Baby girl should live with father and boyfriend - not her mother, judge rules

drunkmonkey

From Rte, today, not sure what to make of this, it all seems a bit wrong taking the baby from her mother regardless of what was agreed with the 2 men just seems a bit wrong.
Wasn't sure where to post it but would like to here what's a woman's take on it considering everything that's happening at the moment, the judge seems to have ruled the baby girl is better off with her father and boyfriend than her breast feeding mum.

Baby girl should live with father and boyfriend - not her mother, judge rules http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/baby-girl-should-live-with-father-and-boyfriend-not-her-mother-judge-rules-31200320.html


A woman who gave birth to a girl after a man agreed to donate sperm has lost a family court fight over the youngster's future.

She said she had entered into an artificial conception agreement with the man which would see her acting as the "main parent and carer".

But the man said the agreement was that he and his male partner would "co-parent" the youngster - with the woman continuing to "play a role".

He said the woman had agreed to be a surrogate mother.

A High Court judge has ruled in favour of the two men after hearings in London and Birmingham.

Ms Justice Russell has also criticised the woman.

The judge said the woman had used "offensive language" including "stereo-typical images and descriptions of gay men" - and had "insinuated that gay men in same-sex relationships behave in a sexually dis-inhibited manner" and were "sexually disloyal to each-other".

And she said the woman had "disrupted" the men's evidence at court hearings. She said proceedings had to be "interrupted on numerous occasions" when the men were speaking so that the woman could express breast milk. She said interruptions were "noticeably" fewer and shorter when the woman gave evidence.

Detail of the case has emerged in a written ruling following hearings in January and February.

The judge said nothing could be reported which could identify the little girl - who celebrated her first birthday earlier this year.

Ms Justice Russell said she had to decide what was in the little girl's best interests.

"(The girl) was not conceived by two people in a sexual relationship," said the judge. "The pregnancy was contrived with the aim of a same-sex couple having a child to form a family assisted by a friend; this was ostensibly acquiesced to by all parties at the time the agreement was entered into and conception took place.

"Therefore (the girl) living with (the two men) and spending time with (the woman) from time to time fortunately coincides with the reality of her conception and accords with (the girl's) identity and place within her family."

She added: "(The girl) should live with her father and his partner as it is in her best interests to do so."

Ms Justice Russell made an order barring the woman "removing" the girl from the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales without the consent of the men.

She said the woman had used the "emotive image" of a "child being removed from her mother's breast" to gain sympathy.

"(The woman) has consistently done all she can to minimise the role that (the sperm donor) had in the child's life and to control and curtail his contact with his daughter," said the judge.

"Far from being a child that she conceived with her good friend, as she describes it, her actions have always been of a woman determined to treat the child as solely her own."

Ms Justice Russell added: "(The woman) has repeatedly used the emotive image of a child being removed from her mother's breast and refused breast milk as part of her attempts to gain sympathy and opprobrium for the (two men) and the court.

"It is not in the interests of any child to use breast-feeding ... to curtail that child's interaction with another parent or to deny her an opportunity to develop a healthy relationship with that parent.

"I have little doubt that that is what (the woman) set out to do, at least in part, and it was an action which was contrary to (the girl's) best interests and emotional well-being."

Ms Justice Russell said the woman had been "very assertive and at times almost aggressive" during court proceedings - whereas the two men had "sat very quietly".

"(The woman) disrupted the (men's) evidence," said the judge.

"For the first three days of the hearing in London and particularly while (the men) were giving their evidence the flow of the proceedings had to be interrupted on numerous occasions for (her) to express breast milk.

"When the case was heard in Birmingham and when (the woman) was giving her evidence the interruptions were noticeably fewer, shorter and took place when the court was adjourned."

The judge added: "Throughout the proceedings (the woman) has quite deliberately and explicitly sought to portray herself as a victim. Indeed she describes herself as such and claims that she is discriminated against as a mother and, more particularly as a breast-feeding mother."

