“We wanted someone who would turn around and say, ‘this is your child, what do you want?’, rather than them telling us their demands for putting their lives on hold for nine months."

[niceberg]

I used to be generally supportive of non-commercial surrogacy until threads here made me think more deeply, and explore further, the issues with it.

Being aware of the law commission consultation on surrogacy law, a link to an article on a gay couple's trouble with surrogacy caught my eye. I'm afraid it's Pink News, which I didn't realise until I clicked. But I'll give you a potted summary to save you giving them more clicks.

The headline of the piece is "A Devon gay couple have spoken out about their rollercoaster journey to becoming parents, highlighting the desperate need for surrogacy reform in the UK." OK thinks I, there must have been some traumatic event / breakdown in the relationship with the woman / trouble getting parental orders. Something difficult for them which I'm prepared to read about even if my ultimate concern will always be the welfare of the baby and its mother.

But the story contains nothing of the sort. It was as straightforward for the intended parents as you can get. They took the baby home the day after he was born. The 48 hours waiting for the DNA test result was apparently a complete nightmare (!). They had to wait the requisite 6 weeks to apply for the parental order...um, yes, and?

My violin was already small and it shrank to miniscule then disappeared completely by the end. Now I just feel sick at the entitled approach. Maybe Pink News is doing them a disservice - it's all in the editing right? - but clearly they think this is an angle that will resonate with their readers.

Men must always get what they want, when they want it and at no inconvenience to themselves.

The welfare of women and children is of no importance.

Is that the gist of the article?

The thread title is a direct quote from the baby buyers themselves? I think I was just a bit sick in my mouth.

OvaHere that's about the size of it.

FloralBunting yes. I had to read it several times to make sure I had it right.

As John Lewis and Waitrose can manage same day click and collect then I think these two men are well within their rights as consumers to complain about not getting the service they deserve.

And this is the carefully managed side of things that men say. This is them trying.

I saw that story but from Devon Live.

They noted that these two guys had a Facebook page to find their surrogate mother. This is advertising and is therefore illegal. No one mentioned it in the article of course, and it was bloody obvious why a 23 year old wanted to do this.

Anyway, to save click traffic for P 'News'

www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/surrogacy-rollercoaster-endured-same-sex-4204574

She did for the wrong reason - money

Whereas women should want to risk their lives and mental health and give up a child purely to make men happy OBVIOUSLY.

How lovely to see pregnancy explicitly acknowledged as a customer service role. Forward thinking!

I know two gay couples who adopted children from care and it has been a huge benefit to the children involved, they have made fantastic parents.
I am in favour of gay marriage but the thought that it might start a group of men pressuring for a relaxation of the surrogacy laws, so that they can easily start their own families was not something that I saw coming.

In other news, "men who deliberately set out to exploit a vulnerable, desperate woman are surprised when the woman they set out to exploit turns out to be vulnerable and desperate."

This from the Devon Live article:

"In July 2017 they drew up a written contract called a memorandum which confirmed what the surrogate would be paid, the terms they had agreed to and what the surrogate would be provided with."

. .could be construed as acknowledgement that this was actually a commercial arrangement.

I think Tabby the payment would refer to the 'reasonable expenses' that are permitted in the U.K. I understand that a MOU is often drawn up but it is not a contract as contracts for surrogacy arrangement safe not enforceable. It's standard practice to discuss how often they will call the SM and what the deal is with scans etc, as well as paying expenses, as in working out what it is estimated to cost as well as unforeseen extras.

The Telegraph covered this issue and said one SM paid £60k so there were either some unforeseen expenses or some very expensive maternity clothes were purchased!

Perfectly put, @CaraDune.

They basically coerced her into being paid so that she didn’t feel she was being exploited and then publicly shame her for accepting money.

When I saw "Rollercoaster journey" I thought perhaps it was this couple, whose surrogate mother nearly died along with the twin babies.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/boss-who-nearly-died-carrying-22148952

Imagine, first day in a new job, asking your new boss to be a surrogate for you! That said she agreed which is also something my imagination has difficulty with.

Wow so they wanted her to have some money but not too much and really wanted her to do it for free. Those other nasty surrogates wanting it to be about them not what they could do for the men. Their treatment of the surrogate sounds terrible and isn’t an example of how to put your child first.

I get that they would have liked to be there at the birth. That must have been disappointing. Apart from that, it seems to have gone remarkably smoothly. Perhaps the couple haven't stopped to think that pregnancy and birth are quite a rollercoaster ride for everyone who experiences them.

I'm stumped to see what gave them all that anguish. There isn't usually any call for a DNA test, so perhaps that was it?

It was her egg and she was artificially inseminated in a hotel! I imagine the problems at the hospital were because she was the biological mother of the child not a normal surrogacy Situation.

The DNA test could have been because they weren't convinced it was one of the couple's biological child.

There have been cases of women faking tests and also of women having sex with their partners and - shock horror - getting pregnant with their own child.

The newspaper was hamming it up with the headline but also the couple sound pretty dramatic. I would like to know what their first experiences were like and they say it was unpleasant. Hmmm.

A relief to know someone is on the ball re safeguarding and the law and checking DNA.

to obtain a parental order but it took us seven months to get. During that time she was still classed as Santo’s legal mother and could have taken him from us at any point

This is a nonsense. Possession is 9/10 of the law. A woman cannot just pop up and reclaim the baby she gave away.
It's true, she could have refused to sign the parental order, meaning she would have remained the legal parent. If she had contested for custody the courts would have made a decision in the best interests of the child, which, as she is the biological mother might have included giving her visitation rights. Or indeed might have meant the courts would favour her over them. But that would have been a best interest decision.

From the court cases I have looked at the courts tend to favour the richer commissioning parents and also seem to privilege gay parents but not always. It depends on the child's best interests.

Furthermore the law changes proposed by the Law Commission will not apply in DIY home insemination cases such as these so their claim that the law needs to change is irrelevant in their case.

Home Hotel DIY arrangements are very silly as there are no medical tests and precautions and can be very problematic legally. That is why they had to do a DNA test. But I'm sure it saved them a few £000 in fertility clinic fees.

oh that is so sad :-(. It was her little baby. That poor child with no acknowledgement on who is mother is :-(

I have not the slightest issue with gay people being parents. I do have a major issue with this awful type of arrangement - for the mother and the child.

And I also struggled to work out exactly what was so awful about their journey?

“We wanted someone who would turn around and say, ‘this is your child, what do you want?’, rather than them telling us their demands for putting their lives on hold for nine months.".

That quote left me speechless. It is spine-chilling.

The complaint in the Devon Live article that the NHS hospital didn’t accommodate the dad’s properly. And the glorying in the full 12 months maternity leave, despite having no physical recovery from the pregnancy and birth. Maybe the journalist chose these quotes because the journo was a secret homophobe? Or the dads are dreadful people?

Babies bought and sold via facebook pages?

Yes, surrogacy laws do need to be reformed. To stop that happening.

I find it chilling.