.

Those of you who compare yourself - this woman constantly interrupted the testimony of the father by insisting on expressing regularly throughout his time being questioned but apparently didn't have a problem during her won testimony. This woman seriously lacked self awareness of her behaviour and how it affects her daughter.

I hope that lawmakers will always be people more guided by rationale rather than emotions. That's not always the case, but one can always hope.

What I'm seeing a lot on this thread is people being guided by their emotions. Of course, it is difficult to part with your child. However, most people carrying a baby know that the child in the womb is theirs. Some people seem to imprint the feeling they had with their own children on surrogate mothers.

In the case of surrogacy, you know straightaway that the baby in your womb is not yours. Cactus may think that in the US, human life can be bought and sold - but at least there are rules in place to ensure that what happened in this case would not have happened. Surrogacy over there is more formalised. Surrogate mothers are screened - which includes a psychological evaluation. The woman in this case would very likely not have passed that. This means that women selected to be surrogates would hopefully not want to keep the baby from the parents (who typically take the baby home with them after birth). The surrogates also get psychological support during pregnancy.

Many of the surrogate mothers in the US compare what they do to being a nanny or looking after a friend's child. Nannies can often form very, very maternal bonds with their charge, especially when they have looked after the child since birth, and likely spent more time with him/her than the actual mother (who gave birth to that child). Other than in Hollywood thrillers, or where life imitates art, most professional nannies don't end up driving away in the middle of the night, stealing that child from its parents. The surrogates in the US are paid well, but I applaud them for being selfless, and giving other people the joy of parenthood. Selflessness is what motherhood used to be about... but I guess other people don't see it that way.

Juggling - cross-posted. Read my message above. You have written exactly what I thought you were probably doing!!! You are imprinting your own view of pregnancy on surrogacy.

So yes, juggling - in your case, you would not have opted to be a surrogate mother in the first place, and the psychologists would have cautioned against you as well.

There are really only a few women selfless enough to be able to do this. I applaud them all.

As I said before it may work for some people
If I was unable to have children naturally I think I'd very likely adopt or foster.
That is a generous choice too in a different way