Surrogate mother wins access to her biological son in landmark case - after gay couple said it was 'homophobic' for her to be involved in their 'motherless family' with 'no vacancy' for a woman

[lechiffre55]

Surrogate mother wins access to her biological son in landmark case - after gay couple said it was 'homophobic' for her to be involved in their 'motherless family' with 'no vacancy' for a woman
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13828699/Surrogate-mother-landmark-case-gay-couple.html

That seems so unfair.
If the woman counts for so little after having done so much, go scorched earth, abort it.

Inappropriate relationship 🤯

Surrogacy is selfish and cruel to the child. I hope is banned. Not being able to have kids is not a reason to exploit children and vulnerable women. I am pretty sure the majority of surrogate mothers would have trauma and regret. It is only natural that they would. Why people can’t accept when there is not possibility of having their own kids? Treating it as a commodity is wrong and celebrities should be shunned when doing this for vanity reasons.

I am reading the judgement with my jaw on the floor at this couple's misogyny, selfishness and lack of insight.

GiveMeSpanakopita · Yesterday 13:37

If they'd gone the adoption route than any expressed sentiment along these lines would have seen them booted off the waiting list.

Given the way that SS and the council went to bat for them, I have my doubts on that score.

@nothingcomestonothing thanks for that information. Wouldn't we have to get rid of mother as a concept, in the UK. It would be very messy, we have a complex language which makes a difference in law. The Nordic model may have been drafted in the earlier days of surrogacy and what would they do about biological mothers who wanted to retain rights before going ahead?

I'm not very sure of my footing with surrogacy but it is an interesting area of women's rights.

We don't have to get rid of the concept of a mother, because under the Law Commission reforms the purchasers (of whatever sex) would be the legal parents from birth. A child doesn't legally have to have a mother - eg in a male same sex adoption or a single male adopter, the child legally doesn't have a mother once the adoption order is made.

The Law Commission reforms to surrogacy are very clearly about making the process better for the purchasers. The link I posted isn't about the early days of surrogacy, it's the current direction of travel - the woman who grows and births the child having no legal relationship to it from birth. The previous set up is as with any child, the woman who gives birth has PR automatically, and it has to be given up by her or taken away by a court.

It's very clear the Law Commission wants to make surrogacy easier for the purchasers, and even disregarded the responses to the consultation which were against legal surrogacy at all. It's like having a consultation about whether we should have the death penalty by hanging or firing squad, and ignoring everyone who says 'no we shouldn't have the death penalty at all '.

It's much like the theft of women's rights to single sex spaces. Do you think we should allow this group of males to count as women, or this group? Shall we allow the sale of babies this way, or this way? with no option to voice that no, none of them. Two different fronts in the same war on women.

Edited typo

This couple have said the quiet part out loud IMO.
They have basically admitted that they are indoctrinating this child to lead a certain lifestyle populated only by certain kinds of people.

It will be interesting (and very telling) to see where this child is in 20 years time.

I doubt they will be a well rounded individual.

And the men then put on the court record that they vehemently reject the professional's findings, that he is biased against them and that none of what was stated applies to them, he is a big bad wolf who has simply got it all wrong.

Essentially demonstrating exactly what was stated by being enraged/excluding the perceived threat instead of showing any level of self-reflection or insightfulness. Sounds like the Dr was bang on the money!

My reading of the judgment was that the mother is granted 4 direct visits per year, so once every 3 months (plus regular indirect contact)?

Not the least bit surprised at this. Depressed, but not surprised. It is an up to date version of bygone days. When the Bros were at the top and beneficiaries who policed women. Engaged in, and cover uppers of abuses against women and girls. Where the previous handmaidens went along with locking women and girls up in Magdalen laundries and mother and baby homes. Also a State that turned a blind eye to the trafficking of children’s and babies, and the alteration and falsification of official documents.

Only cosmetic changes. Same old, same old.

I find it incredible that the Gardaí returned ‘escaped’ women to the Laundries where they were effectively kept prisoner. Women who had committed no crime whatsoever. Run by previous Bros, and women who prioritised them. The current Bros are also masquerading as being the good boys (and ‘good’ girls who prioritise what benefits the boys).

