A UK woman who agreed to be a surrogate for a gay couple but then refused to hand over the infant just won a year-long custody battle.
Related: Surrogate Mom On Trial For Texting Couples Their Babies Had Died Then Selling Them To Other People
It all started inside a Burger King back in 2014. After first connecting on a Facebook forum for would-be parents seeking surrogates, the unidentified woman and the couple met to discuss the terms of their agreement. 30 minutes later, the deal with done.
The woman agreed to carry the couple’s baby, which would be created from an anonymous donor egg and the sperm of one of the men, in exchange for £9,000. ($11,500 U.S.)
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Two embryos were planted in the woman. She miscarried one of them and decided to abort the other, but had a change of heart at the last minute. Then when the baby was born in July 2015, she decided to keep both it and the £9,000 for herself.
A bitter custody battle ensured. Now, that battle is over.
Related: Gay Couple Forced Into Hiding After Surrogate Threatens To Kidnap Their Child
One year and several courtroom visits later, Ms Justice Russell has ruled that the woman, who claims to have a learning disability and, therefore, did not understand the conditions of surrogacy, shall retain full-time custody of the child.
Russell ruled that the woman was “better able to meet” the child’s needs, despite the fact that she has no biological ties to the infant. Not only that, but the judge also called the gay couple “manipulative and dishonest” and “at the very least, potentially exploitative” for taking advantage of the woman.
The mother told The Mail, “He is my little boy. I gave birth to him. I felt him kick for the first time. I’m the one now breastfeeding him. He’s happy and so loved. I’m absolutely terrified I’m going to lose him.”
The couple will have visitation one weekend every two months and will share parental responsibility.
Related: This Gay Couple Is About To Have Three Babies With Three Different Surrogates
h/t: Daily Mail
DCguy
What a shock, some judges in the UK are anti-gay too. The woman was paid, as is acceptable under UK law for upto $15,000 pounds.
She kept the money, has no relation to the baby, but the judge said she and her boyfriend are better able to care for it then the gay couple.
Sounds like this judge should be working in Alabama.
Dave Downunder
What’s the bet that the gay couple will have to pay child support as well. What a horrible situation to be in.
Paco
Surrogacy for childless couples have always made me feel uncomfortable. If the practice is to be allowed, then there is clearly a need for more laws designed to protect all involved in the process. The judge’s ruling doesn’t make any sense.
Charlie in Charge
A very sad situation for the couple involved.
I must admit the amount seemed very low to me and the fact that (if the story is to be believed) this was hammered out in a Burger King does seem a little strange. I’m not blaming the couple, I just think this means any other couple trying for this will need to pay boatloads of money to lawyers in order to feel safe (not that this is fool-proof eitehr).
DCguy
@Charlie in Charge:
Remember, at the time of the event, the amount when translated into dollars is closer to $18,000. Also, the UK ONLY allows for amounts of up to 15,000 pounds to go to surrogates, no more.
Charlie in Charge
@DCguy: Ah I did not know that. A very sad case indeed – I can’t imagine spending 9 months waiting for a child to arrive and then being told you are not going to be a parent after all. A miscarriage of justice.
Bauhaus
Better able to care – with court ordered financial support from the gay couple, no doubt.
Airtight legal contract!
damon459
Ok so let me get this straight, she has a learning disibilty fhat prevented her from understand what she was agreeing too, but she’s a better parent than a couple who aren’t special needs…. I see a visit from the uk version of department of family services in her future…. As for child care, I see no reason why they should pay a since pence, and I think they should forgo visitation and just remove all ties to this nut and her “family”. Let the tax payers in the uk foot the bill for this ladies welfare checks…
captainburrito
@damon459: At the end of the day that child is biologically related to one of the men so i think removing all ties is easier said that done. I know it is a nasty situation to be in but i think doing that would just be out of spite than in the interests of the child. Think of how fcked up his kid will be if it is brought up soley by that crazy – especially if she does have a learning disability.
At least that 1 weekend every 2 months might give that child some respite from the crazy.
I also wonder if the judges comments towards the gay couple have any merit.
