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 only scenario in which I could have any sympathy for her is if she really believed that the father and his boyfriend are up to dodgy stuff and she is desperately, irrationally trying to protect her child.
However! She knew the father for a long time, even lived with him for a while, before she agreed to have his child. So there is no excuse for her behaviour, as Polyethyl very succinctly and correctly points out.

Btw the case wasn't judged as surrogacy, but as a normal separated parebts situation.

The surrogacy was only discussed in so much as establishing the background relationship, and that she lies and changes her mind all the time. She said she always wanted the father to be a sperm donar, and have no parenting role - if you lie like that you can hardly complain when evidence is supplied to show you lied (emails).

She also refused to attend a separated parenting course that a previous judge told them to attend.

She was also involved in many many years of litigation with her other children and ex, before changes to legal aid came in, so she's not a novice at this stuff, in fact her & the ex came under criticism for deliberately extending legal proceedings. She has had legal representation on and off throughout this case. all this doesn't sit right with her image as the poor vulnerable innocent who's getting taken advantage by the evil rich people.

Oh and the evil father... He moved into a larger house with room for the mother AND her two older children to stay so they could do shared parenting better.

He also offered much more contact than the court appointed guardian proposed, in spite of the continual blocked contact, flight risk and homophobic campaign against them... but she wasn't having any of it.

OP, I'm guessing you haven't read the full details of the court ruling and have no idea about surrogacy

I don't quite know why surrogacy and exchange of money has become the main focus - it's not the basis of the ruling. U.K. law doesn't recognise informal private surrogacy arrangements.

Btw, no evidence of money exchanging hands. They were friends who had known each other for many years, and they all desperately wanted a child.

I really don't think this case was much to do with breastfeeding, co-sleeping or surrogacy. Instead it was about the mother's constant emotional manipulation of the child.
I would hope that if the father had been heterosexual and being separated from a relationship with the mother, he would have taken the same court action.

Interesting that actually, would a heterosexual man have had the same success I wobder?

Good points there Mrs DeVere, just show we will never be able to understand the motivations and complexities of the case.

Let's just hope, for the sake of the poor child, that the best decision has been made and she can have a decent life.

I remember the threads that others have previously mentioned well and if it is the same woman then I think the judge has it spot on. She came across very badly and that was telling the story from her own, understandably biased, point of view.

It's all very sad, but motherhood does not automatically bestow sainthood.

Not sure MrsDeVere, and I agree with your point about people that get into these awful situations where the child always comes out second (or third, fourth etc!).

The length of their friendship gives credence to the image of her as a deeply manipulative person, presenting herself as the continual victim, and easily recruiting stronger people to fight for her cause. Seems to point towards someone who is adept at getting people to do what she wants - which does make me think there's an element of truth in it, beyond the usual obligatory painting of a hero and a villian... Instead of just a bloody mess.

Two other things leapt out at me reading the judgement:

1. She wrote an email about the plan, saying that she's used to living apart for long periods with her children... In hindsight this seems like she was good at presenting herself in a certain way to convince that this was a good plan. Using the same facts to build a very different case.

1. The recruitment and then turning on people when she doesn't get what she wants - smacks of someone who is very comfortable using people.

Eg she turned on the Childs lawyer accusing them of destroying her case, when they actually weren't even trying to do that/ hadn't done that according to the notes. Plus the rampant homophobia, which must have been well hidden if she's been such close friends with this gay couple for so long. And that she turned up with two different sets of people and begging they be allowed to support her in court- one being a trainee lawyer (fair enough of she was self representing), but the other being a vicar who wanted to help her and obviously believed the victim thing. She didn't even go to his church or indeed even practise the same religion (or denomination? Sorry can't recall)... It struck an odd note as the judge said he was glad of the vicars calming supportive presence.

I find the judge's reasoning very suspect and the prospect of the baby being taken from her mother is horrific and terrifying. sad

What exactly do you find suspect, CactusAnnie? Bearing in mind that the judge saw all the reports, heard all the witnesses giving evidence and being cross-examined, and read all the emails and other papers?

The judge never made her decision based on surrogate, because it was disputed that it was a surrogate situation.
So judge based her decision on the law of the best interests if the child.

Mum had prevented access and written extremely homophobic messages and thus went against her, as a character.

Reading 2 discussed it. A sounded reasonable.

Many agree that surrogacy can be tricky and the UK surrogacy laws are not as tight as some other counties eg canada.

Can't understand op's objections

Do has op come back and admitted she made a right Pratt of herself?

Annie did you understand that this case couldn't be seen as a surrogacy case? Because it didn't fit in the surrogacy law?

Oh and the evil father... He moved into a larger house with room for the mother AND her two older children to stay so they could do shared parenting better.

This is the second time this has been brought up as evidence of the woman's perfidity and the man's saintliness. There are many women who would not want to surrender their independence and the security of a roof over their heads to a man who will effectively be their landlord, as well as the coparent of their child, and who will then have the upper hand in everything to do in their domestic arrangements.

There is not-very-veiled criticism in every sentence here. Why should she not be able to change her mind about how long she wishes to breastfeed for?

The judge didn't say she couldn't change her mind, however the mother was using this as a reason to stop contact. She could have in theory bf until the child was 15 and (if her argument was accepted) exclude the father permanently . The problem appears because the child would not be exclusively bf at that point and so could still visit her father. The mother argument was that until she stopped bf, it was wrong for the child to be away from her.

If it wasn't so outrageous this would be laughable -that a child of 15 months is apparently subject to 'enmeshment and stifling attachment' because the mother doesn't work and uses a sling!

Later in court documents, it mentions that the child is in the sling 'all day'. Is it recommended a child spends all day in a sling at that age.

I believe the part about her working is because she wasn't receiving benefits. I believe, she was sanctioned. But i can't find where I saw that earlier now.

Are you aware she sent 2 older children out of the country to stop their father from seeing them? She lied to the court in that case too. She lied to the court in this case, a lot. She takes her child for unnecessary medical examinations to stop contact. The hospital had concerns. She spouts homophobic nonsense about the childs father and accused him of being addicted to antibiotics.

Do you really think this woman is the best person to bring this child up.

All I can see the father is guilty of, is being stupid enough to set up a informal surrogacy. Which is bad enough, but nowhere near the level of control and manipulation the mother has shown.

well, it does make you special TO THAT BABY.

Unless you are a mother who is abusive or controlling. The dad is special to that baby too. Which is why so many kids lives are devastated by a father who doesn't give a shit.