Gay couple wins High Court battle over baby girl

Discussions for education, teaching & parenting.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Gay couple wins High Court battle over baby girl

#1  Postby DougC » May 06, 2015 9:13 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32603514
B.B.C. Article
A baby girl should be removed from her mother and live with her father and his boyfriend instead, a judge has ruled.
The judgement follows a legal fight over the nature of the parents' agreement when the child was conceived.
The woman said they had agreed for her to be the main parent, but the father, who donated sperm, said she had agreed to be the gay couple's surrogate.
Ms Justice Russell said it was in the "best interests" of the one-year-old girl to live with her father.
The High Court case was heard in London and Birmingham earlier this year, but the decision has just been published.

(Continues)
To do, is to be (Socrate)
To be, is to do (Sartre)
Do be do be do (Sinatra)
SUBWAY(1985)
DougC
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 14420
Age: 46
Male

Country: UNITED Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Gay couple wins High Court battle over baby girl

#2  Postby Jerome Da Gnome » May 06, 2015 9:25 pm

So does the mother owe child support?
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.
-Albert Camus
User avatar
Jerome Da Gnome
Banned User
 
Name: Jerome
Posts: 5719

Country: usa
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Gay couple wins High Court battle over baby girl

#3  Postby catbasket » May 06, 2015 10:04 pm

Does JDG owe the forum some unpolluted threads?
User avatar
catbasket
 
Posts: 1426

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Gay couple wins High Court battle over baby girl

#4  Postby Jerome Da Gnome » May 10, 2015 11:05 am

It seems the mother had a gag order placed upon her, is this normal in the UK court system?
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.
-Albert Camus
User avatar
Jerome Da Gnome
Banned User
 
Name: Jerome
Posts: 5719

Country: usa
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Gay couple wins High Court battle over baby girl

#5  Postby tolman » May 13, 2015 1:48 am

It's quite common for the identity of children to be protected in UK legal cases when there's no obvious benefit to them to be identified.

After all, family court cases are typically supposed to be about the best interests of the child.

The restrictions mentioned in the BBC report were reporting restrictions, regarding what can be published by anyone - whether mother, father, friends, relatives, random people like me, or a regular media outlet.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Gay couple wins High Court battle over baby girl

#6  Postby Jerome Da Gnome » May 13, 2015 1:52 am

So nobody is allowed by the court to tell their experience regarding the court case.

Is the child so constrained in perpetuity?
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.
-Albert Camus
User avatar
Jerome Da Gnome
Banned User
 
Name: Jerome
Posts: 5719

Country: usa
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Gay couple wins High Court battle over baby girl

#7  Postby tolman » May 13, 2015 1:33 pm

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:So nobody is allowed by the court to tell their experience regarding the court case.

IANAL.
Possibly much may depend on whether restrictions are purely to avoid breaching the privacy/anonymity of the child by anyone publishing details (possibly including their own details) which could lead to the child's identification, or whether there are other factors involved.

Again, IANAL, and I'm not aware of the specifics regarding someone simply talking to other people.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:Is the child so constrained in perpetuity?

IANAL, but if the sole point was to protect the child's privacy, I'm not sure that they would be constrained at all, at any age, from talking about their circumstances.
Whether anyone else has some legitimate expectation of privacy regarding details of the court case if it came to them having been required to reveal personal information, I really wouldn't know.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post


Return to Parenting & Education

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest