Unbelievable that a journalist, who is supposed to remain neutral when reporting the news, can write and actually have something published that is so clearly biased. This little boy is now, FINALLY, exactly where he belongs. With his PARENTS. He was conceived with the intent to be raised by Mr. and Mrs. J. NOT by the SURROGATE.

Dawn, etown,

I feel staggered that there appears to be no mention of the child protection issues that arise from this case. The commissioning couple should be treated as any adoptive parents would be in this situation in my opinion. Although normally biological parenthood does not require any assessment of parenting skills, when taking on the care for life of a 17 month old, regardless of whether there has been some contact previously, the parenting skills and suitability for adoption as well as the child's best interests (which are supposed to be the court's paramount consideration not punishment of the biological mother) should be assessed as they would be in similar situations where consideration is being given to removing a 17 month old child from the stable family environment he has known all his life. Punishment and deterrance should be left to the criminal courts not the family courts. The child is not property, he is a person and his rights seem to have been forgotten by the courts.

Louise Terry, Bexleyheath,

I think what's not been said here is this woman has deceived another couple and has kept a child from a previous agreement.
She lied to the couple and claimed she miscarried and only the good intentions of her oldest daughter brought this to light.

The little boy has been seen regulary by the biological farther and his wife so the child does know them and the rightful parents will ensure the little boy still gets to see his siblings.

This article should be re-written to reflect the TRUTH!

Sammy, London,

I think this is a very difficult case, on one hand you have a couple who put all their faith and trust in a surrogate only to have her break their heart. But on the other hand you have a surrogate who may have, when faced with the reality of what she was doing, just not been able to part with the life growing inside her. Although I am pro surrogacy I don't think the right decision was made in this case, that little boy is 17 months old and is being taken from the only mummy he has ever known. The thought just breaks my heart.

Sarah, UK,

Clearly the Family Court has completely lost touch with the children, families and society they are meant to defend. Instead of a child's welfare being paramount, this Court now sees children as property: commodities to be awarded to the most 'meritorious' persons. It has already lost sight of a baby's undeniable, primary need for - and right to - its mother. In the dreadful recent fashion for prioritising "Fathers"' rights over childrens' rights, the Courts now ignore the obvious fundamental truth of nature: that a birth-mother is biologically designed to grow the baby from her own flesh and blood, to give birth, to regulate the baby's temperature etc after the birth, to feed it with her milk (also made from her blood and body), to provide it with her anti-bodies, etc. The ensuing emotional dependency is vital - and unavoidable. In trying to 'create' a new family, the Court will put this baby through the most terrifying, appalling trauma: the sudden loss of his mother and family.

martha, London, England

It's ridiculous that is situation was ever allowed to come to pass in the first case. How can a man inseminate a woman intending any resulting child to have no contact with its natural mother? How can any woman agree to such a stupid act?

The true victim in all of this is the poor child, who as an adult in 20 years time will have terrible difficulties coming to terms with all of this (though at least he knows who his natural parents are, unlike the children conceived with "donated" sperm and eggs)

Tom, Cambridge, UK

This childs life will be ruined and the parents will suffer from his unhappiness. He will probable grow up hating them for this convoluted bargain they were involved with. I can well understand their frustration, but this child now has siblings he is going to be ripped away from. It is a tragic case and the child will suffer more than the adults.

Jenna Jordan, Huntington, N.Yl, Suffok N.Y

This story makes me absolutely ill. Children really have become 'property'. God help us all & especially the children!

How can this be allowed to happen when -- as I understand it -- surrogacy arrangements in the UK are not binding in law, and that the little boy is the genetic offspring of the mother who gave birth to him?

The UK is currently up in arms about buying babies in Bulgaria, a story which was on the news last week in an undercover investigation by the BBC. Why is it that surrogacy, with money changing hands in exchange for babies, does not seem to worry us at all, and that we think it is then perfectly OK to remove a little boy of 17 months from the only home & parents he has ever known, and give him to the family who ‘commissioned’ his birth? How is this not also 'baby selling'?

Diane Allen, Toronto, Canada

The couple who 'bought' this child can have no love for him; they don't even know him. How can the law do this to an innocent child? What will he think when he grows up and finds out that he was ripped from his mother's arms? He may not be able to forgive the people who put who put their perceived rights above his.

J Phillips, Newcastle upon Tyne,

There are so many "wrongs" in this case that it is hard to know where to begin.
In the first instance, it is morally wrong to create a child with the deliberate intention of separating it from either its biological mother or father.
It is "wrong" of a man to ask a woman to bear his child so that he can then remove the child from its mother.
It is "wrong" of a woman to agree to conceive a child with this man, knowing that the child will be caught in an impossible conflict betweens its parents.
It is "wrong"...given all of these deliberately planned "wrongs"...to then remove the child (who had no say in his conception) from its mother.
Surrogacy is a minefield of complications for adults; it is a lifelong tragedy for the child.
This child will have never-ending consequences throughout his lifetime stemming from this terrible trauma taking place in his early life.

polly, MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

The Public Policy issues here are very strong indeed. Surrogacy is really bad news. We should be doing all we can to discourage this primitive practice, not entrenching it and encouraging more cases. Babies are people. To turn them into commodities is not acceptable. It is truly horrifying!

