webfact Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Baby Carmen Dads Must Wait 5 More MonthsBy Sasiwan MokkhasenStaff ReporterManuel Santos carries baby Carmen out of the Central Juvenile and Family Court today in Bangkok. Photo: @tonkumchoke / TwitterBANGKOK — Manuel Santos was in tears as he carried baby Carmen out of a courtroom today where he and his husband, Gordon Lake, learned their quest for legal custody would be delayed another five months.After going into semi-hiding for nine months with the newborn after her surrogate mother refused to sign off on transferring custody, the Central Juvenile and Family Court today accepted the request from baby Carmen’s biological parents and set a March date for testimony.Santos’ husband Gordon Lake said they were disappointed by the delay but confident of the outcome.“Unfortunately we have to wait for four-to-five months to continue,” Lake said. “That is very unfortunate, but nothing has happened would make us not trust in the justice system and trust the right thing for Carmen will be done, and Carmen’s best interests will be taken into account. We’re still very optimistic.”Neither the surrogate mother who has said she wants to keep the baby, Patidta Kusolsang, nor her legal advisor, Verutai Maneenuchanert, were present today.Dozens of supporters were present at the Chatuchak district courthouse this morning, along with a representative from the U.S. Embassy. Lake is an American citizen.Lake said the court asked to have Carmen brought into the court and ordered DNA tests of the couple and surrogate.Neither the surrogate mother who has said she wants to keep the baby, Patidta Kusolsang, nor her legal advisor, Verutai Maneenuchanert, were present today.Dozens of supporters were present at the Chatuchak district courthouse this morning, along with a representative from the U.S. Embassy. Lake is an American citizen.Lake said the court asked to have Carmen brought into the court and ordered DNA tests of the couple and surrogate.Full story: http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1446192330 -- Khaosod English 2015-10-30 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluespunk Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 "Neither the surrogate mother who has said she wants to keep the baby, Patidta Kusolsang, nor her legal advisor, Verutai Maneenuchanert, were present today." Nothing to do with her. She was paid to carry someone else's child. She has no claim on the child. Now as to whether this type of surrogacy for money is right or wrong is another issue. Certainly seems to attract some greedy, averous individuals on both sides of the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strangebrew Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Never pay a Thai till job is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borisloosebrain Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Sad that this wannabe hi so lawyer has hijacked the case for own publicity and sick satisfaction. Everything she has said since becoming involved has been nasty and in complete denial of the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClutchClark Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Contrary to some folks opinion that someone can rent out a womb like storage space, the fact is thst carrying a child in a womb and giving birth to that child is most likely a very personal experience with much bonding between unborn and mother. It certsinly seems that the idea and practice of renting the 3rd world womb because it is illegal in your own country comes with some inherent risk. I do feel sorry for the two dads and this has to be very difficult for them but this does not seem like an ethicsl practice to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Fairfield Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Court to hear 'Carmen' surrogate case BANGKOK:-- The Central Juvenile Court Friday accepted the "Carmen" surrogate case and will start the hearing witness testimonies next year. American Gordon Allan Lake, the biological father of Carmen, a baby girl conceived using a Thai surrogate, and his Spanish husband Manuel Valero are suing the surrogate over her right to raise the child. The Juvenile Court is scheduled to start proceedings in the case in March. It requires both parties to undergo DNA tests. Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/Court-to-hear-Carmen-surrogate-case-30271941.html -- The Nation 2015-10-31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 "Neither the surrogate mother who has said she wants to keep the baby, Patidta Kusolsang, nor her legal advisor, Verutai Maneenuchanert, were present today." Nothing to do with her. She was paid to carry someone else's child. She has no claim on the child. Now as to whether this type of surrogacy for money is right or wrong is another issue. Certainly seems to attract some greedy, averous individuals on both sides of the deal. Unfortunately in this case it has a lot to do with her as the baby came out of her and she is the legal birth-mother on the birth certificate. What I am sure of is that after the birth she changed her mind upon realising that this beautiful (and possibly intelligent) luk kreung will be a big earner in 18 years time or earlier as a model or soap star. "My daughter khao suai maak." