# Surrogate mom decides to keep baby



## darkNlovely

*'I feel like she's been ripped from MY womb': Heartbreak of couple who've given up the right to see their surrogate baby
*


By Louise Eccles and Claire Ellicott
Last updated at 2:48 AM on 22nd February 2011

<LI ="first">Comments (8) 
Add to My Stories 
A couple who lost custody of their baby to its surrogate mother have given up their fight for contact with the little girl.

Yesterday they spoke of their heartbreak at losing their child to a woman they made an informal arrangement with after contacting her via the internet.

The wife said it felt, psychologically, as though the baby had been ripped from her own womb.


https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/02/21/article-0-0D4D10E9000005DC-112_468x430.jpg Heartbroken: The Ws cannot be named, to protect the child's identity

*The couple expect the surrogate will now claim child maintenance from them as the husband is the biological father.*

The father, a leading chef, and his wife, who had suffered six late-stage miscarriages including four sets of twins, had hoped the stranger, a single mother-of-two on benefits, would help them finally have the baby they longed for.

They agreed to pay her £10,000 in expenses to carry the baby after contacting her via a surrogacy website.

*But halfway through the pregnancy she decided she wanted to keep the baby. Last month a senior Family Court judge awarded sole custody to the surrogate, who is the babys biological mother.*

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/02/21/article-0-0D4D10D9000005DC-923_233x214.jpg From the Mail, February 12

The ruling could have far-reaching implications for couples seeking a surrogate.

Explaining their decision to relinquish contact rights, the couple said it would be simply too difficult to watch the child be raised by someone else, and that it was unfair on the baby to be split between two homes.

The couple, referred to as Mr and Mrs W to protect the childs identity, talked exclusively to the Mail about their decision. 

Mrs W said: The day that she told us she was keeping our baby I felt as if she had ripped the baby from my womb. We felt the baby was not hers to take but there was nothing we could do to stop her.

I love the baby so much but I am trying to distance myself or I know I would never give her back.

Mr W said he had since questioned whether the surrogate always intended to keep the child, who can only be identified as T, knowing she would receive generous child support over the next 18 years.

He said: We want our story to be a warning to others. There is a large black hole in the law which is allowing couples to enter into unsafe agreements because UK surrogacy laws are so unclear.

*Even if you sign a legal contract, it is not worth the paper it is written on if the surrogate changes her mind.*

*The Ws never signed a contract with the surrogate, Miss N.* Surrogacy agreements are legal in Britain but not legally binding in court, even with a formal written contract. A surrogate mother is required to register the baby as her own even if she wishes to pass it on. The couple who want to bring up the child can become the legal parents through a parenting order.



*More...*


'I couldn't give my baby away... they only wanted a toy': Surrogate mother fought legal battle after learning that would-be parents were violent 
Family judges must make decisions based on the best interests of the child and not the wishes of the parents or surrogate. The Ws have four children between them from previous relationships. But Mrs W, who is in her late 30s, had cancer of the womb in her 20s, and complications from surgery meant it was difficult for her to carry a baby to full term. 

Two weeks after meeting Miss N they came to a verbal agreement. But* within three months of Miss N being inseminated, she allegedly began bombarding the couple with demands for more money for everything from a trip to Disneyland to new carpets for her two-bedroom council house.*

The couple were also angry when they discovered Miss N had undergone a test to check if the baby had Downs Syndrome. The procedure can increase the risk to the unborn child.

When Miss N, who is in her 20s, was asked in late spring 2010 if she had changed her mind about giving the child away, *she sent the couple a text message saying: Dont be silly. This baby will be yours. I dont want any more children. I am looking after myself and the boys and I need this money for uni.*

*But three months before the baby was due she texted them to say she was keeping it.*
Over the next few weeks she continued to take money from the couple, including a £4,500 lump sum, while they tried to convince her to change her mind. When Miss N gave birth to T last July, Mrs W arrived at the hospital only to be told by the surrogates mother that she had no right to be there.

The next day Miss N sent the Ws a text message saying: I am sorry we didnt get to talk in the hospital but I wish you well. 

