Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

surrogacy - baby taken from Mum

84 replies

Beanburger · 27/07/2007 23:09

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.

OP posts:
Leati · 28/07/2007 01:01

This is just all around sad. The worst part is that it took 17 months for the child to be placed.

constancereader · 28/07/2007 08:13

This is so terribly sad. It is truly shocking to think that the little boy will be taken off his birth mother and main carer, HOWEVER duplicitous she might have been.

ScummyMummy · 28/07/2007 08:32

Agree with edam, at least on the evidence that the Times has reported. Sounds like the child is being viewed as a possession subject to contract law rather than as a human being. He is being well cared for and well loved in his current home, according to the Times report anyway, and if that is correct I can't think it's in his best interests to be moved. If there is a problem with the mother nicking the buyer father's dosh she should be ordered to repay it. And he could have contact with the child as his biological father.

hatrickjacqueline · 28/07/2007 08:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

BandofMuggles · 28/07/2007 08:55

the man is still the natural father does no one think she was wrong to keep the child from him???
would your opinions be different if he were only 7 weeks old???
He has a right to his son too. She shouldn't have lied, it has come back to bite her in the ass and now her and her son will suffer

hatrickjacqueline · 28/07/2007 09:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

BandofMuggles · 28/07/2007 09:02

That is very true.

edam · 28/07/2007 12:20

BoM, agree with Hatrick, the child is suffering, sod the rights of the adults. This is like the judgement of Soloman where he discovered the true mother by suggesting the child was cut in half - the real mother walked away rather than allow her child to be injured. If the father had any decency, he wouldn't inflict such suffering on his child to serve his own ends.

madamez · 28/07/2007 12:47

THe father sounds like a shitbag- a child isn't a possession. He could, of coure, sue for access and would undoubtedly get it - that woulc be perfectly reasonable. Is the biological mother to be allowed access, by the way? Because if not, this really is a matter of saying, oh, rich white men can actually buy and sell other people if they want to.

divastrop · 28/07/2007 12:50

i didnt know surrogacy was legal now?when did that happen?

i think its sick that anybody would sell a human being.the natural mother shouldnt have lied,but they cant just take a 17 month old away from their mum!how f*d up is the legal system?!

pipsqueeke · 28/07/2007 12:55

I don't think that statement is very fair 'rich white men' althou I do agree this poor child has been deemed a possession on both sides. the SM shouldn't have gone into the surrogacy, the natural parents should perhaps have had more to do witht he child from the off, incl being a the birth etc. however we don't know the circs.

if someone at 17 month (how old my DS is) tried to take him away i'm sorry but i'd feel the same as the natural mother - money or no money right or not.

the poor boy is the one who's innocent in all of this. are htye going to allow the SM contact - doubtful. and what of the siblings - they'll want to know what's happened to their brother. v v sad.

pipsqueeke · 28/07/2007 12:57

unfortunatly surrogacy - tbh unless your in that situation of not being able to ahve children i'm not sure any of us know waht we'd do - personally I couldn't do it - form either side - I couldn't pay for a child, but also I couldn't give away a child i'd carried.

aloha · 28/07/2007 12:57

Does anyone know if he was white? Or are we just making assumptions? I did know one case that was going through the courts in which the father was black, so the child was black.

pipsqueeke · 28/07/2007 12:58

that's my point ahola- and given yesterdays thread on the racism it's unjust to say rich whilte men - as from that article (unless I skimmed over something) the colour was not mentioned.

aloha · 28/07/2007 13:02

Also in that case, the man had regular contact with the child (ie weekend contact as his father) so was not a 'complete stranger'. This sounds like the same case to me, though I could be wrong.

ELF1981 · 28/07/2007 14:06

17 months old.

MrsScavo · 28/07/2007 14:39

The judge needs a slap.

wheresthehamster · 28/07/2007 15:14

I know nothing about surrogacy but if the contract is legal and binding how come the natural mother was allowed to keep the baby in the first place? If she had him in hospital why was she allowed to walk out with him?

snookie28 · 28/07/2007 15:36

Why all the sympathy for the natural mother? The natural father and his wife prob suffered years of infertily probs and then had the 9 months of pregnancy thinking that her and her husband were going to get a much longed for baby. To then have your hopes dashed to have someone keep the baby that you would have considered your own.

Why automatically assume that it is a money issue rather than a couple desperate to be parents? I agree that it is difficult for all when these things break down but why should the father relinquish his child to a woman who had let them down so badly?

Original poster
Beanburger · 28/07/2007 15:44

I feel great sympathy for the father and his partner. However, I would say that anybody entering into a surrogacy agreement where the surrogate mother is giving away her own biological child has to be prepared for the fact that she may not be able to bring herself to go through with it when the time comes.(different perhaps when the child has no biological link to the surrogate). Surely, the disappointment of the father and his partner and the feelings of the mother are secondary to those of the child. How can anyone believe that it is in the best interests of that child to be taken from the heart of its loving family? Unless there is something we don't know.

OP posts:
mimi03 · 28/07/2007 16:00

i dont think that the father thinks of the child as a possesion, it is biologically his son. I have worked along side social services and i know they are very cautious about removing children from the home and it is a last,last resort. but unless that child was in danger, i do think it should have stayed with the mother. if they wanted to punish her for breaking the agreement they could have done so but the child does not deserve to be punished aswell.

expatinscotland · 28/07/2007 16:30

'I have worked along side social services and i know they are very cautious about removing children from the home and it is a last,last resort. '

They certainly don't seem to be when the child in question is a healthy, white infant.

expatinscotland · 28/07/2007 16:32

Wait, so the father was the biological father and the surrogate mother was also the biological mother?

So wouldn't this mean the biological mother had to give the child up for adoption to the biological father's wife/partner?

I'm confused.

These types of agreements really are minefields.

Original poster
Beanburger · 28/07/2007 16:41

Yes, the biological father's partner/wife is no relation to the baby

OP posts:
expatinscotland · 28/07/2007 16:53

Oh, I see!

I thought she was just renting out her womb.