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClutchClark Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 "Neither the surrogate mother who has said she wants to keep the baby, Patidta Kusolsang, nor her legal advisor, Verutai Maneenuchanert, were present today." Nothing to do with her. She was paid to carry someone else's child. She has no claim on the child. Now as to whether this type of surrogacy for money is right or wrong is another issue. Certainly seems to attract some greedy, averous individuals on both sides of the deal. Unfortunately in this case it has a lot to do with her as the baby came out of her and she is the legal birth-mother on the birth certificate.What I am sure of is that after the birth she changed her mind upon realising that this beautiful (and possibly intelligent) luk kreung will be a big earner in 18 years time or earlier as a model or soap star. "My daughter khao suai maak." What an overtly racist comment. Since she is a Thai mother she must only be interested in the future ability to exploit the child. Your post is a great example of the racism that permeates this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daoyai Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Apply the clutch, clark, Thai is a nationality, not a race. As a surogate, the birth mom was in it for the money from the start, she may have become attached to the baby as is natural OR she could be seeing a possible bigger payoff. Her "race" comes into play only in your mind... why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClutchClark Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Apply the clutch, clark, Thai is a nationality, not a race. As a surogate, the birth mom was in it for the money from the start, she may have become attached to the baby as is natural OR she could be seeing a possible bigger payoff. Her "race" comes into play only in your mind... why? A young woman, with poor education and living in poverty receives an offer to receive compensation from two wealthy farang who cannot biologically reproduce as a "couple". The poor woman accepts the offer ( which is illegal in both the US & Spain and most other civilized countries. Once the unborn baby stsrts to grow inside of her she has a change of heart. Several men on TV decide she must be in it for the money because...? Search your heart and tell me why you think that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravip Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Why did not they do it in their own country? Who really is at fault? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micmichd Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Some people in the West try everything to hide their homosexuality, just for the heritage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBOP Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 "Neither the surrogate mother who has said she wants to keep the baby, Patidta Kusolsang, nor her legal advisor, Verutai Maneenuchanert, were present today." Nothing to do with her. She was paid to carry someone else's child. She has no claim on the child. Now as to whether this type of surrogacy for money is right or wrong is another issue. Certainly seems to attract some greedy, averous individuals on both sides of the deal. Unfortunately in this case it has a lot to do with her as the baby came out of her and she is the legal birth-mother on the birth certificate.What I am sure of is that after the birth she changed her mind upon realising that this beautiful (and possibly intelligent) luk kreung will be a big earner in 18 years time or earlier as a model or soap star. "My daughter khao suai maak." What an overtly racist comment. Since she is a Thai mother she must only be interested in the future ability to exploit the child. Your post is a great example of the racism that permeates this forum. Its not racist. Its stereotyping. But also agree this surrogate mother is probably going after the money. Take for instance baby Gammy surrogate mother got well over a quarter million dollars in crowd funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daoyai Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Search your heart and tell me why you think that way. (quote) ummm... because she agreed to the deal for financial reasons so it is very possible that she is persuing this for the same reason. I didn't "search my heart" for that answer, I used my logic (brain). As I previously stated it is also possible that she has become attached to the baby. ..... where the racism comes in is still a mystery to me. ....is this an "Asian" thing? I wasn't aware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven23 Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 I support gay people, but this is not acceptable!! I have my own child but I would never go in some country as thailand, and india to find incubator wife, NEVER, it is highly unethical and repulsive to me. I hope court and justice system in chatuchak are strong enough to not let this happen!