During a bitter six-month custody battle, Miss N accused Mr W of being violent towards his wife, which the couple denied. They accused Miss N of neglecting her sons and of living in a filthy home.

But the judge ruled in Miss Ns favour, warning other couples that entering into a surrogacy agreement presented very considerable risks.

The natural process of carrying and giving birth to a baby creates an attachment which may be so strong that the surrogate mother finds herself unable to give up the child, he said.

Ts welfare requires her to remain with her mother.To remove her would cause a measure of harm.

Mr W said that if T comes looking for them, we will be waiting for her, ready to look after her.

He added: We have created a trunk filled with toys and things about our family so she will know about us.

The surrogate declined to comment on whether she would be claiming child maintenance.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-couple-whove-given-right-surrogate-baby.html


----------



## darkNlovely

I thought I would post the above article, I feel bad for the couple that has no rights in this situation-I know not all surrogates do this of course but the entire situation is just so sad!


----------



## Ozzieshunni

Even though the husband is the biological father, it's not right for the surrogate to claim child maintenance! If she is able to, the father should be able to see his child, end of.


----------



## GreyGirl

So sad for all involved. Hope there can be some peace for Mr & Mrs W :(


----------



## darkNlovely

yea I just hope more people are informed about the laws concerning this in their jurisdiction.


----------



## mamalove

It's a sad situation,noone to blame really. I can totally understand the surrogate for deciding to keep her child,you just don't know until you go through it, but i agree that because of the circumstances she shouldn't be allowed to claim CM or if she did,her biological father should have regular access as well.


----------



## Croc-O-Dile

:growlmad: This makes me so angry! She should NOT be entitled CM and tbh, it sounds like she was milking them for money anyway! Asking to pay for her carpets and holiday and accepting money from them even after she made the choice to keep the baby. Just absolutely wrong.


----------



## Sweet_Mama

THIS kind of [email protected] is what gives surrogacy such a bad name. They ALL made so many BAD decisions, with the very first being using a surrogate on any kind of "benefits." That certainly isn't LEGAL here in the US as then it would put the surrogate over any kind of income limits set by the state that qualify her for benefits in the first place. 

Second... WTF were ANY of them thinking going into this without legal representation and a contract on both ends? HUGE no-no! 

Now, I know the laws are different eveywhere, and even vary state by state here in the US, but even a TS (traditional surrogate-used her own egg) is not allowed to "keep" the baby in most states (certainly NOT CA) because legally a PBO (pre-birth order) is obtained (again, via legal representation) that allows the IPs (intended parents) to go directly onto the birth certificate. 

A surrogate should have NO rights to a child whatsoever. It is not her child. This is why a contract is vital. It shows INTENT. The intent in the creation of this child was to make the IPs into parents. It is THEIR baby. The absolute ONLY exception to this rule would be if the baby was in danger, in which case child services should be called... NOT the surrogate keeping the baby.

Aaaargh. Sorry about the rant, but having a been a surrogate, I've seen and heard it all and it's stories like this that do get out there that show surrogacy in a negative light and give people false misconceptions about the reality of it all. Anyway... off my soapbox now.


----------



## Croc-O-Dile

Sweet_Mama said:


> THIS kind of [email protected] is what gives surrogacy such a bad name. They ALL made so many BAD decisions, with the very first being using a surrogate on any kind of "benefits." That certainly isn't LEGAL here in the US as then it would put the surrogate over any kind of income limits set by the state that qualify her for benefits in the first place.
> 
> Second... WTF were ANY of them thinking going into this without legal representation and a contract on both ends? HUGE no-no!
> 
> Now, I know the laws are different eveywhere, and even vary state by state here in the US, but even a TS (traditional surrogate-used her own egg) is not allowed to "keep" the baby in most states (certainly NOT CA) because legally a PBO (pre-birth order) is obtained (again, via legal representation) that allows the IPs (intended parents) to go directly onto the birth certificate.
> 
> A surrogate should have NO rights to a child whatsoever. It is not her child. This is why a contract is vital. It shows INTENT. The intent in the creation of this child was to make the IPs into parents. It is THEIR baby. The absolute ONLY exception to this rule would be if the baby was in danger, in which case child services should be called... NOT the surrogate keeping the baby.
> 
> Aaaargh. Sorry about the rant, but having a been a surrogate, I've seen and heard it all and it's stories like this that do get out there that show surrogacy in a negative light and give people false misconceptions about the reality of it all. Anyway... off my soapbox now.

