In H v S (Motherhood for Others Agreement) (2015), a single woman cheated on her friend and same-sex partner by having a child with her on the grounds that they would be the primary guardians, but then began to denigrate her and exclude her from the baby`s life. After 15 months of trial, the Supreme Court ordered the little girl to live with the fathers, as they were better able to meet their long-term emotional needs and ensure that she had a positive relationship with all her parents. The recent case of re B v C (surrogacy: adoption)  EWFC 17 is perhaps the strangest example of the consequences of our law`s assumptions about the filiation of a child. A single man in his twenties (A) entered into an agreement that his sperm and an egg were carried by a donor (B) by a surrogate mother (C). H&S (surrogacy agreement) EWFC 36, 30 April 2015 But what will happen if there is a disagreement? In H v S (Surrogacy Agreement)  EWFC 36, the court was seized of cross-claims concerning a child conceived as a result of a controversial surrogacy agreement between the biological mother and the father and his gay partner. The judge considered what was in the best interests of the child by drawing up the list of welfare cheques in the Children Act 1989 and ordering that the child live with his father and partner. 40. The tweet, available to everyone online, was marked to alert a journalist on ITN. S challenged any part of that tweet and, although she was not directly involved in the publication of the tweet, this is consistent with her conduct in the case where she sent emails to the court and the chairman of the family department and appealed the order issued on October 1, 2014, apparently against legal advice.
The plaintiff`s lawyer sent an email to the person who tweeted, asking him to interrupt the tweet and inform him of the plaintiffs` objections he tweeted about it. Background to The Parties 41. The child is M. She was born on January 27, 2014 because her father H.`s sperm is artificially in S.M is a child of mixed Romanian and Hungarian origin and origin, as well as Orthodox and Protestant Christian traditions.42. S is a Romanian national born in Romania. S is an Orthodox Christian who regularly attends her church. She was married to a British citizen and they had two children who are now teenagers and live with their father. These children have been the subject of lengthy proceedings before Kent Family Court. 43 H, the first applicant was born in Romania in 1972 and is of Hungarian origin. His religion is Christian-Protestant.
B, the second applicant, was born in Hungary in 1977; He is a Roman Catholic. I do not know the extent of their religious practice and I do not think it is relevant to the decisions I have to make, except that it means that M`s parents have a difference in religious practice and belief and that this difference is part of their context.44 I was told that H and S had known each other for many years before S agreed to receive M when they met in Romania in 1990. H moved to the UK with his mother at the age of 18 and later became a British citizen. In 1999, H and S spent time together with a house. 45. S met her former husband W and has with him two daughters who were born in January 2002 and October 2003. . . .