The justice has ordered that a surmother to hand over the baby to its intended gay parents

0
99

The baby was planned with using the sperm from one of the gay couple and an egg from a donor from Spain. The fertilised egg was given to the surrogate mother in September 2015. And this meant that one of the gay parents was not genetically related to the child and the surrogate, nor her male partner was related genetically to the baby. The surmother had signed an agreement with the gay couple more than two years ago after one online meeting.

The surmother has delivered a child in April 2016, but didn’t tell the gay couple for more than a week after the child’s birth. But she said before long after birth that she wanted to keep the baby. But the Family Division of the High Court in London stated that the surmother has to hand over the child. The head of Justice Theis said that the gay couple was in a better position to “discuss” future severities. After the surmother and her husband had appealed, the deal leaked out. But anybody wasn’t named in court documents in order to protect the baby.

Three Court of Appeal judges took a look more closely this strange deal at in a public hearing in October. The judges agreed that the original ruling was not intended as “punitive” towards the surrogate and her husband. Lord Justice McFarlane added that the child’s genetic relationships were the most important in deciding where the child should live and who should become parents. The justices announced that the surmother and her husband had the right “to think over”, but it didn’t mean that they keep the child.

But the surmother and her husband remain still the legal parents of the child, because there was no adoption or parental act. But the gay couple was scolded by Justice McFarlane for generating publicity around the case. He said that we were informed that public relations about the case had, most unwisely and unaccountably, been formed by men.
He added too, that the surmother and her husband “were very distressed by this clear made breach of agreements.” And then he continued that “at the invitation of all parties, we made an order restraining the men from generating further public relations about this affair.”

LEAVE A REPLY

Login with: 
Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here