Baby removed from mother to live with gay dad and his boyfriend

A judge said it was in the "best interests" of the 15-month-old girl to live with her father

Ruling: The baby's mother had made disparaging comments about same-sex couples, the court heard

A judge has ruled that a baby should be removed from her mother and brought up by her gay dad and his boyfriend.
The Romanian mother, known only as S, of the 15-month-old girl will be able to have contact with her child, but will not be able to leave the UK with her.



The High Court heard how the girl's father, H, and his partner, B, donated sperm on the understanding the woman, a long-standing friend, would help them start a family.
But explaining her ruling, Family Division judge Ms Justice Russell said: "I find that S deliberately misled the applicants in order to conceive a child for herself rather than changing her mind at a later date."
The judge said S "deluded herself" about the nature of the agreement with the gay couple.
Instead, she accepted the evidence of the 47-year-old Romanian-born father and B that "the pregnancy was contrived with the aim of a same-sex couple having a child to form a family assisted by a friend."
The father said in evidence that an agreement had been reached that the mother would act as surrogate and he and B would co-parent the child.

Getty

Support: The judge said it was clear the gay couple are "devoted" to each other

Judge Russell said: "Very sadly this case is another example of how 'agreements' between potential parents reached privately to conceive children to build a family go wrong and cause great distress to the biological parents and their spouses or partners."




The court heard how the mother and father first met in Romania in 1990 and became friends.
He moved to the UK with his mother when he was 18 and became a naturalised British citizen.
In 1999 he and the mother shared a house for a time.
She has two daughters aged 12 and 13 from an earlier marriage to a British national and they both live with their father.
The judge rejected the mother's claim that she and the father decided to parent a child together and that his partner B was to play no part other than as the father's boyfriend.
She also rejected the claim that the mother was a "victim whose rights as a mother and as a woman have been trampled over and abused. "
The judge said the mother had made "lurid allegations" against the two gay men and described them in "an openly and disparaging and dismissive way."
But the judge ruled: "I found the claim by S that she was a victim was without foundation.
"Having seen her give evidence I did not find her to be a credible witness."

Getty

Poor witness: The mother repeatedly portrayed herself as a "victim", the judge said

The court heard how the mother made comments on Facebook and Twitter portraying herself as a "victim", at one point writing: "Wealthy gay couple force child from good mother's breast setting bad precedent."


The judge said: "S has consistently done all she can to minimise the role that H has in the child's life and to control and curtail his contact with his daughter.
"S 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 applicants and the court."
She added: "It is not in the interests of any child to use breast-feeding, or co-sleeping , 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 is what S set out to do, at least in part, and it was an action which was contrary to M's best interests and emotional well-being."



The mother claimed the two men were in an "on-off" relationship and "insinuated that gay men in same sex relationships behave in a sexually disinhibited manner and are habitually sexually disloyal to each other."
But there was no evidence to support that and she found the two men were "clearly devoted to each other."
She said B was a composed and quiet witness and as far as she could see he and B were "a devoted and close couple."
She said there were concerns about the mother's "over emotional and highly involved role in the infant's life."
She added: "While to move a young child from her mother is a difficult decision and is one which I make with regret as I am aware that it will cause S distress, I conclude that H is the parent who is best able to meet M's needs both now and in the future.
"It is he who has shown that he has the ability to allow M to grow into a happy , balanced and healthy adult ant it is he who can help her to reach her greatest potential."
The judge said it was not for the court to decide on the nature of the agreement only what now served the best interests and welfare of the child.
She said: "M should live with her father H and his partner B and it is in her best interests to do so."