A surrogate mother in the U.K. has been ordered to hand over the child she carried for a gay couple after refusing to do so for nearly two years.
This week, a senior judge with the Court of Appeal judges determined the child’s needs would be better met with his intended parents.
The woman originally signed a surrogacy agreement with the couple in September 2015. She agreed to carry an embryo that had been conceived using sperm from one of the men and an egg from a Spanish donor.
But after a “falling out” with the fathers near the end of the gestation period, the woman had second thoughts. She did not inform the couple about the birth of their son until more than a week after the fact. Then she said she was keeping their kid.
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.
That was back in April 2016.
Related: Judge Orders Couple To Surrender Child To Unrelated Surrogate After Year-Long Court Battle
On Monday, after a lengthy court battle, a judge finally ruled that the child, now 18 months old, must be returned to the gay couple, as originally intended.
Lord Justice McFarlane said that while surrogacy arrangements don’t actually have any legal standing (surrogacy is not legal in the U.K.), the child’s genetic relationships and welfare are the most important factors for deciding where he should live, adding that the surrogate mother was “less able to look at matters from the child’s point of view.”
He also said that, while surrogate mothers had the right “to change their minds,” that doesn’t mean they have the right to keep the children they carry.
The judge concluded by saying the case “demonstrates the risks involved when parties reach agreement to conceive a child which, if it goes wrong, can cause huge distress to all concerned.”
Though custody was awarded to the couple, the surrogate mother will have limited contact six times a year. She also remains the child’s legal mother since no adoption or parental order has been made.
Related: Thai Court Recognizes Paternity Of Two Gay Dads Trapped In Terrifying Battle With Surrogate Mother
paul dorian lord fredine
anybody else think the ‘falling out’ centered around her wanting more money?
amanofcolours
Actually I wasn’t there, so I wouldn’t know what the “falling out” was over, nor does it to me. The child was returned to the rightful parents – not sure where assumptions or conjecture has to do with a well fought and unnecessary reunion
janjan3026
OK THEIR ARE A FEW THINGS I DO NOT GET
SO THE SURROGATE SIGNED ALL THE DOCUMENTS IN 2015 STATING SHE WOULD CARRY THE BABY FOR THE COUPLE AND THEN AFTER THE BABY WAS BORN THEY WOULD GET THE BABY OK
SO SHE CHANGED HER MIND ABOUT GIVING THEM THE BABY I BET IT HAD TO DO WITH HER WANTING MORE MONEY.
WHAT I DO NOT GET IS THE JUDGE SAID THE PAPERWORK SHE SIGNED IN 2015 HAD NO LEGAL STANDING SO THATS WHERE I GET CONFUSED BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE REASON THEY HAD TO SIGN THE PAPERWORK SO THEIR WOULD BE NO MIS COMMUNICATIONS AND IF SHE TRIED ANY FOOLISHNESS SHE WOULD BE SUED….
THE FACT THAT IT TOOK 2 YEARS FOR THIS CASE TO FINALLY END MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL SHE IS THE SURROGATE BUT THEY BABY IS NOT HERS IN NAME DNA OR OTHERWISE…..
THE EMBRYO WAS CREATING BY ONE OF THE GAY COUPLES SEMEN AND THE EGG WAS DONATED BY A SPANISH WOMEN
SO WHY WOULD IT TAKE 2 YEARS IF THE BABY ISN’T HERS AT ALL OH I KNOW ITS BECAUSE THEIR A GAY COUPLE AND THE FACT THAT SHE GETS TO SEE THE BABY 6 TIMES A YEAR IS Ridiculous WHEN SHES NOT EVEN RELATED TO THE BABY BY DNA
OH AND THE FACT THAT IT SAYS SHE THE LEGAL MOTHER ON THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE MAKES ME MAD TOO
AND THEY SAID THAT THE PARENTS HAVEN’T FILLED OUT THE PAPERWORK TO ADOPT THE BABY..
AND I SAY AGAIN THE BABY IS CONNECTED BY DNA OF 1 HALF OF THE GAY COUPLE SO ONLY THE OTHER HALF OF THE GAY COUPLE SHOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR ADOPTION BECAUSE LEGALLY ITS ONLY HIS SPOUSES SON…
THIS WHOLE STORY MAKES ME MAD THE FACT THAT THIS BITCH OF A WOMEN WANTED MORE MONEY SO SHE HELD THEIR CHILD RANSOM BASICALLY
AND THEN THE SHITTY BRITISH LEGAL SYSTEM BASICALLY TRIED TO LET THE SURROGATE KEEP THE BABY EVEN THOUGH SHES NOT RELATED BY DNA OR OTHERWISE SHE WAS JUST AND INCUBATOR THATS THE ONLY REASON IT TOOK 2 FULL YEARS
Ksb1978
The baby is not her’s at all. Yeah her body carried the baby, but it’s not her child. She should have NO contact with that child and she should NOT be considered the legal mother. That’s some bull shit that should be sorted out by law, right? How is she the “legal” mother???
Notright
Sickening. My heart goes out to that gay couple