Dr Lynne Wrennall, Southport,

lets get this into perspective here, she deceived this couple ( the father of the child) from the start of this arrangement !!! there was never any intention of handing the child back to its rightful family, that in itself is not a motherly love instinct.
Im very pleased this coule have taken her to court and won, i wish them the very best in their future. a big well done to the legal system. no sympathy for the surrogate,its just a shame SHE has put the child and the parents through this!

paula, andover, hants

the surrogate mother shouldn't have agreed to becoming a surrogate if she wasn't sure she would be able to give the baby up.
As someones that undergoing IVF (6th attempt and no children as yet) i can completely understand the father and his wife for wanting their child.
Paul from London said he agreed with the surrogate mother and would do anything to keep his son as he is a father himself.
Well, that's exactly what the father of this child has done. And well done to them.
i agree with Paul it's cruel to take away the child from it's mum at 17 months old but the father's wife is the childs mum as the surrogate agreed before getting pregnant by the father.
And as agreed the child should've been handed over at birth not at 17 months.
The surrogate changed her mind, therefore the child is being up rooted. It's not the father and his wifes fault, they wouldn't have used her as a surrogate had they known, but thought she was reliable as she already had children of her own.

alex, Scotland,

I cant understand how a woman could go into an agreement to deliberatley deceive? It's already been said, why didnt she go to a sperm bank? or her husband? is there a reason why he wouldnt father her more children if she wanted more? Why's it taken so long to get to court? I'm really pleased that the surrogacy agreement has been upheld. as a surrogate myself, I could never dream of deliberatly conning a couple just to add to my own family. When couples descide to go down this route, they have usually suffered years of heartache, and it's a big thing to ask someone else to carry a child for you, so to then be lied too, is just outrage. and soemthing I could never seriously do? The giving of the gift of life is no bigger gift, and to promise it and then destroy is wrong. am so glad the courts are now seeing sense.

jacqui, winsford, cheshire

Am i incorrect in assuming that the law of this country allowed for a surrogacy agreement to be dissolved at any stage in the proceedings? it has always been thought that general policy issues allowed for such dissolution in a bid to dissuay such arrangements. i am most shocked by this decision.

Jenna McDade, Leicester, Leicestershire

Sad story, saddest for that poor little boy who through no fault of his own is abot to have his world ripped open, torn apart and everything and everyone he knows taken from him.

Why the blazes was such a loose agreement between aqquaintances ever entered into? I realise that in some cases surrogacy is the only hope of a biological child but this case shows just how bdly it can end up [for the poor child] if it is not done through the right lines.

Lucy, West Sussex,

I am glad the Court has upheld the agreement that was freely entered into at the beginning of the surrogacy process by all parties. On the basis alone that they would bring up the baby, the father gave up his sperm. He would not have done this had he thought the surrogate would keep the resulting baby.

Although I feel sorry for all concerned, not least the 17 month old who will have to adapt very dramatically now (I have a 16 month old myself so can well imagine), I still feel it's the right decision. It sends out a clear message that surrogacy arrangements should not be entered into lightly and that all resulting babies are to be placed with the intended parents alone, as agreed at the beginning of the process.

Did the surrogate think it was a quick route to an unearned income for 19 years via the CSA? The IPs have lost 17 precious months of their baby's life, but at least they are now allowed to start again.

Karen, London,

I really feel for the farther of this child. To put all your hopes and dreams into having a family only to have them stopped by the woman being deceitful must have shattered all his hopes. I'm so glad he fought for his son.

Congratulations to the couple for taking this to court and winning. Im so pleased the law is finally catching up and I'm over the moon that the correct decision was made.

Now the father and his wife can bring up their son. It's such a shame that it's taken this long for it to go to court. Maybe this will pave the way to stop more women like this.

Julie Lawson, Barnsley, UK

This should not have gone as far as it has, the baby should have gone to its rightful parents from the beginning, this woman promised someone she would help them become a family then she used there pain to hurt them even more. If she never had any intention of handing the baby over to its parents she should never have entered into this agreement, there are places called sperm banks for people like her. I am sorry if i sound harsh but people turn to surrogacy for a reason, it is obvious when you meet a couple looking for a surrogate that they would have already been through so much in their lives, to carry on with an arrangement knowing that you were going to hurt them even more is a disgrace. I wish the child and its parents all the luck and love that they deserve.

caroline marsden, Batley, England

I don't care what agreements were made. The natural mother will have formed an immense emotional bond with her son over the last 17 months and it is completely unfair that a court ruling should split them up. I am outraged that the decision has been made, as a father I know first hand how strong the emotional bond between a mother and a son can be. I think the surrogate parents should be ashamed to pursue this. So the mother supposedly decived the surrogate parents? This makes her a loving mother, not a bad one. I would do more than that to keep my son. This ruling is a disgrace to the legal system, and I would leave the country if I were the natural mother. I feel sickened by this story.

Paul Cooper, London,

To take a 17-month child from his natural mother seems absolute cruelty from the child's perspective. And on what basis? On the basis that a dodgy surrogacy arrangement had been made, and should be upheld even though the natural mother and her husband were good parents.
I have rarely read a judgment which has filled me with greater perplexity and sadness.
I suspect this is part of a growing policy in the UK that affluent middle classes can do what they want, but that we have a right to monitor the parenting skills of those who are less well endowed, whether financially or intellectually.

Josephine Quintavalle, London,