[Benjamin]

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

There has never been, nor will there ever be, anything quite so special as the love between the mother and a son, so the proverb goes.

But this fundamental bond has been tested in a landmark legal battle in London where a surrogate mother had to fight her child's same-sex parents through the courts to see him regularly, MailOnline can reveal today.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, won the case after the gay couple for whom she carried the baby for nine months tried to stop her seeing her own biological child and erase her from his life.

The two men claimed that the little boy would be confused if he saw his mother because he lived with them in a 'motherless family' and was being raised within the LGBT community.

The couple told her there was 'no vacancy' for her 'just because [he] has same-sex parents' - even though he was conceived using her egg and carried in her womb.

They also called her homophobic for insisting the little boy recognised her as his mother, accusing her of pursuing an 'inappropriate relationship' and arguing that regular contact with her would give him the impression that having same-sex parents made his family incomplete.

On one occasion the men even threatened to call the police when she turned up at their house to see her son for a pre-arranged visit - but she was refused access and a 'horrendous' row ensued in the presence of their young son.

One child psychologist who gave evidence in the case said that the men were attempting an 'erasure of mother’ from their family, which he said did not reflect reality and was not in the best interests of the little boy at the heart of the legal battle.

The child, named as 'Z' in court proceedings, was born in September 2020.

His two fathers, a married couple aged 36 and 43, were friends with the surrogate's sister and were desperate for a child to complete their family so she agreed to help.

After the transfer of a donor egg failed they decided to try an egg belonging to the surrogate, referred to as 'G' in legal proceedings.

The men, referred to as 'X' and 'Y', agreed that she would have contact with the child after it was born - but their relationship deteriorated during her pregnancy.

The couple claimed afterwards they became frightened that she would refuse to hand the baby to them after birth.

However, she did, although the 36-year-old did admit having fears that she would be cut out of the child's life completely. Fears that would later be realised.

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.

But the gay couple reneged on that agreement - leading to the doorstep argument that sparked them threatening to dial 999 unless she left, the court heard.

'G' had secretly recorded the altercation and while the audio was not shared as part of the ruling, the judge in the case said it was 'rightly described as "horrendous",' not least because it was in the presence of their son.

The men then pursued a series of legal cases against her that would cut 'G' from the boy's life.

In the first case of its kind, the court had to consider whether a step-parent adoption order should be made, extinguishing the ties between the child and the surrogate.

The gay couple's local authority even supported their case, opposed by the surrogate mother, who was represented by 1GC Family Law led by barrister Janet Bazley KC.

But the British courts have ruled in the surrogate's favour.

determined that it would not make a step-parent adoption order - meaning that the surrogate mother retains legal parentage and parental responsibility for the child.

Mrs Justice Theis ordered that the child would continue to live with the intended parents under a ‘lives with’ order and made a ‘spends time with’ order in the surrogate mother’s favour.

'Whilst many surrogacy arrangements work very successfully, this case provides a graphic illustration of the difficulties that can be encountered if the arrangement breaks down', the judge said.

She went on: 'Z is clearly thriving in X and Y’s care. That is not in issue and G has never suggested should not live with them, for Z that security is there. Z has seen G recently and has expressed the wish to see her again'.

Mrs Justice Theis added: 'I hope now that these decisions have been made the parties will be able to focus on the important issue in this case, namely, to take steps to seek appropriate therapy and support with the aim of seeking to repair their relationships, as the one thing that unites all the adults is ensuring that Z’s welfare needs are met.

'This is now the opportunity for each of them to demonstrate to Z that they can work together and each play their part to ensure that is achieved'.

The case was first reported on by feminist writer Julie Bindel in The Critic this week.

'In the space of a few years the term "motherless" has moved from an emotive description of absence to a positive identity argued for in court', she wrote.

'When celebrity couples introduce their surrogate children on social media the women who gave birth to them are rarely mentioned. The new babies are "welcomed" like they have been sent by special delivery.'

She added: 'To the men, G was simply a surrogate womb to a motherless child. But to G and to Z, she was his mother'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...elated-replace

[UserSince2005]

Dumb to use the same person as egg donor and surrogate mother.
Got to use different people so neither have any rights.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by UserSince2005

Dumb to use the same person as egg donor and surrogate mother.
Got to use different people so neither have any rights.

I’m not sure I agree to having absolutely no rights. Especially if the agreement was for there to be some rights/contact.

[UserSince2005]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

I’m not sure I agree to having absolutely no rights. Especially if the agreement was for there to be some rights/contact.

I didn't read the full report, but if there was previous agreement then fair enough, she should have contact.

Otherwise hand the baby over and be on your way... oven.

[Niamh.]

Not a massive fan of surrogacy really not in a commercial way anyway, too open to exploitation

[Cherie]

She had an agreement with them, which they reneged on, good on her for taking them to court, it is unusual I think as most surrogates give up all rights to the child

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Cherie

She had an agreement with them, which they reneged on, good on her for taking them to court, it is unusual I think as most surrogates give up all rights to the child

In this case the surrogate was also the egg donor.

