Heartbreak of couple who've given up right to see surrogate baby

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.

Heartbroken: The Ws cannot be named, to protect the child's identityThe 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 babys biological mother.

From the Mail, February 12The 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 childs 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 tr! ying 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 Downs 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 t he child away, she sent the couple a text message saying: Dont be silly. This baby will be yours. I dont 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 surrogates 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 didnt 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 Ns 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.
Ts 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.