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.

this is horrendous!

"Although M is not yet at school it is more likely than not that the parent who can best meet all her other needs and is most likely to be able to provide her with a secure home and stable upbringing with room to grow emotionally for the remainder of her infancy is more likely to meet her educational needs fulfil her potential in the future. The latter requires that M is afforded the scope to grow up in an environment where conflict is at a minimum. M is not yet able to say as she is just learning to talk so I do not know her expressed wishes and feelings but I assume it that for the immediate future she would want to continue to remain with S and continue to spend time with and H and B, including overnight stays."

then he goes on to say

"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."

Sorry - you would take a 15 moth old attached baby away from it's mother because she still carries it in a sling? really?

"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. "

There is something wrong with breastfeeding a 15 month old on demand?

This woman deliberately flouted a contact order by taking her child to hospital every time overnight contact was to take place. About six times in two months. She did everything to prevent contact.

The men had obtained a house big enough for them to all live together and also room to accommodate her two other children to visit. They wanted a harmonious relationship and she didn't.

It was the right judgement.

This is the thing though with surrogacy.
A woman is happy to be a surrogate but then it's OK for her to change her mind in the middle of the process? Really? And what about the other parents?

In this case the parents are two men so people are up in arm with 'Oh it's so wrong to take a baby away from its mum'.
What if the parents had been straight, would it be right to say 'mum trumps all', even the (Biological!) father who went through so many hoops to have a child?
This baby should never have been bfed in the first place. It should have been handed over to her parents when it was born. Carrying like this, bfing, the surrogate mother created a bond that didn't need to be. She acted as if she had every right to keep a child that wasn't supposed to hers and made it much harder for that baby to go back to her parents. Where did she think about the baby's interests there?

DuelingFanjo that's how I read this case as well. I don't think any of us would be at our best when someone is trying to take our newborns from us.

And I reserve judgement on why she tried to deny contact with the father of her other children. There's a lot of very good reasons why mothers do this. The oldest story in the world is mothers begging for contact for years, the absent fathers being absent or unreliable or downright abusive, and when the mother finally pulls the plug on contact as it's messing up the kids, it's all "this bitch is trying to stop me seeing my kids" from the man. I am not saying this is the case her, but there's lots of valid reasons she would not want contact from a father.

Having read the actual report and everything the mother did and how she behaved and continues to behave, I agree with the Judge's decision.

What the mother is doing is not in the child's best interests and more than that, she was and is simply unwilling to do what is in the child's best interests. A child is not the property of the mother. They have the right to be with the parent best able to meet their needs and who is not going to attempt to poison them or withhold them from the other parent.

butterflyballs so she didn't want to move in with a controlling man, becoming dependent on him for a roof over her head and leaving herself at his mercy, as he's effectively her live-in landlord and then has custody over her child? And that puts her in the wrong?

but seriously - the baby was born in January and the mother felt the need to get a midwife to say she should keep breastfeeding.

"On the 23rd May 2014 the midwife lactation consultant recommended that M's breastfeeding continues."

At four months should that have even been in question? Given that 6 months is the recommended age for introducing solids and 2 years is teh WHO goal for breastfeeding?

I feel such sympathy for the fact that at 4 months a woman would feel like she needs to bring people into court to support continuing breastfeeding - that should be a given!?

Thank you Tulip.

" S claimed to have been under duress to agree to contact at the hearing and that as M was still breastfeeding meant that overnight contact was not in her best interests"

and I am sorry - but I wouldn't have let my 9 month old child spend a night with me at 9 months of age. Sorry if non breast feeding people or people who's babies took to a bottle don't understand that but at 9 months many many babies are reliant on their mother's breast at night and not having it would be distressing #stillfeedinga4yearold!

and... I am sorry but the baby was born on January 27th and the father was going to court in February? No wonder this woman was panicked!

How can flouting a contact order POSSIBLY be cause enough to take a child away from a primary attachment?

Plenty of absent fathers flout contact orders again and again but it doesn't seem to count against their having every 'right' they ever had upheld.

Interesting reading the previous post by the Mum.