[Beso]

One of the gay couple needs to butt out cause it has nothing to do with him.

[Mystic Mock]

If she's had to carry the baby for 9 months then she should have the right to see him if she wants to imo.

Obviously I'm not saying to take the child away from the actual parents, but the woman is Biologically the kid's Mother.

Also I think with children (in this case a boy) it's always good to get the kid to socialize with the opposite gender before they reach School age.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

If she's had to carry the baby for 9 months then she should have the right to see him if she wants to imo.

Obviously I'm not saying to take the child away from the actual parents, but the woman is Biologically the kid's Mother.

Also I think with children (in this case a boy) it's always good to get the kid to socialize with the opposite gender before they reach School age.

I agree because she was the egg donor in this case too, even if there wasn’t an initial agreement (which there was).

But if she was just a surrogate, I’d say she should have no rights to see the child as it’s not hers.

With regards to a kid mixing with an opposite gender, you don’t need to have a mum (or dad) in their lives for that to happen.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

I agree because she was the egg donor in this case too, even if there wasn’t an initial agreement (which there was).

But if she was just a surrogate, I’d say she should have no rights to see the child as it’s not hers.

With regards to a kid mixing with an opposite gender, you don’t need to have a mum (or dad) in their lives for that to happen.

I do think that having an adult woman (Mother, older Sister, or friend of the family) regularly around, that the boy (in this case) will be taught how to respect and behave around women, compared to a lot of boys around the same age group.

Thus it decreases the likelihood of him becoming a Redpill Andrew Tate stan when he is older.

[Ammi]

…so incredibly sad that the relationship deteriorated and to the point that it involved legal proceedings to establish contact…it’s very difficult to children to see the impact on a child caught up in such bad feeling…I know the courts have ruled in terms of visitation and contact but still a huge journey to go in terms of always and constant positive contact from all adult/parent influences in his young life and I hope that’s what he experiences…not ‘warring’ experiences but hopefully the best of all his adults…it sounds more unlikely atm but I hope for him…just all very sad to have come to that…:/…

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

I agree because she was the egg donor in this case too, even if there wasn’t an initial agreement (which there was).

But if she was just a surrogate, I’d say she should have no rights to see the child as it’s not hers.

With regards to a kid mixing with an opposite gender, you don’t need to have a mum (or dad) in their lives for that to happen.

Yeah I don't know how people do that, carry the baby and also be the egg donor. I think Brian Dowling and his husband did it in the most ideal way, with his sister carrying the baby for them but not using her own eggs (he was very lucky to have had that option though I know)

[AnnieK]

I think it is very selfless to be a surrogate. I have no idea how any woman can put her body through it and feel that baby grow and move and then relinquish all rights to it after the birth. Having had my own fertility struggles, I know it is a wonderful thing for couples who can't have a child to be able to achieve their dream of becoming parents but it isn't something I could ever do.

I hope this family can remember that the child is the most important person in this legal row and all do the best for him. It sounds like the fathers are wonderful parent's and love their son but they need to also allow him to have his biological mother in his life if he wants her there.

[Swan]

So she carried a child for them, gave them a child, and part of the deal was that she could keep contact with the child and see them? Now the Dads want the mother out of the way to bring up the child "LGBT" (whatever that means), yet she still wants to see her child, she is now "homophobic" ?

Hope she gets full custody of the child.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Swan

So she carried a child for them, gave them a child, and part of the deal was that she could keep contact with the child and see them? Now the Dads want the mother out of the way to bring up the child "LGBT" (whatever that means), yet she still wants to see her child, she is now "homophobic" ?

Hope she gets full custody of the child.

That isn’t what she wants. She wants some contact with the child as was agreed.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Swan

So she carried a child for them, gave them a child, and part of the deal was that she could keep contact with the child and see them? Now the Dads want the mother out of the way to bring up the child "LGBT" (whatever that means), yet she still wants to see her child, she is now "homophobic" ?

Hope she gets full custody of the child.

Yeah saying it homophobic for a mother to want to see her own child especially when they told her she could after doing what she did for them is really horrible actually. Like we used your body and lied to you get you to do that but now you're useless

[arista]

Ben why no Photo posted by you?

[arista]

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by UserSince2005

I didn't read the full report, but if there was previous agreement then fair enough, she should have contact.

Otherwise hand the baby over and be on your way... oven.

Gross and dehumising

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by arista

…I have to say that I didn’t realise that was the couple, either…I thought it was just a generic shutterstock image being used of two male parents…

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Ammi

…I have to say that I didn’t realise that was the couple, either…I thought it was just a generic shutterstock image being used of two male parents…

It isn't them, it says "not pictured" under that picture

[arista]

Originally Posted by Ammi

…I have to say that I didn’t realise that was the couple, either…I thought it was just a generic shutterstock image being used of two male parents…

[A gay couple (not pictured, file picture)
have lost their battle to stop a
surrogate mother having contact
with the son she carried for them]


Yes I missed out the text

Busy day

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by arista

That’s not the couple, that’s a stock photo