Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Baby girl taken from mother to live with dad and his boyfriend

528 replies

Darcey2105 · 06/05/2015 13:13

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.

OP posts:
EatShitDerek · 06/05/2015 16:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DuelingFanjo · 06/05/2015 16:27

Again, did she accept money?

Much of the case seems to be based upon 'he said, she said' and I think it IS worrying that she says it was never intended for the boyfriend to be a 'parent' to the child.

IF the agreement was a co-parenting one between the mother and Father then I can completely understand why she would have reacted as she did, particularly when faced with money and good lawyers.

Also RE munchausen's by proxy - surely there's a difference between doing something to prevent/delay/disrupt a court case and the mental illness that is MBP?

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 06/05/2015 16:29

The problem is that the mother has form for lying to the court about her children
This case
"An order was made by Recorder Bazley QC which prohibited any party form removing M from the jurisdiction or from causing or arranging for her to be baptised or christened. In the event S not only disobeyed the order of the court and had M baptised but lied about having done so. She informed the court and the parties that she had M baptised in October 2014 at the hearing in January 2015; this despite her assurances to the contrary to the guardian in December 2014 and to the court in her own statement dated the 7th January 2015. "

Her older children
"S has in the past sent her two older children to Romania in breach of a court order for them to have contact with their father, and S has admitted that she lied to the court at that time saying that the children did not have Romanian passports."

This is going to have affected her credibility this time.

amothersplaceisinthewrong · 06/05/2015 16:30

You can have a secure attachment to carers without being breastfed until school age and without co sleeping and being carried round in a sling all day long.

I

mariposa10 · 06/05/2015 16:30

How can a child's mother be described as a child snatcher?! Not putting the father on the birth certificate doesn't warrant removal of the child from her care, it's just so extreme

shewept · 06/05/2015 16:30

And the court papers do say the child is carried in a sling all day.

I gave never seen anyone recommend a 15 month old is carried all day. I don't really have an opinion on whether children of this age should be carried in slings, as I don't know that much about them. This is purely in response to people saying it doesn't say 'all day' and that people regularly recommend using slings for 15 months old.

TheCraicDealer · 06/05/2015 16:31

A baby needs to form a secure attachment to it's carers.

But she couldn’t form a secure attachment to 66% of those involved in a caring role because her mother, without consultation with the other parents, magnanimously instilled a routine which made the baby solely reliant on her.

It’s possible to make excuses for her more colourful behaviour on the basis of her fear of having the baby removed from her care. But this was a risk from the outset, maybe even a likelihood. She became pregnant knowing this. Instead of coming to an amicable agreement, she put as many barriers in the way of the Dads to stop them removing ‘her’ baby. She has previously tried to have two children moved to Romania to prevent them being placed with their Dad. The flight risk is possibly one of the reasons why they’ve gone for supervised contact for her and her DD. This incident has not taken place in a vacuum. The woman has issues and I don’t think that someone who is prepared to go to such extreme and unlawful lengths is best placed to raise a child singlehandedly.

ArcheryAnnie · 06/05/2015 16:35

a child-snatcher

Who, exactly, gave birth to this baby, Beagad? And who has now "snatched" it?

shewept · 06/05/2015 16:35

Have I got this right, she sent her two older children out of the country, lied about them having passports...so they couldn't have contact with their father. So she doesn't have them and neither does the father.

Talk about cutting your nose off. This woman clearly thinks her children are possessions.

ArcheryAnnie · 06/05/2015 16:37

Surrogate mothers usually are just rent a wombs whether you accept it or not.

They are people. Human beings. Not just "rent-a-wombs".

BareGorillas · 06/05/2015 16:38

I think the Judge has rule correctly here.

I do believe there was an agreement which she went back on.

Whether she secretly never intended to provide a baby for this couple, or she did have every intention then changed her mind, I think she led the couple to believe she was carrying the baby for them, to have minor involvement in its life and that she deceived them at the last minute and thought she could 'win' by being disparaging about their sexual orientation, their lifestyle etc and the Judge would say 'goodness no, don't give the baby to the gays, the breastfeeding mother must keep it of course'

Because she's an idiot.

EatShitDerek · 06/05/2015 16:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AdoraBell · 06/05/2015 16:40

Can't comment yet as haven't read the links, will do so later.

ArcheryAnnie · 06/05/2015 16:42

You know what? None of us know either this woman or those two men. The proceedings don't seem to have been particularly fair (one side not represented for most of it, the other side all lawyered up), and it could be that the courts have got it right, or they may have got it horribly wrong.

But I am just horrified at the language in the judgement, the way the press have been reporting it, and at some of the attitudes on display in this thread. No woman is ever, ever "just" a rent-a-womb, and no baby is a fucking commodity.

