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:
edam · 28/07/2007 17:49

There is no question that the mother loves and cares for her child perfectly well. The judges admitted that much. So removing the child from the home of his biological mother is NOT a last resort.

As for why should the father relinquish his child to someone who let him down so badly, because a. the woman is the child's mother and b. taking him away from his mother, his home and his family is cruel and not the action of a loving father.

Mad decision made by mad people who act as if a child is a prize to be awarded to the party with the most persuasive barrister.

mimi03 · 28/07/2007 18:10

to clarify -in most cases social services remove the child as a last resort.... but i did say that if this child was in no danger which as i gather it wasnt, it should have stayed with the mum. think i was misunderstood

edam · 28/07/2007 18:52

Oh, I got the wrong end of the stick!

NAB3 · 28/07/2007 19:16

If she wnated a baby that badly why didn't she have one with her husband?

SweetyDarling · 28/07/2007 19:20

Hang on a sec. We don't know the father didn't have regular contact with the babyand doesn't have a good relationship with his son. We don't know he's white. We don't know he's rich. We don't know that the baby isn;t totally comfortable with his father.
So fundamentally we have no real reason to belive this is any different to any other custody battle.
I find it hard to believe that the judge didn't take the child's emotional well-being into account in making this decision.

Original poster
Beanburger · 28/07/2007 19:38

We do know that the judge said that Mr and Mrs P. had been good parents to the boy but ruled that their deception in agreeing to the surrogacy with the intention of keeping the baby suggested that Mr and Mrs J. would make better parents. "

I still can not believe that this father will go through with this.

I also think that his wife , having never had a child of her own, can not possibly understand what she and her husband are about to put this baby and his brothers and sisters through.

Does anyone have any links to updates or background to this story?

OP posts:
aloha · 28/07/2007 19:42

The case I read about (which does sound like this one) the woman was refusing the father any contact whatsoever, but the father had gone to court and got contact every weekend, so he won't be a stranger to the child, and, perhaps crucially, he was black. This is a VERY sketchy report.

Original poster
Beanburger · 28/07/2007 19:45

I looked for updates etc & came across this

www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=431168&in_page_id=17 70

instead which relates to babies with no genetic link to the surrogate.

Has the world gone mad?

OP posts:
aloha · 28/07/2007 19:48

I could be wrong of course, and this could be a totally different case, but I really think on such a sketchy report it really is hard to decide what is best for this child.

houseofhormones · 28/07/2007 20:02

Why do people put more stock into a mother's love against a fathers?

Fathers love their children just as much as mothers and both can do an equal job in raising and nuturing them

We know very little of this story, the dad may have played a part already.

And as for the little boy, he is young enough to adapt. To say this isn't like an adoption situation is wrong. The boy will experience the same feelings as an adoptee and most probably thrive

(from a woman that has experienced very bad divorce but would never say I was a better parent just because I am female)

MrsScavo · 28/07/2007 20:14

Please don't get me started! The mother carried the baby for nine months and gave birth to him. The father didn't. I dont' love my nephews and niece as much as my own children. I am biologically related to them, and love them enormously, but it is not the same.

Original poster
Beanburger · 28/07/2007 20:16

I am not suggesting that she would be the better parent because she is a woman.

If this baby boy had been living with his father & half siblings for 17 months then I would hope that he would stay there.

He is being deprived of his half siblings too :-(

OP posts:
divastrop · 28/07/2007 20:57

'Fathers love their children just as much as mothers and both can do an equal job in raising and nuturing them '

maybe in some cases,but not generally IMO.i think there are alot more fathers who see children as 'property' over which they have 'rights' than who see them as human beings who need love and stability.

and to say a 17 month old will just 'adapt',i take it you dont have any children of your own?

houseofhormones · 28/07/2007 22:15

I have 5 and I know for a fact my ex husband could/would do just as good a job as me raising them, loving and nuturing. As much as I can't stand him, I can recognise that fact

Women can also see children as property and withold contact from fathers after a divorce

I know men going through this at the moment, no thought for the kids, just pay back

And I think this thread is insulting every single father out there, doing as good a job as any women in raising their children

And yes a 17 month old can adapt, just like children adopted into a new family or one who has sadly lost a mother through bereavement

I personally know of people in all the above situations and those dads are fantastic as are the adoptive families before you ask

divastrop · 28/07/2007 22:38

usually theres a very good reason why mothers withold contact between their children and their fathers after a split.

im sure a 17 months old can adapt,if they have to,but in this case it seems it was just cruel.

nooka · 28/07/2007 22:41

People seem to be making a huge bunch of assumptions on a very sketchy report. Presumably the case has been heard like other custody cases, with a court appointed representative for the child etc. I think that if the birth mother really went along with this with no intention of ever giving up the child then she is very warped to do such a nasty thing to a presumably desperate couple (and I would have thought you would have to be fairly desperate to choose surrogacy). And yes I do think that this is relevant to the child's long term future, which is what the judge is making his assessment on here. I also that this would make many surrogates very sad, because it's a pretty incredible thing to do for someone else.

Original poster
Beanburger · 28/07/2007 22:50

My initial post simply asked for comments on the judgement.

Admittedly the details are sketchy but the primary reason for the decision given by the appeal court judge was deception on the part of the mother.

IF she never had any intention of handing over the baby then clearly she should not have entered into the contract.

But she did enter into it.

And there is now a 17 month old baby who will be taken from his family through no fault of his own.

A classic case of the sins of the father - except in this case of the mother.

When I started the post it had not even occurred to me - in my naivete- that anyone given the facts as they appear in the link could agree with the judgement.

I don't deny the pain of the biological father or the disappointment of his wife. But surely that is not the issue either.

OP posts:
edam · 28/07/2007 23:11

Quite, Beanburger. A 17 month old child, forced apart from his mother, even though that mother is admitted to be a perfectly good parent.

edam · 28/07/2007 23:14

Aloha, not sure what skin colour has to do with it, tbh - I'm guessing the court didn't say, hey, one parent is black, they should have the baby?

VeniVidiVickiQV · 28/07/2007 23:19

How heartbreaking for all concerned.

Nightynight · 28/07/2007 23:29

agree completely with scummymummy in this - if there was money involved, it should have been paid back.
Surrogacy a notoriously risky thing.

3andnomore · 28/07/2007 23:32

O thik there was something about this on the news a while back. and that indeed the mother asked for the "payment" that one would receive to cover maternity osts..but then she did not part with the child/children...dispte having a few that weere already looked after by social seervices...but it may well e a coincidence that ot all ahppened arunfd tha area...
ayway I woud thinkk usually people that actually do the surrogacy mum thing, really do think aboiut it very thoroughly, only that teh positive cases aren't always publicly announced...

3andnomore · 28/07/2007 23:34

tbh, the law explained to a surrgate mum, or a possible one are...please be sure about this...but, if yor a the birthmother...even if no genetic input, by law you will be looked at as the legal gauardian unless otherwise stated...

Original poster
Beanburger · 28/07/2007 23:42

This woman may have deceived the biological father deliberately or she may have thought she could see it through but found she could not.

Either way, the one person who is not at fault is the baby yet he is paying the price.

OP posts:
3andnomore · 28/07/2007 23:46

ph. absolutely true...but is this child taken away because of neglect issues or because someone who paid for it, and obviously wats it and has biological input in wants it...