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBOP Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Apply the clutch, clark, Thai is a nationality, not a race. As a surogate, the birth mom was in it for the money from the start, she may have become attached to the baby as is natural OR she could be seeing a possible bigger payoff. Her "race" comes into play only in your mind... why? A young woman, with poor education and living in poverty receives an offer to receive compensation from two wealthy farang who cannot biologically reproduce as a "couple". The poor woman accepts the offer ( which is illegal in both the US & Spain and most other civilized countries. Once the unborn baby stsrts to grow inside of her she has a change of heart. Several men on TV decide she must be in it for the money because...? Search your heart and tell me why you think that way. Some US States are surrogacy friendly. Look it up before you make misleading statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) I support gay people, but this is not acceptable!! I have my own child but I would never go in some country as thailand, and india to find incubator wife, NEVER, it is highly unethical and repulsive to me. I hope court and justice system in chatuchak are strong enough to not let this happen!!!! Going abroad for surrogate services is often done by infertile heterosexual couples as well. You're confusing the issues. When this contract was set up, what they were doing was not explicitly illegal in Thailand. The laws have been changed since then, but that is NOT what THIS case is about. This case is about the custody of the child being contested. If the surrogate mother was not contesting the custody, the baby would long ago out of Thailand and living with her obviously very loving and dedicated same sex parents. Edited October 31, 2015 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClutchClark Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) "Neither the surrogate mother who has said she wants to keep the baby, Patidta Kusolsang, nor her legal advisor, Verutai Maneenuchanert, were present today." Nothing to do with her. She was paid to carry someone else's child. She has no claim on the child. Now as to whether this type of surrogacy for money is right or wrong is another issue. Certainly seems to attract some greedy, averous individuals on both sides of the deal. Unfortunately in this case it has a lot to do with her as the baby came out of her and she is the legal birth-mother on the birth certificate.What I am sure of is that after the birth she changed her mind upon realising that this beautiful (and possibly intelligent) luk kreung will be a big earner in 18 years time or earlier as a model or soap star. "My daughter khao suai maak." What an overtly racist comment.Since she is a Thai mother she must only be interested in the future ability to exploit the child. Your post is a great example of the racism that permeates this forum. Its not racist. Its stereotyping.But also agree this surrogate mother is probably going after the money. Take for instance baby Gammy surrogate mother got well over a quarter million dollars in crowd funding. Call it whatever you like. Its just the same old mysoginistic attitude often displayed here on TV that Thai women are motivated only by money, in this case, the idea thst the baby will become a celebrity in the future. Suggesting that the mother cannot be motivated by any maternal desire--only financial. But I could really care a less at this point. I see this as one of the problems that a gay couple is up against--the biological fact they can't reproduce through more traditional methods. The fact they must rely on a surrogate which is illegal in many countries. The fact the birth mother might change her mind. The fact some guys on a forum famous for Thai bashing think she is in it for the money. I could give a rats ass about any of it because it doesn't affect me. Thats my opinion on the matter. Deal with it. I am going to get an espresso and then go to the beach ;-) Edited October 31, 2015 by ClutchClark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captspectre Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Why did not they do it in their own country? Who really is at fault? because homosexuals cannot adopt babies! they they are not satisfied with living their perverted lives (calling each other husband and wife even though both are man) don't know why they would want a baby anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) Why did not they do it in their own country? Who really is at fault? because homosexuals cannot adopt babies! they they are not satisfied with living their perverted lives (calling each other husband and wife even though both are man) don't know why they would want a baby anyway! This is a specific case. Homosexual love isn't on trial here. Custody of one baby is. Gay people can adopt in many countries. It is often harder. On surrogacy, gay and straight couples go to places like India and Nepal to save money, if it is legal in their home countries or not, just as people travel abroad for cheaper dental services. You can question the ethics of surrogacy but the ethics of surrogacy is not on trial here. ONE custody case is. Not all gay people want children, adopted or biological. Some do. What they call each other will depend on the individuals involved and really none of your business. Obviously for lesbians it is much easier to have a biological connection to children, from one member of the couple of course. Edited October 31, 2015 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