What kind of 'mother' has a baby for money and hands it over to two men? Not a very good one (even if she wanted contact after birth). All three of the adults in this shit show are repulsive.

I think it's time the local authority was held to account for how they are spending public money - why are they getting involved in what is essentially a dispute between parents? I know the answer of course - because in the pecking order of importance, women aren't even on the list. We can have rights, so long as they aren't in conflict with anything a man wants!

Women are totally shorting themselves n the foot in agreeing to these arrangements though - I get why a woman might do this for her sister or a very close friend, but not for strangers, who essentially view her as a walking womb.

Clearly the 'mother' didn't understand surrogacy, why agree to this and want to stay in contact? how is this explained to a child?
All horrible thoughtless people

What about you, do you understand reproduction and how babies develop?

She never tried to take the baby back, she accepts the two dads as his dads, she just wanted contact, to be part of his extended family and for him to know who she was. Which the dads agreed to beforehand, then went back on and wanted her to 'accept her place as the surrogate'.

Totally agree

Surrogacy is sold as an amazing selfless act, that the woman is giving an amazing gift to a family who will be forever grateful.

As I understand it the dads are close friends of her sister, and are godparents to the sister's child. It seems like she agreed to help after a commercial surrogacy plan they previously had fell through. I can see how she could see this lovely couple who desperately wanted a baby and had had their hopes dashed, and naïvely wanted to help them achieve their dream. Female socialisation to help and give and be selfless can be strong. And she was promised whatever she asked, until the dads felt she got 'uppity' and started moving the goalposts.

@BooToYouHalloween I know it's the Fail but click on the article and the legal situation becomes clearer. They signed an order giving her contact and then reneged on it.

Soon afterwards she signed a parental order handing responsibility for the child to the men along with a second order ensuring that she could have regular contact with the child, who lived permanently with his dads.

Glad she took them to court and this is a good result in the interest of the child (though what an awful start life for the baby) and this child will be so upset when he discovers his dads intentions.

You're right, she was initially given fortnightly, which the dads then stopped, then indirect contact only, and the latest judgement gave her direct contact 4 times a year and indirect twice a year.

1. Turning to the issue of frequency of contact I agree with Dr Willemsen that direct contact twice a year and indirect contact at the same frequency is unlikely to meet Z's identity needs. I consider that direct contact on four occasions a year, to include any birthday or Christmas contact, strikes the right welfare balance between meeting Z's welfare needs to have lived experience of G, be able to effectively maintain that relationship and not to interfere too much in the day to day life of X, Y and Z. In addition, there should be two periods of indirect contact

I am a bit shocked these 2 men were permitted to care for this baby- they are so clearly unable to put the child first. It's cruel. It also reflects poorly on the social workers who are failing to safeguard children where parents are LGBT.

UK is a signatory to the UN Rights of the Child, which outlines how important it is children know who their mother is.
It's why programmes like 'Long Lost family' as so popular- humans have a longing to know their true parentage.

www.unicef.org.uk/what-we-do/un-convention-child-rights/

The problem with this case is that the mother obviously either didn't understand what it really was going to be like as a surrogate, was sold a lie by the "commissioning" couple and generally was not prepared for the emotional rollercoaster that surrogacy is.

I like others do not know what was said to her to get her to agree to be a surrogate! My guessing is that she truly believed she would be part of the child's life.

All of this shows why commercial and semi commercial surrogacy should be banned and except in very limited circumstances should any surrogacy be allowed, that is truly altruistic surrogacy which quite frankly has always existed eg sister carrying for sister.

So sad for the child caught up in this.

I have no issues with 2 men raising a child but they shouldn't be able to buy one - adopt one of the many needing homes. I know three male gay couples who have adopted very successfully, make amazing parents and one couple have deliberately adopted children with extensive medical conditions and sn's who they have made a huge difference to their life chances

Awful entitled men.

They would have got involved because the court ordered them to. If a private court application is heard by a court and the court has safeguarding concerns they will order the local authority to carry out a section 27 assessment. They wouldn't have got involved voluntarily.