ArcheryAnnie · 06/05/2015 16:43

Haven't said she's an angel, EatShitDerek. Haven't even said she's a particularly good mother - I don't know what she's like. Have said she's a living, breathing human being, not just a disembodied organ.

kinkyfuckery · 06/05/2015 16:44

I'm interested that point 30 on the judgement says that S previously claimed her older two's father was also a 'sperm donor'

EatShitDerek · 06/05/2015 16:48

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MiscellaneousAssortment · 06/05/2015 16:50

Having read the full judgement, this is an exceptional case that I feel puts the childs rights above those of a woman who has tried to manipulate everyone for a very long time.

I wish the same judgement was applied to the huge amount of fathers who terrorise their exes and are utterly incapable of putting their childs needs above their own vindictive agenda. It's not this judgement that is wrong, it is wrong that this is not applied across the board.

To clarify from what I read, the judgement was NOT about extended breast feeding or cosleeping, but about the way a parent manipulated everything and everyone to get what she wanted, and critically, she couldn't put her own childs needs above her own desires. It was that inability to prioritise her own childs wellbeing that the judgement was based on.

When you read the full judgement it's quite revealing, and shows a woman who has behaved very badly, and also lost main custody of her two older children, although the detail of that wasn't deemed relevant for this case, it does show that the situation isn't as straightforward as it seems.

Her strategies to further her case routinely involved sacrificing her child's needs, and it's just not ok to use medical appointments, gp & a&e to blatantly try and manipulate the situation.

Repeatedly she would lie about her childs health, or about what the doctors had said to stop contact.

She made all sorts of lurid and homophobic comments which were totally unsupported, and inconsistent in what she was accusing the father of. Things like 'gay people wear clothes that show pubic hair' and 'gay people are overly sexualised' etc etc. She even phoned up the fathers relatives to tell them he was gay, deliberately trying to cause a family rift. Not exactly the poor sweet victim!

She used social media to drum up support, demonise the gay father & publicize things that legally shouldn't be made public. She tried to get doctors & medics 'on her side' whilst claiming that contact had made her child ill - except it hadn't made the child ill at all, the child was perfectly well, didn't even have any symptoms being misattributed.

She tried to get 'expert' opinion submitted off people whose field of expertise was irrelevant to what they were saying. She kept changing 'facts' about the breast feeding situation and expressing to suit her case. She even tried to use cosleeping as a reason for refusing contact with the father.

Now, I breast fed until a year, and coslept for a lot longer (still am), and I fully support parents who want to do that for their child. But I do NOT like parents who use bf and cosleeping to block attachment! Although I ebf and Ds was like a little limpet for a super long time, that didn't stop him bonding with his father, or in fact his grand parents. His first night away from me was at 6 months, and he was absolutely fine, ended up snuggled with his grandpa instead of me, happy and content... whilst I howled like a baby in a 'romantic' hotel room a couple of miles away! And I was on the phone first thing begging them to bring him to the hotel as I needed to see him, but he was fine, I was fine, the milk supply was fine. And it got easier to spend little bits of time apart, which is just as it should be.

Ds had the most beautiful bond with his grandfather and went to stay lots with him, and I just expressed instead. His grandpa died in January and I'm very glad he had such a precious bond whilst he still could.

To deny Ds a relationship with his daddy and other relatives on the basis of his attachment to me - well, that would be bloody selfish and at the detriment of Ds wellbeing. The same applies here.

DuelingFanjo · 06/05/2015 16:52

"You can have a secure attachment to carers without being breastfed until school age and without co sleeping and being carried round in a sling all day long."

no one is disputing that

it doesn't mean that parents should be forced to parent in a certain way though.

MrsDeVere · 06/05/2015 16:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DuelingFanjo · 06/05/2015 16:54

"In this case a woman offered to help a couple out in return for money. She used his sperm under false pretences and turns out she has form for denying fathers"

was money involved?

Also - she maintains that she agreed to help out an old friend she had known for many years. There's actually no legal or written document to prove that she agreed to be a surrogate for them as a couple.

BrainSurgeon · 06/05/2015 16:58

Blimey. I have looked through the judgement, and I am impressed with how balanced and well supported it is.
I really don't understand how anyone who reads the judgement can say that the child would have been better off with the mother.

Polyethyl · 06/05/2015 17:00

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
If S had allowed overnight contact every other weekend.
If S had followed the advice given to her by her pro bono lawyer.
If S had been at all capable of compromise...
Then she could have kept her baby, been her main carer and received maintenance from H and B.

If you choose to flout court order, choose to lie in court and choose to waste A&E and hospital beds time - then you should expect limited sympathy when it all goes wrong for you.

I wonder what W and her elder daughters think of this.

shewept · 06/05/2015 17:02

I am anti badly thought out, half baked plans involving the life of a child

Totally agree with this.

BareGorillas · 06/05/2015 17:03

Yup ^

Swipe left for the next trending thread