champken Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Two gay fathers and no mother for the little girl? Not in my book anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gchurch259 Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 This whole thing is wrong on many levels, what the heck do "Immoral Gay Men" need with a daughter ? I am amazed at how sick the World is becoming !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klauskunkel Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 This whole thing is wrong on many levels, what the heck do "Immoral Gay Men" need with a daughter ? I am amazed at how sick the World is becoming !! How can you judge the two guys as being immoral? Do you know them personally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluespunk Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 "Neither the surrogate mother who has said she wants to keep the baby, Patidta Kusolsang, nor her legal advisor, Verutai Maneenuchanert, were present today." Nothing to do with her. She was paid to carry someone else's child. She has no claim on the child. Now as to whether this type of surrogacy for money is right or wrong is another issue. Certainly seems to attract some greedy, averous individuals on both sides of the deal. Unfortunately in this case it has a lot to do with her as the baby came out of her and she is the legal birth-mother on the birth certificate.What I am sure of is that after the birth she changed her mind upon realising that this beautiful (and possibly intelligent) luk kreung will be a big earner in 18 years time or earlier as a model or soap star. "My daughter khao suai maak." She carried the child and I'm sure she developed feelings for it but genetically she has no link to the child. Some of the alleged comments she made on her face book page in the past about wanting a more western looking child do raise questions about her suitability as a trust worthy person to carry another's child. Alleged comments, not read them so cannot varify their validity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairynuff Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Why did not they do it in their own country? Who really is at fault? because homosexuals cannot adopt babies! they they are not satisfied with living their perverted lives (calling each other husband and wife even though both are man) don't know why they would want a baby anyway! For a moment I thought you were serious with this comment. Then I realised you're just trying to get a reaction because nobody would really want to make a complete fool of themselves with a comment like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairynuff Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 This whole thing is wrong on many levels, what the heck do "Immoral Gay Men" need with a daughter ? I am amazed at how sick the World is becoming !! I'm assuming the clue to your bigotry is in your name "church". When it comes to immorality the church is streets ahead . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Cahill Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Apply the clutch, clark, Thai is a nationality, not a race. As a surogate, the birth mom was in it for the money from the start, she may have become attached to the baby as is natural OR she could be seeing a possible bigger payoff. Her "race" comes into play only in your mind... why? A young woman, with poor education and living in poverty receives an offer to receive compensation from two wealthy farang who cannot biologically reproduce as a "couple". The poor woman accepts the offer ( which is illegal in both the US & Spain and most other civilized countries. Once the unborn baby stsrts to grow inside of her she has a change of heart. Several men on TV decide she must be in it for the money because...? Search your heart and tell me why you think that way. Some US States are surrogacy friendly. Look it up before you make misleading statements. Correct. In California it's legal. There's a back story to this which as usual gets totally missed by the comenters on articles which are written as kind of updates for those who already know the other details and just want to know what's happening. This is illegal in Thailand and virtually every country. It is illegal in the UK, which is why @gaydads claim to be operating out of California, but they actually operate out of Essex in the South of England. Barrie Drewitt Barlow, who calls himself 'the gay mafia' is very rich, from charging massive fees to arrange illegal (criminal or felony illegal) use of third world women to have babies which then go to homosexual couples. The mothers get hardley anything in the deal and are totally exploited. They get less than a tenth of the money. He's an incredibly dodgy and unpleasant character. He has a publicity engine for defaming people who offend him or his friends. Flooding the internet with stories that the person's a paedophile is their favourite one. In Australia, we had the Truong Newton (Russian baby rented to paedophiles) case. Note all people mentioned claim to be 'gay marriage activists', but most of them aren't 'married', despite this being legal in the jurisdictions that they live in. Note it is totally illegal to get citizenship or a passport for a child who's not your blood relation in most countries, Australia included, but the famous case could