Gay parents fight for custody with surrogate in Thailand

[shunter]

Jingthing.

I do not justify to you, who or what I am, suffice to say, '' I am probably somewhat better versed in the law here in Thailand as well as another country where I practiced law for many years as well as consulting here.Being of mixed race parentage I hold Thai citizenship as well as my citizenship elsewhere.''

I assure you that if you were a witness in the case currently being discussed here your constant comments concerning the gender issue etc would find you in contempt and certainly a short stay in a confined space and an apology to the judge would be the order of the day.

Furthermore as a witness any jury would then be advised by the judge to ignore any statements and comments that you had made, you would be declared a hostile witness due to your comments'. In short your comments would do enormous damage to the plaintiffs case.

I have no concern or interest as to the gender issue, my comments and opinions concern the moral and legal issues involving civil and possibly criminal law matters.

I would also add that had I been engaged to act for the plaintiffs I would strongly advise against you and in fact anyone else with the somewhat strident standpoint you have of being called as witnesses for the plaintiffs in the matter due as already stated the damage that your statements would cause to the plaintiffs case.

Edited March 27, 2016 by shunter

[Jingthing]

Oh, please.

More inflamed gobbledygook.

What an absurd post.

We're talking on a forum about an admittedly CONTROVERSIAL case.

We're not in court of law.

I never said I had any intentions or relevance as a witness to testify, and the fact this Shunter raises that in such a insinuating crafty way is simply beyond the pale.

We already know the surrogate woman has raised the gay issue in this case, so it's in this case regardless, from HER POV.

I've heard enough of such noise and silliness.

Welcome to my ignore list, Shunter. and GOOD RIDDANCE.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Jingthing

[shunter]

I shan't be able to sleep at night now knowing I have been put onto your ''ignore list.''

An action in ignoring the facts indicative of someone who finds the facts unpalatable as they run contrary to their views which they seem to think are above the law of the land.

[lkv]

The whole case hinges on deception, ignorance of or a deliberate flouting or manipulation of the law by the parties concerned, one could also include ''pecuniary gain'' by the surrogate mother.

The deliberate act of departing from Spain would seem to indicate a deliberate act of deception to further the surrogacy birth process here in Thailand. The drawing up of a contract implies a commercial arrangement with a payment as opposed to a social contract. Thereby could hang the outcome of this matter. Is it, was it ,a commercial and planned act sponsored by the prospective parents and the surrogate mother and of course the broker. Or is it a genuine social crusade by the mother free from any personal pressure or financial inducement so as to produce a child for the prospective parents so as to complete a family ?

There is the issue of the adoption of a child by the prospective parents, such a situation could be cited as evidence that in truth the child produced by a surrogacy process is deemed to be a deliberate act to create a ''designer child'' gender wise and ethnically for financial gain by the surrogate mother and the broker. A financially sponsored service by the prospective parent so as to produce and thus obtain a child or a product to the specifications they the prospective parents desired.

The whole issue of the gender of the prospective parents needs to be and would be best left out of the issue, the crusading of all parties for or against the gender issue is going to damage this case and ultimately the child at the center of the issue.

The whole matter is based upon civil law, but be aware, there are elements of law that could actually put some of the actions by those concerned into a criminal law arena.

No no, I believe the reason the couple sought assistance in Thailand rather than Spain was because they found out about "Thainess" and the kind women living over here.

My understanding is, had there been a payment involved, the practitioners or hospitals involved would have broken the law in assisting, according to this.

http://www.thailawforum.com/medical-surrogacy-regulations/

And I don't believe Thai people could do something like this.

So surely the law was respected there.

Or am I reading this wrong?

Edited March 27, 2016 by lkv

[djjamie]

As long as the law is respected I hope they can gain custody of the child.

[lkv]

I'm happy that they banned it actually. Stops people from coming here and getting burnt, saving them time, money and effort in the future. And 14 months of stress if the "mother" changes her mind.

Laws are way too relative in here.

But they should stick to what has been agreed upon before the new laws came into place.

