FB apology ends baby 'Carmen' libel case

[rooster59]

FB apology ends baby 'Carmen' libel case

Kesinee Taengkhieo,

Pratch Rujivanarom

BANGKOK: THE Criminal Court has successfully mediated a defamation case linked to the baby 'Carmen' after the defendant apologised to the plaintiff through a Facebook post.

Defendant Kusuma Kwankiaw, who was charged with defamation under the Computer Act, reached an understanding with plaintiff Patidta Kusolsang, the surrogate mother of baby Carmen.

In the Facebook post, Kusuma said she had realised her mistake in posting defamatory messages and made the apology public to show it was sincere. She also expressed her deep gratitude in Patidta's kindness.

Patidta is expected to come to the court to withdraw the charge on December 21, following mediation overseen by Presiding Judge Suwichai Sukkasemhathai and Conciliator Preecha Wongsasulak.

The process was in line with the meditation policy of the Criminal Court's chief justice.

Patidta has filed a lawsuit against the two gay men who hired her to be the surrogate, Gordon Bud Lake and his husband Manuel Santos, because she wants to keep Carmen. The Juvenile Court is scheduled to begin hearing the case in March.

On the Facebook fan page "Bring Carmen Home", one of Carmen's parents said his family left Bangkok this month for fear their daughter may be kidnapped.

"After 10 months of living with the fear that Carmen could be kidnapped, changing apartments, staying at home most of the time, and spending hours on the computer defending ourselves from the lies and defamation of the two women (you know who they are) ... after all of this and knowing that this injustice is not going to finish soon, we have decided to go to a quiet village far away where we can live without fear, save money, and watch Carmen play freely in the sun," the post stated.

It was also stated that until the lawsuit is over, they want to live anonymously as much as possible for Carmen's protection.

In October, the Juvenile Court accepted the case and will decide who will have the right to raise the girl.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/FB-apology-ends-baby-Carmen-libel-case-30273864.html

-- The Nation 2015-11-28

[Somtamnication]

Those two blokes need to go home.

[jaidam]

Do I understand this correctly that the 2 dads have sole custody of Carmen?

[CWMcMurray]

Those two blokes need to go home.

I'm pretty certain that they would love nothing more than to go home...

They just can't do so until their entire family can go home together

[Toknarok]

This surrogacy business is a mess, it presents all sorts of problems. See India has now banned it as well as Thailand. IMO it should never be allowed anywhere thereby such moral dilemmas such as 'Baby Carmen' would never occur.

[Somtamnication]

Those two blokes need to go home.

I'm pretty certain that they would love nothing more than to go home...

They just can't do so until their entire family can go home together

If I understand correctly, the baby is still with the "mother". So it has bonded with her already. Like I said, the two blokes are being scammed and need to go home. Many orphanages in their own country.

[Ceruhe]

While I'm not really opposing surrogacy as a whole and would also point the finger to adoption, I wouldn't ever bother doing business with a woman that doesn't have a name to her and can just backtrack on her consent (iirc this was the one with a contract and all, right?) like nobody's business and most likely get away with it too because women are so massively oppressed because privilege.

I think I said it last time and still stand by it, a contract is a contract, all vital information has been on the table to be reviewed and/or changed until an understanding has been reached, which it seemed it was. As I haven't bothered with this case at all, someone may correct me if I'm wrong about "all vital information was available", in which case I may change my stance on this case, but until then I will stand behind the "value your contract" position, which I recall to not have been a scam.

[casualbiker]

Those two blokes need to go home.

I'm pretty certain that they would love nothing more than to go home...

They just can't do so until their entire family can go home together

If I understand correctly, the baby is still with the "mother". So it has bonded with her already. Like I said, the two blokes are being scammed and need to go home. Many orphanages in their own country.

it sounds like the child is with the two " father's "

[nottocus]

it sounds like the child is with the two " father's "

Poor kid

[greenchair]

While I'm not really opposing surrogacy as a whole and would also point the finger to adoption, I wouldn't ever bother doing business with a woman that doesn't have a name to her and can just backtrack on her consent (iirc this was the one with a contract and all, right?) like nobody's business and most likely get away with it too because women are so massively oppressed because privilege.