She went on: "At the same time (the woman) used offensive language including stereotypical images and descriptions of gay men to portray the (the men). For example she repeatedly insinuated that gay men in same-sex relationships behave in a sexually dis-inhibited manner and are habitually sexually disloyal to each other.

"(The woman) has continually described the relationship between (the men) as 'on-off' and likely to be short lived. There was no evidence at all before the court to support this; indeed the two men were, and are, clearly devoted to each other."

The judge said information about the case had been published on social media.

She said a tweet, thought to have been written by associate of the woman and posted in January had read: "Wealthy gay couple force child from good mother's breast setting bad precedent..."

Promoted Articles

eviltwin

Why is it wrong? I feel for the woman but it says more about people getting into surrogacy arrangements they are not emotionally able to handle than anything else.

sullivlo

I'll probably get lambasted for this but what's the issue?

Judge ruled there was a surrogacy agreement in place. Child in loving family. Child has access to mother.

drunkmonkey

Surely a mum has the right to change her mind, which she seems to have in a big way. It's not a pony.

eviltwin

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Surely a mum has the right to change her mind, which she seems to have in a big way. It's not a pony.

If she can change her mind so can any other surrogate even one who.is a gestational carrier with no relationship to the child. It's not fair on the prospective parents, one of whom is the father in this case or do the rights of dad's not matter?

sullivlo

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Surely a mum has the right to change her mind, which she seems to have in a big way. It's not a pony.

Apologies for the crudeness but in a surrogacy situation the woman is just an oven.

Chances are there was money involved too. And the biological father has rights too.

drunkmonkey

Dads matter but this a breast feeding mum who is also the natural mum. I dunno maybe it's just me but the whole thing seems a mess. Probably gender stereo typing here but think the girl should be with her mum. There's a bond there I don't think a man can understand even a dad.

eviltwin

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Dads matter but this a breast feeding mum who is also the natural mum. I dunno maybe it's just me but the whole thing seems a mess. Probably gender stereo typing here but think the girl should be with her mum. There's a bond there I don't think a man can understand even a dad.

You are gender stereotyping. The bond between a father and his children can be just as strong and sometimes stronger than that of a mother.

worded

It has to be ruled on the same as if it was two lesbians.

sullivlo

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Dads matter but this a breast feeding mum who is also the natural mum. I dunno maybe it's just me but the whole thing seems a mess. Probably gender stereo typing here but think the girl should be with her mum. There's a bond there I don't think a man can understand even a dad.

The baby is 1 ffs. Chances are she is well weaned onto solid food. She has teeth at this stage.

I'm sure there is a LOT more to this case than reported. Courts tend to side with mothers. The judge must have had fair reason to award custody to the father.

Edit: also the mother still has access therefore the bond can still exist!

Redo22

Read this article on the daily mail and Irish times. The above RTE article does not mention that this woman's other children were removed from her as she was deemed 'unfit' and their father was given full custody. The judge ruled in the best interest of the child - to be with their biological father in a loving and stable family - not with a mother who had already been classed as unfit! Biological or not, she is not best placed to raise that child

sullivlo

Redo22 wrote: »

Read this article on the daily mail and Irish times. The above RTE article does not mention that this woman's other children were removed from her as she was deemed 'unfit' and their father was given full custody. The judge ruled in the best interest of the child - to be with their biological father in a loving and stable family - not with a mother who had already been classed as unfit! Biological or not, she is not best placed to raise that child

Exactly. More to it than meets the eye.

Redo22

sullivlo wrote: »

Exactly. More to it than meets the eye.

That mother is trying to sensationalise a very simple case. She is unfit. The baby is not being ripped from its mothers breast - the fathers have allowed her access and the chance to breast feed. She comes across as extremely emotionally manipulative I think

sullivlo

Redo22 wrote: »

That mother is trying to sensationalise a very simple case. She is unfit. The baby is not being ripped from its mothers breast - the fathers have allowed her access and the chance to breast feed. She comes across as extremely emotionally manipulative I think

This makes me sad. Gives other women a bad name

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Dads matter but this a breast feeding mum who is also the natural mum. I dunno maybe it's just me but the whole thing seems a mess. Probably gender stereo typing here but think the girl should be with her mum. There's a bond there I don't think a man can understand even a dad.

