#The men decided to fast track the surrogacy process by going outside of an agency

[coochiequeens]

A woman wanted to have a relationship with the child she gave birth to. And the men's response "was to insist that their son had no mother — only a surrogate — and that the child’s identity was as part of a motherless family." But the kid was created from her egg. She is the kids biological mother.

5 June, 2024 By Julie Bindel

This article is taken from the June 2024 issue of The Critic. To get the full magazine why not subscribe? Right now we’re offering five issues for just £10.

There is a contradiction at the heart of the international surrogacy industry. Its participants pretend that surrogates’ feelings for the children in their wombs do not exist, whilst simultaneously trying to prevent them acting on those feelings. Many commissioning parents broker the babies in jurisdictions that allow restrictions on surrogates’ rights.

In the UK, this contradiction was recently laid bare in a Family Court case (citation number: [2024] EWFC 20). A gay male couple were engaged in a long-running legal battle with their son’s surrogate. Rather than vanish after handing over the child, she wanted a role in the boy’s life. The men’s response was to insist that their son had no mother — only a surrogate — and that the child’s identity was as part of a motherless family. There was “no vacancy” for her to occupy in his life, they claimed, and it was prejudicial to gay families to suggest otherwise.

At the start of this story, G, the surrogate in question, was a 36-year-old single mother of a teenager and naive about what surrogacy entailed. The commissioning parents were friends of her sister but not people she knew. Aged 43 and 36 and married, they were members of an agency, Surrogacy UK, and very familiar with its protocols — which included a “getting to know you” period — and support. However rather than go through the agency, the men chose to fast-track the process with an independent arrangement with G.

Following a failed transfer of a donor egg, the trio decided to use G’s own egg. The men agreed that G would have contact with the child, but none of the parties properly considered the implications. The relationship between the three deteriorated during G’s pregnancy. G gave birth to a boy in September 2020.

After the birth, G would not initially consent to the parental order, under which she would lose parental responsibility as she feared being cut out of the child’s life. But during a lengthy online hearing in which she was alone and unrepresented — unlike the men — G was pressured by the judge to agree to the parental order along with a contact agreement called a child arrangements order.

After obtaining parental responsibility, the men quickly reneged on the agreement. When G turned up at their house for a pre-arranged visit they threatened to call the police. She recorded the meeting. The Family Court judge later declared of the recording “what was said has rightly been described as ‘horrendous’”. The men told G she was “harbouring a desire to have an inappropriate relationship” by wanting the boy to recognise her as his mother and accused her of having “rejected the role of surrogate”.

In January 2022, the men refused to allow G to visit her son and applied for the contact agreement to be changed. G then made her own application for the parental order to be overturned. She won her case in November the same year. This restored her parental responsibility for the child and removed it from the man who was not the child’s biological father.

The men redoubled their efforts to remove G as a parent, this time applying for an adoption order. During court proceedings, they claimed their son’s identity was that of a child of same-sex parents being raised within the LGBT community and that he belonged to a “motherless family”.

As a lesbian who came out in the 1970s, I’m only too aware of the history of demonisation of lesbian and gay couples. Parents who conceived children in heterosexual relationships were often denied custody and contact if they came out as gay after separation. Foster and adoption agencies were openly prejudiced. But times have changed, and same-sex parents are now a common sight at the school gates in some parts of the UK.

Claims that the children of same-sex parents are disadvantaged in some way have largely been defeated with an expanding body of evidence (e.g. Zhang Y, Huang H, Wang M, et al., BMJ Global Health, 2023) showing their outcomes are similar to those of heterosexual families. Gay rights are robustly supported in most public institutions and private organisations. For a gay couple to call on historic prejudice to justify excluding a mother from a child’s life is unforgivable.

In any case, the men’s argument was fatally — and obviously — undermined by its own logic. If the boy did not have a mother, there would be no need for the court case.