Edited March 27, 2016 by lkv

[Jingthing]

I'm happy that they banned it actually. Stops people from coming here and getting burnt, saving them time, money and effort in the future.

Laws are way too relative in here.

Agree no problem with the ban and not legal in most countries. But this baby exists.

[lkv]

Yes I know, I was still writing the post while you were replying.

[shunter]

If dear Jingthing canor does read through the contents of the link provided by lkv in his or her post # 94 there are numerous clauses in the act which could and likely will destroy the plaintiffs case and as said could also involve any medical practitioner who may have been involved in the process as well as others involved in a criminal charge action. The others being the surrogate mother the broker and the prospective parents regarding the payment of fee's.

This clause below in itself alone could well be the one that leads to the dismissal of the prospective parents case.

C) The woman who gets pregnant for the couple shall be a relative by blood of either party of the couple.

There is a possibility that the court may consider this clause below as a valid reason for the dismissal of the plaintiffs case as well

4.1 The services for Assisted Reproductive Technologies shall not include human cloning.

Also was this procedure followed?

(4) To provide services apart from the standards specified in (1), (2) and (3), medical practitioners responsible for providing the services shall obtain approval from the Royal Thai College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists before providing any of those services.

This is certainly a can of worms which may well take a considerable length of time and money to bring to a conclusion for all the involved parties

[whitemouse]

Ask it to be removed or corrected, right now it reads as if you said it.

Just to keep things in perspective here, this man isn't capable of typing in a box. A box! But he feels he's in position to judge if this couple, childs legal parents, is good enough to be parents.

This child exists. Too late for morality lectures about how adoption is better. Which I agree with but not relevant to this case.

Egg donor obviously thai though

So I wouldnt be surprised if the judge says no

1/2 thai baby, thai surrogate wants to look after it, thai judge

Are these two HOMOSEXUALS still trying to take this baby out of thailand? though this case was settled months ago! hope the Thai government sticks by it's guns. HOMOSEXUALS should not have the right to adopt any child! how would it grow up seeing two men and no mother? does not take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. it's called visual brain washing. have them go back to their countries and try to adopt a child! see how that comes out!

Dude, learn to quote properly, makes it look like I wrote that garbage last paragraph

[smutcakes]

i know i would not of wanted 2 dads, instead of a Mum and Dad.

i can presume the same would be said for this poor kid when she grows up.

[lkv]

i know i would not of wanted 2 dads, instead of a Mum and Dad.

i can presume the same would be said for this poor kid when she grows up.

You would not have thought that way had you been born with gay parents. Making that type of statement in retrospective is lame.

Coming back to the real issue here, it's a combination of dodgy laws open to interpretation and the interpretation of one judge.

Edited March 27, 2016 by lkv

[whitemouse]

What this couple does is their decision, public figures or not. You don't like surrogacy, you prefer adoption, understood, maybe so do I. But this case isn't about about what you and I prefer, our preferences and beliefs have NOTHING to do with it!

Why on Earth do you think this couple should suddenly start talking about, and promoting adoption? They are in a legal battle to keep their child, how does adoption enter this? How about we include discussing water shortages in the North then as well?

Oh jeez. This couple didn't seek to be public figures. That was forced on them by this situation.

I completely agree.

However my point was that they are now public figures, and if they did lose this case, they have a platform and they could use for a very good cause by promoting adoption.

I was quite clear about this in my post. I never implied they had been seeking celebrity status, only that they now have a platform by accident.

[Jingthing]

Whatever the outcome of this case it's clear THIS baby is better off with the Spanish-American couple.

[uthaithanirules]

Whatever the outcome of this case it's clear THIS baby is better off with the Spanish-American couple.

Mmmmm hmmmm, now I see your bias

This argument is all a waste of time. The Birth Mother is the legal mother in thailand, this was the law before the Assisted Reproductive Technologies Act.

And thus being born in thailand, from a thai mother is a thai national. Contract is not valid until the surrogate (legal) mother relinquishes parental rights.

I dont see this going the foreign guys way.