Having read the court judgement (and presuming we agree that we have to take the judge's word as true and final) then she would seem to be a typical unreliable narrator of her own story.

DF I fed my middle child to 54 months. He slept in my bed also. The idea someone could have thought that meant he would never be independent - words fail me.

"This baby should never have been bfed in the first place. It should have been handed over to her parents when it was born."

really?

in the court judgement there is clearly some information regarding discussions between both parents about where the baby would sleep (In a cot in the same room as the mother), perhaps because the plan was for the child to be breastfed. Are you proposing that all surrogacy agreements state that the birth mother must never breastfeed?

And I reserve judgement on why she tried to deny contact with the father of her other children.

The father has had her two other children living with him court ordered FT since 2010.

I think the judgement is right. The baby lives with her fathers and still gets to see the mum.

According to reports, the mum did everything she could to stall proceedings - she didn't help her case. She chose when to express, always during their evidence and apparently made several homophobic statements - not something you want to teach a child.

I also suspect they were better able to evidence their position than she was.

"S spoke to H and B, he said, about playing a role when M was a new-born and that at that time M would sleep in the same room as S; but they discussed having her cot in that room...

...The discussion was based on S living with H and B; B told me that if it did not work out S had said she would move out and would live nearby. B was certain (as was H) that the agreement was that H and he would be the main carers. I accept his evidence that S was involved in the choice of the house and that it was big enough to allow her teenage daughters to stay. I further accept that S chose to contribute to the deposit. It was his evidence that it was not until the end of December 2013 that it became clear that S no longer wanted to move into the house that they had rented together. B's evidence was that he honestly believed that S had misled them and that she never intended to go through with what the three of them had agreed. I found B a credible and straightforward witness and his evidence supports that of H and the conclusion which I reach in finding that S had set out to inveigle H into acting as her "sperm donor" so she could have another child."

Surely the Judge should take in to consideration that the Mother had changed her mind before the baby was born - if anything then JOINT CUSTODY would have been better.

The judge has made a decision on what's best for the baby. Sounds to me as if the mother offered to be a surrogate and then changed her mind. And breast feeding is an absolutely not good enough reason to leave a child with an unfit or unsuitable mother. There are perfectly adequate substitutes especially after the age of one.

"The children moved to live with their father, W, from October 2010 and spent alternate weekends and half of each school holiday with their mother. 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."

"I am sorry but the baby was born on January 27th and the father was going to court in February?"

Yes, it seems he sought PR as soon as he knew she had registered M without him, and was granted it.

DuelingFanjo Wed 06-May-15 14:59:37
"The children moved to live with their father, W, from October 2010 and spent alternate weekends and half of each school holiday with their mother. 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."

And? are you disputing something there?

I don't think a 9 months old needs essential feeding at night tbh ( and I breastfed both children until 3 years during the day). If the have had enough daytime feeds it's better for everyone if not fed during night as then you get a solid nights sleep

I fed my DS till well past the age of four, and he still sleeps with me sometimes now aged 6. We have a very close relationship and he has never had any problem doing things independently. My older child was the same but for slightly less time. They are secure, grounded, confident kids.

Honestly, there is so much guff talked about attachment. Fine on parenting forums, who cares? But here it is coming out of the mouth of a judge, used to cast aspersions on a woman's ability to parent. I find that appalling.

"The judge has made a decision on what's best for the baby. Sounds to me as if the mother offered to be a surrogate and then changed her mind. And breast feeding is an absolutely not good enough reason to leave a child with an unfit or unsuitable mother. There are perfectly adequate substitutes especially after the age of one."

The only reason she is seen as unfit (According to the judgement) is the way she has behaved over this case, the way she has behaved BECAUSE of this case. There are no concerns about the child's health or welfare other than some stuff about a sling and co-sleeping. That's quite scary.

from the BBC article

"The UK's current legal position is that the woman who gives birth is the legal mother, irrespective of whether the child is genetically hers. If she is married, her husband is the legal father."

Plenty of absent fathers flout contact orders again and again but it doesn't seem to count against their having every 'right' they ever had upheld.

Well said, Hetzel.