Bascha
So this woman is apparently brain damaged enough not to understand what a surrogacy is, but she is somehow “better able to meet” the child’s needs than a couple in a healthy relationship? Wow. If they used her eggs to conceive, I could see there being a messy situation here (even though, if she agreed to only be the surrogate then it’s still ridiculous), but the kid is LITERALLY not her child! She was an incubator! Wow.
Granny Spoth
A French guy speaking here.
1) You americans forget that: In the UK, surrogacy is supposed to be an informal agreement with someone close you know and trust. The surrogate pregnancy is treated legally like any pregnancy. The law protects the surrogate mother and the intended parents. The bond between the surrogate mother and the child is considered as worthy as a biological bound (Gay people of all people should understand that. We, whose children often aren’t biologically ours) until the mother chooses to renounce her rights after the birth of the child (and with a delay for changing her mind I think)
2) Gay people can be horrible people and horrible parents.
3) A learning disability (dyslexia) doesn’t mean the mother is mentally ill. It means she probably didn’t get a college education and might not be very good at legal stuff. That doesn’t make you an unfit parent.
I don’t know all the specifics of the case. But the judge may very well not be homophobic at all. From what I got, the “arrangements” made were very shady and rushed (with an amateur Facebook matchmaker, etc.) and the couple had an history of going back on their word and not taking care financially of their previous surrogate mother.
Granny Spoth
The situation is no worse than after classic unplanned pregnancy.
If you want to avoid drama, you just shouldn’t make a baby with someone you met 30 minutes ago. Period.
Violent Rainbow
Evil bitch! Take this as a lesson to not just HIRE SOMEONE to have your baby! These women are almost always insane baby stealing money grubbing monsters!
zipperzone
Is there not the mechanism in England for them to initiate an appeal to the judges ruling?
Was the surrogate able to prove that she was financially able to provide for the child?
The fact that she has a “boyfriend” should not be taken into consideration as he could check out at any time.
And if the men are awarded visitation one weekend every two months, that could be very confusing to the child and jeopardize his sense of security. And what does “visitation” mean? Can they take the child home or do they have to see it in the so-called mother’s home?
Its a bloody mess all around and I can’t foresee a happy outcome for either party.
isiahsin22
@Granny Spoth: you are dumb. this similar situation happened to a straight couple when a surrogate woman wants to keep the baby. I don’t believe she has a disability. straight people molested and rape kids. she lied about her disability she manipulate the gay couples to give her the money and child. you don’t know her boyfriend is molester. A lot of those surrogate children they are biologically their. the woman who donating egg to that sue that woman. She know she going to lose the kid anyway she not going to have the kid for long. There is a loophole.
isiahsin22
@Granny Spoth: you called your self gay u self hater
tricky ricky
@Granny Spoth: you’re right! the 2 people who replied to you are immature drama queens. you don’t have a kid with someone you met for 30 minutes. it’s downright moronic. this was a train wreck waiting to happen from the get go.
MaxH
@DCguy: Also you are only allowed to pay expenses, not fees for the actual surrogacy. Fees for the mother could never reach £9k, she would have had 100% free healthcare and new mothers are (were back then) given £500 for new baby things.
Chris
Makes no sense at all; but I’d be willing to bet that their agreement was not in writing.
GayEGO
The judge made an outrageous decision which obviously shows his anti-gay thinking(or not). At least, the surrogate should have been required to return the money which really was her most important desire.
tony-e
The couple that paid this woman to carry a baby that wasn’t biologically hers lose custody? Get only visitation, I’m assuming supervised? They better make damn sure this woman doesn’t confuse the kid by referring to her boyfriend as his father instead of the biological father. To start with, the baby better get the last name of the BIOLOGICAL father
ShowMeGuy
Learning disability, my ass. The woman is smart enough to figure out how to get paid to be pregnant and get a baby…..and she will probably milk the U.K. for all the financial assistance programs available for the poor as well.
She knew exactly what she was doing.
He BGB
Sounds like homophobia or homoignorance, to me. Because she’s a woman she will make a better parent even though she’s challenged with disabilities plus the seed and the egg weren’t hers. Isn’t that stealing? But so cute, she felt the baby kick (eye roll).
Daniel-Reader
That kid is going to hate her. Since she has no bio tie to it and kept the kid from the bio dad.