It would be interesting to see, wouldnt it. If the baby has to stay in Thailand, with the mother how helpful either of the dads are going to be to ensure kids has a good life

Only then you would see their true colors

[Jingthing]

Yes.

Bias.

Signed contract.

Biological father.

Baby happily bonded with a large extended family waiting to welcome her in Spain and presumably most likely a great life.

So biased.

As far as financial support for the baby if the case is lost, that is perhaps an interesting academic question that I hope never comes up.

The last I heard the surrogate woman doesn't even want the baby.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Jingthing

[uthaithanirules]

i know i would not of wanted 2 dads, instead of a Mum and Dad.

i can presume the same would be said for this poor kid when she grows up.

On the flip side, this kind of comment can be annoying.

I grew up with a single mum, no dad, didnt make a damn bit of difference.

Not like Im some kind of mutant for not having a dad, more successful than most nowadays

Parents are role models, they make a difference, this is what people want to believe. Those that grew up with a mother and father have never known any different anyway

A stable home, food on the table....thats about it, your role as a parent, Anything else is just make believe

[uthaithanirules]

The last I heard the surrogate woman doesn't even want the baby.

Oh yeah, and where does that come from?

Baby was born last year, I cant find any new news earlier than 4 days old

[Jingthing]

The last I heard the surrogate woman doesn't even want the baby.

Oh yeah, and where does that come from?

Baby was born last year, I cant find any new news earlier than 4 days old

Supposing she did, and given the history of not honoring contracts and using homophobia as an excuse to back out of it, if it was you sending money to that woman, would you trust the money was benefiting this particular baby? You don't wire money to babies. You wire money to their guardians.

[uthaithanirules]

The last I heard the surrogate woman doesn't even want the baby.

Oh yeah, and where does that come from?

Baby was born last year, I cant find any new news earlier than 4 days old

Supposing she did, and given the history of not honoring contracts and using homophobia as an excuse to back out of it, if it was you sending money to that woman, would you trust the money was benefiting this particular baby? You don't wire money to babies. You wire money to their guardians.

You just said, the last you heard she doesnt want the baby, heard from where?

Or are you just making things up now?

[Jingthing]

I really don't recall. I said I heard it and I recall reading it fairly recently.

I don't know for sure.

Again, THIS is an internet forum, not a court of law.

YOU suggested they should pay this woman money if they lose the case as if that's some kind of ACID TEST.

Honestly, if it was you, after the evidence of behavior, WOULD YOU or any rational person do so?

As far as the ACTUAL MOTIVATION of the surrogate woman, we'll have to use our IMAGINATIONS, now won't we?

If the baby must stay in Thailand, I reckon there are social services here that will take over here if it's not the surrogate woman, who BTW, has NO biological connection to the baby.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Jingthing

[smutcakes]

I really don't recall. I said I heard it and I recall reading it fairly recently.

I don't know for sure.

Again, THIS is an internet forum, not a court of law.

YOU suggested they should pay this woman money if they lose the case as if that's some kind of ACID TEST.

Honestly, if it was you, after the evidence of behavior, WOULD YOU or any rational person do so?

As far as the ACTUAL MOTIVATION of the surrogate woman, we'll have to use our IMAGINATIONS, now won't we?

If the baby must stay in Thailand, I reckon there are social services here that will take over here if it's not the surrogate woman, who BTW, has NO biological connection to the baby.

What complete and utter rubbish.

[Jingthing]

Not her egg. No biological connection.

[Johnniey]

Whatever the outcome of this case it's clear THIS baby is better off with the Spanish-American couple.

But they are gay. Not very fair for the child growing up.

[Jingthing]

Whatever the outcome of this case it's clear THIS baby is better off with the Spanish-American couple.

But they are gay. Not very fair for the child growing up.

Yes her parents are gay. Sorry so many people have a problem with that.

[NCFC]

Oh, please.

More inflamed gobbledygook.

What an absurd post.

We're talking on a forum about an admittedly CONTROVERSIAL case.

We're not in court of law.

I never said I had any intentions or relevance as a witness to testify, and the fact this Shunter raises that in such a insinuating crafty way is simply beyond the pale.

