A mother who served as a surrogate to a gay couple, using her own eggs and their sperm, has won a legal battle against the dads who wanted to keep her out of her son's life and raise the boy in a "motherless" home in the LGBTQ community. The gay couple called the mother "homophobic" for wanting to be in her own son's life. The child is now 4-years-old. The court determined that the mother would retain legal parentage rights along with parental responsibility.

The London case saw the surrogate mother, who was not only a gestational carrier but the biological mother of the child, having to fight the gay couple just to see her son and be in his life. The couple, writes The Daily Mail in an exclusive, tried to "stop her from seeing her own biological child and erase her from his life." The gay dads did not have a concern for their son's bond with his own mother and preferred to exist in the delusion that he had no mother at all.



There has been grave controversy over surrogacy, access to which is seen as a right by many in the LGBTQ community. There is a belief that men who cannot conceive on their own should have access to women's bodies both for their eggs and for their wombs, both of which are needed to conceive and carry a baby to term.

There is an entire industry around contracting women to carry the egg of another woman, the sperm of the contracting man, and carry a child only to give them up at the end of nine months. Efforts to normalize this have been met, in many cases, with the biological facts of life, namely the bond that forms between mother and child. Others have compared the practice to human trafficking and there have been cases of men who have contracted multiple surrogates to deliver them babies.

The gay dads told the court that the woman's son would be "confused" if she were present in his life and that they preferred their family to be "motherless," even after they needed a mother to provide her eggs and carry the child to term. After the child was born, they had no more use for the woman, whom they'd intended to rent and throw away. The woman could not, however, allow herself to be severed fully from her son.

In one instance, when the mother arrived at the couple's home to see her son, they threatened to call police and prevented her from accessing her own son despite the visit having been pre-arranged. Instead, they fought with her in what was called a "horrendous" argument.

The gay dads also told the court that the woman was "homophobic" for wanting to be in the boy's life and wanting him to know her as his mother, despite her actually being his biological mother and carrying her DNA. This, the gay dads said, would be an "inappropriate relationship." They told the court that it was their belief that the child would feel his gay family was incomplete if he were to know his mother. 

A child psychologist who gave evidence in the case said the gay dads' plan to conduct the "erasure of the mother" did not actually reflect reality and that it was not in the child's best interests to prevent him from seeing his mother or having a relationship with her.

The gay dads, aged 36 and 43, had been desperate to have a child "to complete their family" when a friend's sister, the woman who became the mother of the child, agreed to be a gestational surrogate. This meant that she would have an embryo implanted in her womb that was comprised of a donor egg and sperm from the men. The donor egg plan did not work, so they agreed that she would use her own egg, becoming the child's true mother.

The trio had planned that she would be in the child's life, but the men became afraid, as the woman carried her child, that she would be unwilling to give them her son after she birthed him. She agreed to give them her son, admitting that she was afraid they would cut her out of her son's life, which they attempted to do.

The couple and the child's mother signed contracts to ensure that the gay dads would be the primary carers and that she would have regular contact with her son. The men reneged on the deal, sought legal protections for their parenthood and tried to use the court system to remove their son's mother from his life.

"Whilst many surrogacy arrangements work very successfully, this case provides a graphic illustration of the difficulties that can be encountered if the arrangement breaks down," Justice Theis said. "Z is clearly thriving in X and Y’s care. That is not in issue and G has never suggested should not live with them, for Z that security is there. Z has seen G recently and has expressed the wish to see her again."

"I hope now that these decisions have been made the parties will be able to focus on the important issue in this case, namely, to take steps to seek appropriate therapy and support with the aim of seeking to repair their relationships, as the one thing that unites all the adults is ensuring that Z’s welfare needs are met," the judge went on. "This is now the opportunity for each of them to demonstrate to Z that they can work together and each play their part to ensure that is achieved."