I think I said it last time and still stand by it, a contract is a contract, all vital information has been on the table to be reviewed and/or changed until an understanding has been reached, which it seemed it was. As I haven't bothered with this case at all, someone may correct me if I'm wrong about "all vital information was available", in which case I may change my stance on this case, but until then I will stand behind the "value your contract" position, which I recall to not have been a scam.

All information was not on the table. The 2 males neglected to tell the surrogate that Carmen would be raised with 2 males and an adopted brother. It may or may not be an issue, but she had a right to know everything clearly before making an informed decision. They lied by omission of the facts. That automatically cancels the contract. She honour the contract until the last minute, when the 2 men informed her of the truth. She was worried about the child, and then changed. She has never asked for money, outside of the original contract. She wanted to have contact with the child to know if she was safe and cared for. She has been honourable throughout the process, she never lied or kept important information from them. Shame on them for sneaking around and if they truly thought being gay was not a relevant issue.

Why did they hide and conceal it.

[Trouble]

I don't claim to know the whole story here but this woman played the role of incubator for hire. Baby is not her DNA. She had a contract. Whether the fact that the father was gay is irrelevant because she seemed not to care about how the baby was to be raised. Did she assume the egg donor was the mother? Did she assume there this was for a straight couple? She evidently had no desire to meet the potential mother or the donor of the egg prior to agreeing to be the surrogate. She evidently did no do diligence in this case as she had little concern other than for the money. She signed a contract, she was not duped. Greed was her factor and any ethics of the issue were not a concern for her at the time she agreed to do it. It is indeed unfortunate that this surrogacy issue is not better regulated but a contract is a contract. Clear and simple. She changed her tune in the end. Quite honestly as much as I may personally question the wisdom of gays wanting children, the fact that the world is changing regarding gay marriage, etc. the baby will probably be better off with the men than growing up in a country as infantile as Thailand.

[nottocus]

I really gotta say I feel for the kid. Gay parents. Man…..that kid ain't gonna have much hope in life.

[Happy Grumpy]

Those two blokes need to go home.

I'm pretty certain that they would love nothing more than to go home...

They just can't do so until their entire family can go home together

If I understand correctly, the baby is still with the "mother".

Is that Gordon or Manuel?

[Ceruhe]

All information was not on the table. The 2 males neglected to tell the surrogate that Carmen would be raised with 2 males and an adopted brother. It may or may not be an issue, but she had a right to know everything clearly before making an informed decision. They lied by omission of the facts. That automatically cancels the contract. She honour the contract until the last minute, when the 2 men informed her of the truth. She was worried about the child, and then changed. She has never asked for money, outside of the original contract. She wanted to have contact with the child to know if she was safe and cared for. She has been honourable throughout the process, she never lied or kept important information from them. Shame on them for sneaking around and if they truly thought being gay was not a relevant issue.

Why did they hide and conceal it.

Since this world is still infested with racists, homophobes, narrow minded prejudice and what have you, I can see this escalating to some time wasting fest of nonesense. But in this case I think I'd still roll in favor with the gay dudes....assuming that is/was/will be the last/deciding factor that it went from deal to no deal.

Well, as mentioned, I haven't bothered with this case so far and have no intention to poke my head into it further to articulate a firm standing for either sides with factors blabla taken into account, I guess there can be valid points for either side that cancels each other out again depending on perspective and understanding...and the main one would seem to boil down to "gay people can't raise childen [the same] like a straight couple"....and trying to change people's bias has been amostly pointless exercise in my experience, as even backed up by science won't get through.

[Bluespunk]

Those two blokes need to go home.

Let them do so with their daughter and I'm sure they will be more than happy to do so.

[Bluespunk]

Those two blokes need to go home.

I'm pretty certain that they would love nothing more than to go home...

They just can't do so until their entire family can go home together

If I understand correctly, the baby is still with the "mother". So it has bonded with her already. Like I said, the two blokes are being scammed and need to go home. Many orphanages in their own country.

Nope. The child is with her biological father and not the woman who has no biological link to the child.

As she should be.

[Bluespunk]

it sounds like the child is with the two " father's "

Poor kid

Yeah must be terrible belonging to a loving family who will care for you.

[dannyman]

it sounds like the child is with the two " father's "

Poor kid

You sound like a poor rotten kid !

[nottocus]

it sounds like the child is with the two " father's "

Poor kid

You sound like a poor rotten kid !

Why?