We already know the surrogate woman has raised the gay issue in this case, so it's in this case regardless, from HER POV.

I've heard enough of such noise and silliness.

Welcome to my ignore list, Shunter. and GOOD RIDDANCE.

Yes Jingthing. Thank you for a perfect example of how gays use bullying tactics to get what they want. Shunter has pointed out to you time and againbthat this is a legal issue. And at the beginning you too were saying there is a contract, ie it is a legal issue.

But when Shunter argues that the legal points work against the couple, you switch to playing the gender card. And others chime in with homophobe accusations.

It is a very ugly tactic to use but not untypical when things are not going your way.

[lostinisaan]

Strange in a country very tolerant towards homosexuality.

More likely the mother just became attached to the child and wanted to keep it, along with the money.

it's said lake is the biological father of that baby and the mother is unknown but most likely is asian yet from the picture shown the baby looks 100% asian not luk kreung.

Spanish law does not recognize the right of same-sex couples to adopt children, however, it is legally provided that minors may be adopted by only one person, and thus these couples are indirectly entitled to adopt children each individually.

The legal battle comes during a particularly complicated time. Thailand once had a booming surrogacy industry catering to foreign couples, but a series of scandals led the country's military rulers to ban the practice.

The new law takes effect at the end of the month and makes surrogacy for profit a criminal offense.

Carmen's fathers are hoping to take advantage of a temporary provision that would allow them to leave with Carmen, but it defines intended parents as a "husband and wife."

Kusolsang denied their sexual orientation is the issue, saying she cares only for the safety for her child.

"I miss her every day," Kusolsang said. "You see how cruel the world today. And I just don't know what they are going to do with my baby."

She told CNN she changed her mind months ago about giving up the baby and tried in vain to get more information about the intended parents.

Kusolsang has filed a claim with the Thai police and written a letter to the U.S. embassy. She said she will return the couple's money if she can have the baby.

"I don't want his money, not even one single baht," she said.

Lake and Santos plan to go to court on July 30 to file their petition. Stuck in Bangkok, they've been trying to raise money for their legal battle online. Their Fundly page currently shows contributions of more than $25,000.

"In our mind there is not a possibility that we can lose Carmen," Lake said. "She is our daughter and our daughter belongs with us." He pledges to stay in Thailand as long as the battle takes.

Why can't the woman who gave birth make such a statement without being called a liar???

So now it’s not just about the wish of two gay men to buy a cheap Asian baby.

Now it certainly developed to an International begging for money circus. I feel sorry for the little girl only.

[lostinisaan]

Oh, please.

More inflamed gobbledygook.

What an absurd post.

We're talking on a forum about an admittedly CONTROVERSIAL case.

We're not in court of law.

I never said I had any intentions or relevance as a witness to testify, and the fact this Shunter raises that in such a insinuating crafty way is simply beyond the pale.

We already know the surrogate woman has raised the gay issue in this case, so it's in this case regardless, from HER POV.

I've heard enough of such noise and silliness.

Welcome to my ignore list, Shunter. and GOOD RIDDANCE.

Yes Jingthing. Thank you for a perfect example of how gays use bullying tactics to get what they want. Shunter has pointed out to you time and againbthat this is a legal issue. And at the beginning you too were saying there is a contract, ie it is a legal issue.

But when Shunter argues that the legal points work against the couple, you switch to playing the gender card. And others chime in with homophobe accusations.

It is a very ugly tactic to use but not untypical when things are not going your way.

I'm just wondering how many people would send Jingthing & partner some cash to go to court, should he decide that he wants to buy such a cheap and sweet little Asian baby for almost nothing to get her to his country of origin.

Jing, no intention to criticize homosexuality, it's only about human rights. And the little girl is obviously too young to make such a decision.

BTW, if they would want to adopt a child in Spain, it wouldn't be a big problem at all. But such a mixed baby looks so sweet.....

[lkv]

So where is mummy working? I hope not Nana Plaza.

[djayz]

Whatever the outcome of this case it's clear THIS baby is better off with the Spanish-American couple.

And you know this based on what????