The child is over a year old! No need for breast feeding.
The judge has found in the best interests of the child and has seen through the mothers attempt at blackmail, by stopping proceedings to expel milk!!

OP, I don't see the problem here at all and this idea you have of a stronger bond between mother and daughter, over father and daughter, is just ridiculous!

John Mason

bubblypop wrote: »

The child is over a year old! No need for breast feeding.
!

Just point out the HSE and WHO recommend breastfeeding until 2 and beyond. I am assuming this is also the recommendation of the NHS.

meeeeh

Well then maybe we should take care of all the poor babies that are bottle feed from birth right? I am in full support of breastfeeding and I fed mine but in the best interest of the child is to resolve the situation quickly. I am sure it will be very stressful as it is. Considering the child is on solids brestfeeding really isn't that relevant.

I must say though that I am definitely not a fan of surrogacy. It likely involves vulnerable people, often desperate want to be parents and often surrogate that is doing it because they don't have much of choice. I am also not surprised that some get attached to the child. It is a recipe for disaster. Btw this has nothing to do with gay marriage, I am not in favour of surrogacy for anybody. I just don't think parent's desire to have kids sometimes shouldn't trump possible big risks.

That being said I fully agree with decision of the judge and I think that mother possibly harmed child with her behaviour.

kidneyfan

This woman is not a surrogate. She is the child's genetic mother. Surrogacy agreements are not legally enforceable in the United Kingdom.
There seems to be no consideration of the possibility of post partum depression.
The judge refused to allow the woman's adolescent children to testify and further refused to read the adolescent children's written depositions.

MrWalsh

kidneyfan wrote: »

This woman is not a surrogate. She is the child's genetic mother. Surrogacy agreements are not legally enforceable in the United Kingdom.
There seems to be no consideration of the possibility of post partum depression.
The judge refused to allow the woman's adolescent children to testify and further refused to read the adolescent children's written depositions.

And one of the men is the child's genetic father.

kidneyfan

MrWalsh wrote: »

And one of the men is the child's genetic father.

What's your point?

MrWalsh

kidneyfan wrote: »

What's your point?

What exactly was yours by stating that the woman was the child's genetic mother? So what?

Neyite

John Mason wrote: »

Just point out the HSE and WHO recommend breastfeeding until 2 and beyond. I am assuming this is also the recommendation of the NHS.

True.

I feel though that the breastfeeding angle was an attempted ploy to sway the court - particularly given that she insisted on interrupting proceedings to express milk several times, rather than a genuine desire to nourish the child.

The fact that her other children were taken off her suggests that the judge made the right call in placing the baby with the bio father and his partner, with regular access to the mother. This is very often the same access arrangement that is made for separated fathers, and nobody usually thinks that's unfair on the dad.

I do sympathise with any mother wanting to keep their baby, but if she is not stable enough to provide a stable upbringing for the baby then its for the best that the child's main home is with the stable parent.

Surrogacy legislation does need to be addressed though.

kidneyfan

MrWalsh wrote: »

What exactly was yours by stating that the woman was the child's genetic mother? So what?

In drunkmonkey's post it says that the girl's father said that her mother had agreed to be a surrogate. This is not correct.
Prenatal agreements have no legal status in the UK but the judge has acted to give effect to one here (allegedly - the nature of the agreement is unclear; and seems more that the mother and father would live together than that the mother would 'hand over' the child -).

kidneyfan

Neyite wrote: »

The fact that her other children were taken off her suggests that the judge made the right call in placing the baby with the bio father and his partner, with regular access to the mother.

The father and his boyfriend are neither married nor civilly partnered. The judge refused to hear evidence from the woman's teenage daughters.

MrWalsh

kidneyfan wrote: »

In drunkmonkey's post it says that the girl's father said that her mother had agreed to be a surrogate. This is not correct.
Prenatal agreements have no legal status in the UK but the judge has acted to give effect to one here (allegedly - the nature of the agreement is unclear; and seems more that the mother and father would live together than that the mother would 'hand over' the child -).

