Oh, that I could get behind... I'd like to knock Lockie into another universe.

No in English law Trevor has no rights, the baby is considered to be the child of the woman who has given birth to him/her until or unless she signs a parental order or adoption. Surrogacy contracts even if written down are not recognised or enforced in English law. Its not unknown for the biological parents to change their minds and leave the surrogate with the baby either. I dont know that I agree that Trevor and Grace have more right to the baby than Esther, she has carried the child and has nourished it with her body, her emotions and self-care have affected it and we simply dont know enough about what happens between a mother and baby during pregnancy to know what the effects are. I dont think that there is a clear right or wrong in this situation and I feel sorry for all of them

WOW!!! You really don't like Lockie do you? LOL!!!

Night everyone have a nice weekend.

cfc and Marianne enjoyed talking with you have a great weekend.

If they've killed Esther, I'm out.

Except Trevor has evidence that he's the dad, so filing for parental rights would be easy enough.

Esther is 100% wrong imo. She's taking a baby away from his parents. She's not even thinking about the baby at this point. She's thinking about herself. If she stopped to think about her selfish plans for 5 minutes, she'd realise that they make no sense. She's willing to let Grace see her own son? How sweet. How will she explain who she is to him? How could she possibly think it's fair to take Grace's baby away from her and expect her to watch Trevor play daddy to him? Taking a child away from his mother and basically saying "you can visit, but I'm his mum" is unbelievably cruel. She's a selfish idiot. As for Esther carrying the baby, why does her "self care" come into it? She did what anyone would do to carry a healthy baby. As for her nourishing the baby, what does that mean? Her eating habits give her rights?

I really, really don't. There is not one single redeeming characteristic about him and he's not even well acted.

Trevor has no rights in law, that's not my opinion, its not something that I "think", its a fact. It's also a fact that most mothers bond with their baby in the womb and its also a fact that we do not understand everything about human development, not enough to be certain how much a baby is affected by what happens to it in the womb.

This situation is not fair on any of them, in my opinion and this storyline has made me really think about surrogacy and I'm not really sure exactly where I stand on the subject.

Why does Trevor have no rights in law, when he is the child's biological father, which a paternity test can prove (meaning that he should be able to go to court for a parental responsibility order)? Or does the law only acknowledge paternity from, er, "natural" conception rather than artificial insemination?

The law does state that the mother of a child is the one who gives birth (regardless of where the egg came from) so legally Grace has no right to the baby at all

What I'm saying is though, Trevor has 100% undeniable proof that he's the father. He will be able to have access.

Bonding with a baby that isn't yours doesn't give you the moral rights to keep it. If Esther really loved him, she wouldn't dream of taking him away from his loving parents. Why does he deserve that?

But does Trevor only have the status of say a sperm donor?

Sort of although it isnt expressed like that. It is an interesting conundrum and there are pressures for the law to change but currently surrogacy arrangements are unenforceable under English Law. If you are interested the following is taken from a recent guide to the existing law: the surrogate mother and her husband (if she has one) have to apply for a parental order transferring parental responsibilities to the "adoptive" parents after six weeks and before six months

"The HFEA 1990 inserted s.1A into the SAA 1985, making all surrogacy arrangements unenforceable, whether altruistic or commercial in nature.
As such, there is no binding obligation on any of the parties to the surrogacy agreement.
Of particular concern is that the commissioning parents have no legal recourse for ordering the transfer of the child if the surrogate mother changes her mind, even where the child is biologically their own since the woman who carries a child is the prima facie legal mother of that child (HFEA 2008, s.33) – this is an irrebuttable presumption.
The current unenforceability of the surrogacy arrangement means that the surrogate mother (and her husband or partner) has the first and primary claim to the child and can change her mind up until the parental order is granted.

Of course this does also mean that the commissioning parents can change their minds and this has happened, and then the surrogate mother ends up with a responsibility she wasnt expecting

By the time Sinead leaves Esther will have no friends left everyone of them gone Tilly Dylan, Ruby, Geroge and Phebeo.

That's interesting. Kim is Esther's partner, and as such is eligible for parental rights. In theory, she could then apply for a parental order for Grace as the child's stepmother. Bet running away with ol' Kim doesn't sound so bad to Grace now ...

Actually the above is not 100% correct. Esther is the mother in the eyes of the law, however the birth certificate is an interesting case. Esther could put down unknown, but in this case she doesn't seem to want to restrict access to Trevor and Grace. If she puts Trevor down as the father; he will have rights. It all hinges on what she would sign on the certificate. Trevor would then need to apply for full/shared custody.

If Esther put down unknown; he would need to go through the courts and prove himself the father. In some ways, it helps that Trevor is the father and Grace would need to rely on him, to get custody. The sad thing for Grace would be her not being the registered and legal mum. Given Esther is a lesbian, I don't think Trevor would have to do much to prove himself the father to the courts. But that doesn't mean an automatic ruling of baby goes to birth father.

Personally, I believe a child should always be with the biological parents if they want them and the child is in no danger. I just think of how I'd feel as the child later on in life...would I be curious and feel I'd want to know the woman who carried me, but had no genetic/ blood link to me vs my biological parents. and how would I feel to be raised by a woman who carried a child for a couple (and biological I was 100% the couple's child) when said biological parents wanted me. And if we put that the other way round and biological parents took me away from a woman who carried me for them, but felt my mother and gave birth to me. As that child; you be more upset at the loss of the biological parents, not at the surrogate.

I don't think so. I believe sperm donors have to undergo an entirely different arrangement.

Something I can see happen with what happened to Esther at the end I think it will be a wake up call for Esther if there's something very wrong with Esther's health it will be hard taking care of her own health and the baby, best thing she can do is give the baby to Trevor and Grace that way that way both sides are happy they have their baby and Esther takes care of her health. If Esther decided to keep the baby despite what happened to her what if happened again she has the baby, she dies and the baby on it's own.

I'm hoping that's the end of Esther. She's a terrible character and pretty much always has been. Her behavior over not giving Trevor and Grace their baby proves what a selfish cow she is.

It appears that she'll have given them the baby by the time of

I have a week to catch up on

yippie