^WSS

The US has more surrogacy laws in place than the UK does though. Even if they had obtained a contract it wouldn't hold up in court because of how flimsy their laws are regarding surrogacy. :(


----------



## purplerose

What a terrible thing to happen to Mr and Mrs W. That woman knew damn well the couple wanted a baby and perhaps known that Mr W is very well up in his profession that she could milk money from him for the rest of the baby's life. 

It is so wrong.


----------



## reedsgirl1138

This is so sad. The couple only wanted a baby instead they got scammed...they should be suing the surrogate for all the money they paid her plus emotional distress. Sounds like to me the surrogate was playing games all along. So so sad.


----------



## billy2mm

sounds like the surrogate mother had a plan all along imo.

in no way should she get CM off the father!


----------



## lesleyann

very very sad thing but whats just as sad is everyone having ago at the surrogate.. what if she is telling the truth what if she did find out about abuse in the relationship and had been lied to her self?

At the end of the day they should of used a proper firm to do this not just pick up anybody off the internet, The court will off listened to all of the edvidence from both parties as to who should have the child and the judge has Obv had a long hard think about it.

Also if you read the other article they will have been to court by now to sort out acess so why should Bio dad not pay child mantainence?

Im sorry but i dont see how that can all be oh HORRIBLE surro..bIm sure she never thought at the start well ill get pregnant try to keep the baby and hope for the best in court since it could of gone anyway.


----------



## darkNlovely

The part that confused me is how did she get pregnant??seems like the article is pointing toward the surrogate and father slept together??


----------



## Mummyplus3

God thats terrible, poor couple... There really should be better laws in this country for surrogacy. I does sound like she was on the diddle all along


----------



## nostalgicsam

how sad, here in the UK surrogacy isn't commercial and nothing written is legally binding, it is all based on trust and more importantly friendship, can't bear to think how the IP's must feel .....


----------



## Jezzabelle

Things like this make me so anrgy :( i mean i know ther is 2 types of surrogacy, host and straight, host using couples egg and sperm and straight using mans sperm and surrogates eggs..now if it is using her eggs its biologically hers right? as well as the man out the couples..she dint even allow him to have access?? as wel as the fact she lead them on into believing they would be handed the baby which is wrong..she shuldnt have agreed to do it...arrrghhh ..on benefits?hmmm the word scrounger comes to mind..wanting to claim CM...hmmm..seems she took them for all they had..this is so so so sad..i feel for them..also i read articles about host surrogacy and the surrogate keepin the baby tho it wasnt biologically hers..that is even more wrong than this...Phew rant over :)x


----------



## lou_w34

This story came from the daily mail... id take it with a huge pinch of salt lol

Either way, the bio dad was offered access to the child... he turned it down, as he said it would be too painful... Which i can understand, but at the end of the day that is his own child that he has just turned down the oppertunity to see.

I dont think it is fair to blame the surrogate, not many people no how it will feel to carry a child and then have to give it away, if she was not given proper talks to before hand from professionals then she had no way of knowing.

Either way its a sad story for everyone involved.


----------



## PitaKat

I'm suprised that the couple turned down their rights, it is half the man's child. If they wanted a baby so badly, surely they would be willing to have partial custody?

On the one hand it's terrible for the surrogate mother to change her mind and keep the baby, but on the other hand it's terrible for the couple to decide that they don't want their child for half the time.


----------



## Emma&Freya

My sister will have to use surragocy.My other sisters egg will be put in me with mysisters sperm.

Its heartbreaking reading that. I am more determained now.


----------



## xxxjessxxx

It's a very sad story, however at the end of the day the surrogate is the biological mother. If she wasn't I would not agree with it at all.
However even as tough as it is, the surrogate should of thought about it better than she obviously had. 
My heart goes out to the other couple, I do hope they get their much deserved baby in the end.


----------