So what? Regardless of surrogacy, the mother was deemed unfit and the child's custody given to her father with parental access for the mother. I'm not seeing the issue here, it happens all the time in the opposite direction with mothers being awarded custody?

kidneyfan wrote: »

The father and his boyfriend are neither married nor civilly partnered. The judge refused to hear evidence from the woman's teenage daughters.

Again, so what? I'm not seeing the relevance of the legal status of the fathers relationship with his partner?

Perhaps the judge had all the evidence he or she required and didn't need to hear the evidence from the teenage daughters? Again, I really don't see what point you are trying to make here?

strobe

kidneyfan wrote: »

The father and his boyfriend are neither married nor civilly partnered. The judge refused to hear evidence from the woman's teenage daughters.

I'd imagine judges would always be reluctant about calling children forth as character witnesses on cases that don't relate to them in any way... The request to have them heard is the weird thing surely, not the refusal.

eviltwin

kidneyfan wrote: »

The father and his boyfriend are neither married nor civilly partnered. The judge refused to hear evidence from the woman's teenage daughters.

Why is that relevant? He's the child's father, his relationship status doesn't matter. It's sad to see that an idea still exists that a mother's rights trump everything. So much for equality. It's this kind of thinking that damage women's opportunities. I really thought we were over all that now.

sullivlo

eviltwin wrote: »

Why is that relevant? He's the child's father, his relationship status doesn't matter. It's sad to see that an idea still exists that a mother's rights trump everything. So much for equality. It's this kind of thinking that damage women's opportunities. I really thought we were over all that now.

Oh yes. "Equality". People campaigning left right and centre for equality these days, yet most will still believe a mother has more rights to a child.

Irritates the **** out of me.

pwurple

This is a tough case. The mother, who has been described here by posters as unfit, and an oven... Clearly she made a huge mistake here. Why anyone would agree to be both egg and womb surrogate is beyond me. Desperation clearly. But unfit? i don't think there was any allegation of abuse here.

And about her other children, it seems they are adults, or at least older teenagers at this point. So we are talking about a woman who possibly had children very young, maybe a teenager herself at the time, who maybe couldn't cope at the time. And posters now deem her an unfit mother because of what happened ~20 years ago.

The father obviously cares for the child a huge amount, and the mother is behaving with further desperation. But is this a reasonable way for anyone having their children taken off them? This was not a child abuse case, there were no social workers involved. This is not a separation case, there was no relationship.

If she was a single mother, would she still have the child living with her?

Mr. Incognito

The mother was unfit so the judge placed the child with the father.

Everything else is a red herring.

kidneyfan

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The mother was unfit so the judge placed the child with the father.

Everything else is a red herring.

She wasn't unfit. The father employed England's best family law firm and the judge is Millie Tant. Anyway the neckbeards here now so I'll bow out and leave you to it.

Chemical Byrne

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Dads matter but this a breast feeding mum who is also the natural mum. I dunno maybe it's just me but the whole thing seems a mess. Probably gender stereo typing here but think the girl should be with her mum. There's a bond there I don't think a man can understand even a dad.

It's times like this that I wisht there was a "dislike" button on boards.ie

kidneyfan

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

It's times like this that I wisht there was a "dislike" button on boards.ie

Did you know that there is such a thing as a razor and you can use it on your neck?

Chemical Byrne

Wha? I don't get you?

Like are you insinuating that I'm a neckband? Or that I should cut my throat or

MrWalsh

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

Wha? I don't get you?

Like are you insinuating that I'm a neckband? Or that I should cut my throat or

What's a neckband? I presumed the poster meant the latter though. Weird.

Mars Bar

Mod

The post has been dealt with. Please do not respond and return to the topic at hand.

manjosh

It like people really fail to understand what surrogacy is. Atleast their are services offering surrogacy online. Rather go through a registered and professional than having to face all this mess.