As the jointly-instructed clinical psychologist in the case recognised, the driver of the men’s case was the “elephant in the room” — G’s existence as the child’s legal and biological mother — and the men’s fear of her maternal bond with her son. The men had difficulties “accepting the reality” of the child’s conception, the psychologist found, and considering what sense the boy might make of the situation as he grew up.

“They have strongly held to the surrogacy agreement and the narrative of [G] being a ‘surrogate’ because in that narrative there are no, or hardly any feelings from the surrogate for the baby,” the psychologist wrote. He described the men as attempting an “erasure of the mother”, which he said was not in the child’s best interest as it did not reflect reality.

Refusing an adoption order that would likely have resulted in cutting G from her son’s life, the court ruled that G should have direct and unsupervised contact with him. The judge criticised the men for blaming G for everything that went wrong. The judgment also raised questions about how an adoption order would be explained to the boy, given it would have been made without his mother’s consent.

To some extent, history repeated itself in this case. There are multiple examples of legal battles involving lesbian couples who created a child with the help of a sperm donor who later inconveniently insisted on contact or on playing the role of father.

As the Court of Appeal ruled in one such case in 2012: “What the adults look forward to before undertaking the hazards of conception, birth and the first experience of parenting may prove to be illusion or fantasy. [The couple] may have had the desire to create a two-parent lesbian nuclear family completely intact and free from fracture resulting from contact with the third parent. But such desires may be essentially selfish and may later insufficiently weigh the welfare and developing rights of the child that they have created.”

What’s concerning in this case is the language used — the “erasure” of the mother

Contested surrogacy cases are little different from these wrangles and, indeed, from any other contact disputes. What’s concerning about G’s case, and what makes it different from the case of the lesbian parents above, is the language used. The psychologist explicitly referred to the men’s attempted “erasure” of the mother. They simply refused to acknowledge G’s existence in any of the forms in which she fulfilled a maternal capacity: legal, genetic and as the person who gave birth. They were supported in this illusion by the professionals who weighed in on their behalf.

In the space of a few years the term “motherless” has moved from an emotive description of absence to a positive identity argued for in court. This shift is entirely consistent with the narrative that surrogacy participants feed to the public.

When celebrity couples introduce their surrogate children on social media, the women who gave birth to them are rarely mentioned. The new babies are “welcomed” as if they have been sent by special delivery. That is in line with the attitude of the international surrogacy industry, which reduces the role of the birth mother to that of a “carrier” or rented womb.

For commissioning parents, it must be very easy to regard the woman who bore their child for nine months as a mere service provider, someone to be gratefully forgotten as soon as the final instalment is paid and the product handed over.

Meanwhile, parts of the NHS are determined to de-gender childbirth, routinely referring to “birthing parents” rather than mothers. As an example (there are multiple) the Royal United Hospital Bath’s “information for families” on labour induction refers to dads, but there is no mention of mothers — only birthing parents.

Feminists have long campaigned for gender-neutral language to reflect roles that are indeed, or can be, gender-neutral. But the uncoupling of sex from the necessarily female processes of pregnancy and childbirth is a step towards a dystopian future. In 2015 Victoria Smith wrote, “Gender-neutral language around reproduction creates the illusion of dismantling a hierarchy — when what you really end up doing is ignoring it.” I would go further. Gender-neutral language around reproduction — just like any language that obscures reality — reinforces and helps establish hierarchies of oppression.

To the men, G was simply a surrogate womb to a motherless child. But to G and to Z, she was his mother. As the psychologist said, “‘Motherlessness’ does not exist. The child was born from two people, biologically, and from three people, psychologically … The mother certainly played a part, biologically and psychologically, in the conception of the child.”

The case — unremarked and unnoticed by the media — will do nothing to change popular opinion of surrogacy. It is likely to encourage intending parents to explore dubious overseas jurisdictions, where surrogates have fewer rights. The surrogacy profiteers will continue to cheerlead wealthy couples in their exploitation of impoverished and naive women.

