So What Are They Afraid Of?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3071048/Gagging-mother-forced-hand-baby-daughter-gay-dad.html
Not only do they take away her child they also take away her freedom to give her side. More to this than meets the eye methinks.

[RandyMarsh]

Perhaps it is because she has already tried smearing them and the judge wants to put a stop to it. Sounds reasonable?, she had her day in court.

[ToraToraTora]

if the judgement is so "correct" then lets hear both sides then.

[ummmm]

Maybe it's not considered in the best interest of the child.

[woofgang]

I suspect that the judgement was made to protect the child and quite right too.

[Mamyalynne]

As stated, the lady had lots to say during the court case, there both sides were indeed put before the court.

A lot of it very unsavoury by all accounts.

[ToraToraTora]

"Maybe it's not considered in the best interest of the child. " - and giving it 2 "dads" is? right oh!

[sherrardk]

Better two dads than one fruit-loop mum.

[RandyMarsh]

2 parents.

[andres]

She decided she wanted to keep this baby. Her other two children are in the custody of her estranged British husband. She is Romanian and one of the gay couple is a former friend of hers-also Romanian.She agreed to surrogacy but then went back on her word. Also used homophobic language against the couple(.I didn't think your children could be taken off you for this) The female judge gave custody of the child to the gay couple and ordered all names should be kept secret. There has to be more to this otherwise it would be cruel to take a year old baby away from her mother. Just imagine the distress the baby must be going through.And as to secrecy--Gay couple ,one Romanian suddenly acquire a year old baby.???

[RandyMarsh]

Well TTT was right, there was more to it.

[anotheoldgit]

Apparently she was still breast feeding, how cruel is that both to the baby and it's mother.

[jno]

having your mother venting her spleen on your father in the Mail can hardly be good for any child. As said before, the child's interests are paramount, and rightly so.

This development rather suggests the court got it right, giving the child to the parent less likely to drag its story through the pages of the gutter press.

[Gromit]

I expect it is to protect the identity of the child.

[anotheoldgit]

jno

/// This development rather suggests the court got it right, giving the child to the parent less likely to drag its story through the pages of the gutter press. ///

Not like the fathers wouldn't have, if the judges ruling had gone against them.

[woofgang]

AOG what do you base that comment on?

[andy-hughes]

Tora - //"Maybe it's not considered in the best interest of the child. " - and giving it 2 "dads" is? right oh! //

You put forward this argument yesterday on a similar thread, and it singularly failed to fly - what makes you think it is going to get any meaningful support today?

[ToraToraTora]

just trying to see why this woman cannot be allowed to put her side. All this "to protect the child" cobblers is err cobblers. Let her be interviewed annonimously.

[anotheoldgit]

woofgang

/// AOG what do you base that comment on? ///

Perhaps you didn't notice, so I will carry out a copy and paste exercise just for you.

/// This development rather suggests the court got it right, giving the child to the parent less likely to drag its story through the pages of the gutter press. ///

[RandyMarsh]

Lol, does that clear it up then woofgang?

No, me neither.

[andy-hughes]

TTT - // ... Let her be interviewed annonimously. //

By whom?

And surely, if she was anonymous, then no-one is going to know it is she who is putting forward her point of view, which renders the exercise somewhat redundant.