_Whimsical_

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The mother was unfit so the judge placed the child with the father.

Everything else is a red herring.

Not so if you actually read the judgement which deals with whether the judge relied on the fact that there was a surrogacy arrangement in place, she didn't,and the basis on which she declared the mother unfit ,which had nothing to do with her previous parenting of other children. The judge spells that out.

125. It is not the function of this court to decide on the nature of the agreement between H, B and S and then either enforce it or put it in place. It is the function of the court to decide what best serves the interests and welfare of this child throughout her childhood.

I cannot reach properly any conclusions about the two older girls' relationship with their mother and I do not intend to do so; nor do I rely on any conclusions reached by the guardian in this case about the proceedings or S's conduct in those proceedings apart from those which are based on those admitted and accepted facts referred to above. I do not intend to make any findings or place any reliance on S's relationship with her two elder daughters; I have not heard or read the evidence and therefore cannot do so. I am concerned with M and there is more than sufficient evidence before this court to reach conclusions about S's parenting abilities, her conduct and her credibility in relation to the matters which concern M.

What did form the crux of her judgement on the woman being unfit to parent was how she was caring for the baby which she explains here:

"119. At present S is able to care for M well physically but there are already grounds for concerns about her mother's over emotional and highly involved role in this infant's life. Ultimately the role of a parent is to help the child to become independent. This is a child who at 15 months old is still carried by her mother in a sling on her body. M spends most of her time with her mother who does not set out any timetable for returning to work, as S would have to, to provide for M and for herself. There is a potential for enmeshment and stifling attachment rather than a healthy outward looking approach to the child's life. The question is who benefits most from this chosen regime which points towards an inability to put the child's needs before her mother's need or desire for closeness.

120. The attachment which will develop in an infant who sleeps with her mother, spends all day being carried by her mother and is breastfed on demand through out the day and night raises questions about the long term effect on M. From the point of view of this judgment it further begs the question as to who benefits most from the regime S has chosen to impose without reference to M's father, H. I have little doubt that the breast-feeding was used a device to frustrate contact during the proceedings, a conclusion supported by S claiming at first that she could not express her milk which so reduced the time available for contact; subsequently when it was clear that M could be fed and was able to eat other foods S no longer had difficulty expressing milk. I am forced to conclude that S has shown herself to be unable to put M first and that she is unable to meet M's emotional needs now and in the long term."

To me that sounds quite strange. We have a mother who is according to a judge ,health visitors and doctors doing a good job of caring for the child. The child is described as healthy happy and smiling. She seems to be practising attachment parenting.Studies have shown that attachment parenting creates healthy, balanced,secure children and it is a parenting choice often lauded, certainly not one scorned by childcare experts or the courts.
She is frustrating efforts to see her father and send the child on overnight trips but that's not generally grounds to remove a child from a parent altogether.
A "highly emotionally involved" mother of an infant is pretty normal, and who has heard of an independent 16month old baby?

I think it was a strange ruling personally. The fathers involved were not married or civil partners which I would've thought would not have painted them as a making an effort to create a more stable family than the single mother. I found the judgement weird.

meeeeh

And the only reason this judgment is getting the attention is because it involves gay couple. There are battles in court every day which parent will get the custody and at large nobody questions the decisions. No divorced father or mother is told it would be good to remarry to create more stable environment for kids. As far as I can tell judge had to decide who is more fit to parent the child. That is it and it happens every day in courts so I really can't see how this case is so exceptional.

_Whimsical_

meeeeh wrote: »

And the only reason this judgment is getting the attention is because it involves gay couple. There are battles in court every day which parent will get the custody and at large nobody questions the decisions. No divorced father or mother is told it would be good to remarry to create more stable environment for kids. As far as I can tell judge had to decide who is more fit to parent the child. That is it and it happens every day in courts so I really can't see how this case is so exceptional.