As for the word “motherless”: in time it may lose its negative connotations and become solidified as an identity. Will it become a badge that straight children can use to signal their connection to LGBTQ+ community? Or an oppression card that can be deployed by the children of wealthy men to explain bad behaviour towards women? Either way, Disney and Dickens are going to need a lot of rewriting.

[socialattractionuk]

Professional matchmaker is looking for a platonic partner to have a baby with

Rachel wants to find a co-parent to have a baby with (Picture: SWNS/Getty)

A matchmaker is looking for a platonic partner to have a child with as she embraces a new co-parenting trend where singles link up to have kids with no romance involved.

Rachel Russo, 36, has not ruled out finding the one and having a baby the traditional way, but currently she is exploring other options to becoming a mother.

The matchmaker, who spent 15 years engineering happy couples, has signed up for websites that help not only match romantic partners but platonic co-parents and sperm/egg donors as well.

Rachel, from New Jersey, said that social distancing and dating apps filled with people looking for casual relationships, make finding someone on the same page difficult.

She said: ‘Most single men don’t want to talk about having babies on the first dates, but if that’s a priority to women, I’m doing what I would advise any woman to do.

‘The ideal situation would be the happily ever after romantic relationship, but I’m about equally comfortable with being a single mum as I am with being a co-parent.’

She signed up to a site that partners people up with potential co-parents (Picture: Rachel Russo / SWNS)

Rachel says the most important part of the whole process is the research.

‘I’ve read books on co-parenting and on the single mother path. I’ve had consultations on fertility and seen spiritual doctors to find any romantic blocks and blocks on being a single mother,’ she said.

‘With being a single mum, you have 100% of the emotions and financial responsibility and going through the process yourself.

‘Co-parenting is like a ready-made family, so the dad is there already from day one for the baby.’

More: F1

Lewis Hamilton slammed for posting anti-vaxxer video on Instagram

Woman allergic to sun hasn't been outside without a mask for 20 years

Truth about Levi destroys the Cannings in Neighbours?

One of the sites potential parents are using is co-parenting site Modamily.

While there are co-parents on the site who find a romantic spark and opt for the old fashioned way of having children, platonic partners often choose either home insemination or IVF.

Like other dating sites, users set up profiles on Modamily and are matched to people with similar interests and timelines for having children.

Modamily also works with donor and surrogacy agencies to help users looking to go that route navigate the process.

The founder and CEO of co-parenting site Modamily, Ivan Fatovic, said: ‘I think many people that go on are exploring their options.’

Ivan Fatovic-founder & CEO of Modamily (Picture: Modamily / SWNS)

Rachel said it can be difficult to differentiate between men who are serious about becoming co-parents and those who are just lonely and looking for a distraction.

‘I think the challenges like with any site, especially during the pandemic, is who’s really serious and who’s just kind of bored, lonely, isolated and wanting someone to talk to, but not necessarily serious,’ Rachel said.

She has met someone during her six months on the site, but they haven’t been able to meet in person due to the pandemic.

They are hoping to change that soon.

Rachel added: ‘He’s looking for a romantic relationship and to have a baby and fast track that.

‘Now that our area is reopening we’re probably going to be meeting very soon.’

More: Football

Philippe Coutinho makes U-turn over Arsenal decision after rejecting offer

What's the link between obesity and coronavirus?

Black mums explain how to talk to children about racism - and how early to start

Despite its unconventional aspects, Rachel finds strength in the process of exploring different options for having children.

‘It’s kind of empowering because I can do something towards my goal of creating a family from the comfort of my own home.

‘People shouldn’t rush into decisions, they should talk and if they’re aligned and have the same goals and timeline for having a child they should meet and that’s how I’m approaching it.’

Do you have a story you want to share?

Email metrolifestyleteam@metro.co.uk to tell us more.

MORE: Couple who met on lockdown virtual dating show decide to move in before meeting in person

MORE: Strong Women: Running got me through the gruelling rollercoaster of IVF treatment