Judge forces mom to give her baby to homosexual couple: the latest case of surrogacy’s folly
A convoluted custody dispute over an artificially
conceived child has left the mother bereft and homosexual and Christian
activists at loggerheads.
The case of "H versus S" ended when the
44-year-old mother, "S," breastfed her 15-month old child for the
last time in the courthouse cafeteria and handed him over to the waiting sperm
donor dad, "H," and his homosexual partner.
Both Romanian immigrants, H and S were also
longtime friends who had informally agreed to conceive a child artificially
together using a home insemination kit. But the relationship broke down, the
mother denied the father and his lover parenting rights, and the courts took
over.
The judge who ruled on the appeal in the homosexual
couple's favor, Alison Russell, has used the case to call for legislation, as
in the United States, forcing those involved in surrogacy arrangements to agree
to formal legal contracts.
"The UK however does not have such an approach
in place, meaning that … if a surrogate mother was to change her mind the only
recourse for the other parties involved would be to head to the courts,"
stated the judge in her ruling.
"Considering how emotionally draining and
time-consuming a legal battle of this nature can prove to be, this case perhaps
indicates that the time is now right for the current legislation in this area
to be reviewed."
But Paul Tully of the Society for the Protection of
Unborn Children told LifeSiteNews that the case exposes the problems with the
"commodification of life and children" inherent in in vitro
fertilization and other methods of conception.
His organization has opposed artificial approaches
to conception not only because of commodification in general, but because
individual unborn babies deemed surplus to parental needs are sacrificed.
As well, "in this case and in many cases there
is the issue of adoption by same-sex couples," Tully said. "We
believe what is best for the child's welfare is to be brought up by his or her
biological mother and father."
The parents had agreed to share custody, but now
the mother claims that having the child was her idea and her old friend from
Romania was simply a sperm donor with visiting rights because she thought it a
good idea her child have a father figure. "I was having this baby for
myself," she told the Daily Mail last week, after a publication ban was
finally lifted on the dispute. The father, H, told the court the idea for a
baby came from him and his lover, who approached S to be the surrogate mother.
But there is no doubt from the plentiful e-mail
messages between the litigants that the same-sex couple were acting like
concerned parents even before the child was born, and the judge ultimately not
only preferred their version of events to the mother's, but also found their attitude
more child-centered, while hers was slanted by "homophobia." So
despite the hardship to the child and the heartache to her, the same-sex couple
were awarded custody.
Tully carefully avoids taking sides in the dispute
itself but observes, "The mother was deeply misguided and ill-advised to
undertake the role of being a surrogate mother. But whatever bad decisions she
made, one can certainly feel for her now."
Surrogacy conflicts with natural parental
affections, said Tully, such that some surrogate mothers abort the children
they have contracted to bear if the contracting couple back out because, for
example, the child has disabilities. "Surrogacy can encourage a hardened
attitude."
Tully's main concern about the case is that it has
triggered a call for contract legislation. Currently, in great Britain,
surrogate mothers cannot charge for bearing the children of others, though they
can be paid for their expenses. Legislation, Tully warns, could pave the way
for the commercialization of surrogacy and for "turning children into a
manufactured product."