It's getting attention because it's worrying that a child is removed from a parent on the basis of them raising a happy healthy baby who is being well cared for according to all parties and because a child is denied her natural mother where a shared custody agreement might have given her the opportunity to have two good parents in her life. That doesn't happen every day.
If there was a surrogacy agreement in place that the judge relied on to come to her decision, if her ability to care for the child was in question on the basis of poor treatment of this child or other children it would've made sense. Instead in the judgement dreadful things were inferred from normal motherly behaviour and a child was taken from a mother and given to a couple who have not made any commitment to each other. It received attention because that was strange, it's strange whether they were gay or hetrosexual in my opinion.

Personally I hope it's appealed, even if the conclusion is the same I think the childs interests were not best served by decisions made on the basis outlined in the judgement. If other basis can be found for her being removed from her mum then that would be different.
It's worth noting that precedent is very important law, this judgement sets a disturbing precedent for future cases of basic custody as well, not just surrogacy arrangements as a surrogacy arrangement wasn't really a big part of how the case was judged.

meeeeh

It's not normal motherly behaviour to use breastfeeding as a tool to keep father away from the child. Couple of snippets from the judgement can be used in any which way according with ones prejudices. You don't know the full extent of facts. Judges are not infallible but I am prepared to believe this one until proven otherwise.

The only reason this court case got any more attention than thousands of similar cases is that there is a gay father involved. A gay father in unstable relationship! (I have to tell my kids that my partner and I are disregarding their well-being because we are not married). I wish people would be honest about their motives. I can respect people who I disagree with but I really don't like hypocrisy.

strobe

The woman was repeatedly denying the father access to the child under the paper thing guise of "breastfeeding issues". She isn't putting the child's interests first. The child has two parents. The judge ruled one would be more likely than the other to put the child's interests first so gave custody to that parent.

The only issue people have (alongside the gay thing) is that the judge equally evaluated both parents for suitability for primary custody instead of making a presumption the mother should always have custody because she has no y chromosome. If things were reversed, we had a father denying a mother access on some clearly nonsense bullsh1t basis, and the mother was the one awarded custody, there wouldn't even be a thread about this.

I think any case involving a child, it's important to look to the testimony of the child's court appointed Guardian. There's a lot more to the case than concerns about attachment parenting.:

Since the order of 2nd June 2014 the child (M) has been separately represented through her Children's Guardian.

The Guardian supported the Applicants' view that M should be allowed to make up her own mind about her religion when she is old enough and recommended that M was not baptised into any specific religion. This question has been overtaken by S breaching the court order made in June 2014 prohibiting baptism.

The Guardian expressed her concern in her report the damaging effect on M if she were removed to Romania and it is her belief that S "might remove [M] from the jurisdiction if she believes she has nothing to lose." The Applicants sought a prohibited steps order preventing S from removing M from the jurisdiction (without their express written permission) during her minority.

Despite being disparaged by S and having allegations made about his conduct and financial probity he [the father] continued to offer contact at much greater frequency than the Guardian recommended when he could so easily have adopted the Guardian's regime.

M's Guardian has recommended to the court that M is moved to live with the Applicants and should see S once a month for a period of supervised contact.

As S has deliberately flouted court orders in the past, I [the judge] share the concerns of the guardian that she is likely to do so again in the future particularly as she may feel that she has little to gain in obeying the orders made following this judgment. It is a serious and substantial change to have contact supervised and it is one that I have, frankly, struggled with but I have concluded that the protection afforded by contact being supervised is necessary step to reduce conflict and enhance the likelihood of contact being a positive experience for M.

I consider that it is necessary to ensure that S does not use contact as a means of continuing the contest for ownership of M and use her mode of parenting to try to undermine the decision of the court as she has in the past and during these proceedings.

Moreover it is intended that a regime of supervised contact should not continue for long but that once M is settled and living with the Applicants the parties will be able to reach their own agreement and arrangements over contact which was always the intention of H and B and so that M can spend time with S in a relaxed environment including in S's home.

The mother is a flight risk who appears to have no respect for the UK legal system (a HUGE no-no in a court decision) and it seems to me the judge concluded that the best way for the child to be in the lives of BOTH her parents was by giving custody to her father.