surrogacy - baby taken from Mum

[Beanburger]

I wondered if anyone had read the news today of the 17 month old baby to be taken from its mother and placed with its natural father & his wife and if so, what they made of this judgement call.

Bad. (Probably.) And though I'm loathe to head in this direction for many reasons (going round in circles on threads being a big one), I suspect classist.

Haven't read the news, but I assume the decision was made based on who could provide the better upbringing for the child.

If that is the case, then fair enough. But like I say, haven't read the report.

The reports were pretty limited on some important details.What I found strange was the fact that they kept talking about the mother's "obsessive need" to have a child - basically saying she had no intention of ever giving it up, tricked teh natural father etc. Sounded a bit ropey to me.

The story seemed to be that the woman in question had never had any intention of giving up the baby. The judge said that because of this the other parent was more likely to give the child a good upbringing. My youngest child is about the same age and I can't stop thinking about how he would feel to be taken away from us. I keep hoping that the father, having won his case as a point of law, will relent and leave the baby with its mother

do you have a link to the story?

I think this is it
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2148160.ece

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2148160.ece

thanks

hmm, its one of them no win situations sin't it.

TBH, I never thought surrogacy was a good idea.

I read and re-read the article to see if I had missed something but it seems that the judgement was made to punish the natural mother for what she had done and without really considering the effect that it would have on the child both short and long term.

This is mad. To take a child from his mother, the only home he has ever know, where the court agrees he is loved and cared for, to prove a point about the validity of a contract. And how exactly is that 'in the best interests of the child' as the courts always claim is their aim?

Agree Beanburger and it's part of a worrying trend. Couple of judgements in disputed access cases where the children have been forced out of what the courts said were loving homes in order to punish the parent who had been denying access. How on earth is it in the best interests of the child to use them as a pawn?

I will add my bit to this, I reckon they paid the SM to have the child and she was demanding more money.

I will bet money on it.

But, I am glad, that the natural father & his wife have custody of the child.

I can guarantee that the SM was not taking care of the child properly.

I wonder if there is any possibility of a further appeal or that the natural father will show the strength of his love for the child by letting him stay with his mother. There is a lot of talk about making sure that the courts have the child's best interests at heart in these complicated cases but they seem to have missed the point here. If I was the mother I would move heaven and earth to keep the baby.

Apparently the judge had no doubt that the child was loved and well cared for.

So this 17month old is going to be taken away by complete strangers (accompanied by court officials!) and told we are your mum and dad now??? what effect will this have on him to be denied his natural mother and the bond with her??? the courts are NOT considering his best interests, nor are the natural father/wife if they don't recognise that the child needs his natural mother.

I agree totally. I kept looking at my youngest boy today who is 18 months old and trying to imagine how it would be for him if he were taken away from everything he knows. It doesn't really bear thinking about.

UCM, the judge said the mother and her husband were good parents. This is not about choosing between a good parent and a bad parent, this is about treating a child as a prize to be awarded by the courts. Can you imagine the devastation this will cause to that poor little boy? Snatched away from his mother, his brothers and sisters and his home and dumped with complete strangers?

As an adoptee, I can tell you that he will not remember it. What he will remember is stability and routine with his new parents.

I do sort of know something about this case and I understand that they got custody because they had paid loads of money and the Mother spunked it.

It's only hearsay by the way.

Dubious, tbh. Surrogacy being way different to adoption, though.

I also heard, that she had children who were not particularly well looked after. He was a social services bloke too.

He may not remember it but that doesn't mean a. he will not suffer right now and b. it will not affect him for the rest of his life. Small children aren't robots, of course it will cause him immense distress!

And from what you say, sounds as if they won because they paid for the kid. Great. So the court agrees he's a possession that has to be delivered to the person who has bought him?

what do you mean, the buyer was a social worker? This gets worse and worse...

Like I say it's only hearsay, but from what I can tell, it seems so.

Wow, the judges were working overtime on the 'let's live up to the stereotype' on this case, weren't they? Bias in favour of middle class professionals [check] Bias in favour of men [check] Bias in favour of those with the most money [check]