not have happened if this wasn't ignored by the corrupt immigration officials. If you look up Burns -v- McKee and Burns -v- Sunol (New South Wales NCAT ADB), you'll see two cases---McKee still pending. Both centred around people objecting to the two paedophiles, Truong and Newton's ability to flout numerous laws to 'adopt' a baby, which they later rented out. It is illegal in NSW to "vilify homosexuals", whilst the parameters of what a homosexual is is undefined. Garry Burns has made a career out of taking people to the tribunal, with more than one hundred upheld complaints which went to full consideration, but this doesn't include some which were not accepted. Seventy of these were against John Sunol (mentioned). Such has been the corruption associated with the ADB and Burns, that Nancy Hennessy, one of the judges, has had to recluse herself. This is mainly due to the fact that more than eighty percent of the cases bought have been by Garry Burns. In the cited cases, Burns is incredibly objecting to Truong and Newton being described as gay or homosexual paedophiles. He says that it's 'vilifying' him and other 'gays' as there's no relevance that they were homosexuals and they wanted a boy to abuse, and abused the boy. Burns is linked to Barlow, as he used his Twitter account to defame both respondents mentioned as well as numerous other people. Burns has written to many people that he thinks certain people need to be sodomised to teach them a lesson. He says this about the lady organiser of Occupy Paedophilia St Petersburg. Confusingly, Burns "a homosexual man" has stated in court (Burns -v- Gaynor (see Bernard Gaynor's website)) that he doesn't like sodomy, and talks about it disparagingly. However, he is in a movement which seeks to legalize homosexual activity in public parks. He also denies knowing the infamous Peter Tatchell, who was actively involved in paedophile legalisation and normalisation since the seventies. They are linked, and Tatchell doesn't deny it. This is all a very dark agenda. It is a pro-paedophile agenda which has nothing to do with 'gays'. Most gays hate these people as they know that the 'gay movement' has always been a pro-paedophile movement since it's inception, of which they want no part. They also don't like walking about the street naked on Mardi Gras or PRIDE. They don't want children as they don't really feel totally happy about being 'gay' and they would rather just get on with their slightly different lives in peace, without disrupting anyone in society, least of all a child. Look up NAMBLA walks with me. Look up PIE (Paedophile Information Exchange). Surrogacy is on record as totally illegal in Thailand. However, it is big business for some people. The travel plans were intercepted via an online calander for one of the people involved and they had some kind of exemption from customs and a police escort arranged. Fortunately, Garry Burns and his friend have been caught on a cryptically paedophilic Facebook page. Slightly less cryptic than that which sparked the investigation into Truong and Newton. Jeramy Smith's Burn's partner and has a male escort business in Brisbane. He calls himself Jezinbris online. He has recently removed a load of videos from Xtube of him with young Thai men doing sex acts. He's also removed videos of him in bars surrounded by rent boys in Thailand. You can however still see that he was on Xtube and did have an account. Jez also has a charity which takes in 'gay twelve year olds who're not accepted by their Christian families'. The article is totally biased and doesn't explain that you can't buy children in Thailand and the mother owns the child. The chances that the two buyers were cruising about with a phrase book asking people to buy children is totally preposterous. The lady in the village probably knows all about this now as people will have told her. She will know that the same people are implicated in child trafficking and abuse of babies by homosexual paedophiles. I'm not saying that money's not involved and that it may seem like a colossal cheek to not hand the baby over, but under the circumstances it's incredibly wrong to support this: it's illegal, the baby is in danger, this group and movement has a track record of abusing children---and if the two concerned haven't worked this out and want to pretend it's not relevant as they've spent a little bit of money, then they're definitely not fit people to have children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClutchClark Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 ^^^^ Actually, I had already looked up where it is legal & illegal in the US and was going to post the link and then decided, "what the hell waste my time for". ;-) Like I said it makes no difference to me one way or the other--I have zero invested. But thats a great background you provide and ai appreciate the fact you took the time to post it. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retarius Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Give her back to her biological mother. The sooner the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Strand Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Why this two blueboys not went to an orphanage and adopted a child from there ? I have not any sympathy with them sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts