Australian couple abandon surrogate twin with Down's syndrome in Thailand

[Lilibet]

Who knows. What option were they supposed to have been considering if they knew this child had Down syndrome earlier? They couldn't force surrogate to have an abortion (and it's not even legal in Thailand). So what option would they be considering?
Judge also ruled the bio-dad is low risk to abuse his daughter they did take (bio dad is a convicted sex offender).

From an ethical and moral standpoint I would hope they would have considered keeping and raising this little boy. Why does surrogacy allow for an option to pick which child to keep? I don't get it. Given the father's sex offender status, neither child should be with him IMO.

 

[they'll get you]

Judge’s decision to have baby Gammy’s twin Pipah raised by sex offender father ‘appalling’

A JUDGE’S order to have a baby girl raised by a convicted sex offender has been slammed by Australia’s leading child protection campaigner.
In a shocking decision handed down in the Family Court of Western Australia yesterday, Justice Stephen Thackray ordered the twin sister of baby Gammy, the child at the centre of an international surrogacy dispute after being left in Thailand, remain with her sex offender father.

David Farnell, the biological father of the pair, has 22 prior convictions for child sexual abuse.

Bravehearts chief executive Hetty Johnston has called the decision, which will see baby Pipah raised by Mr Farnell and his wife Wendy, appalling.

http://www.news.com.au/national/cou...g/news-story/9768dee2e4c0ec615a43f7bd1c98a2b2

 

[they'll get you]

Bravehearts chief executive Hetty Johnston has called the decision, which will see baby Pipah raised by Mr Farnell and his wife Wendy, appalling.
“It flies in the face of all the contemporary research around child sex offenders and grooming behaviour,” she told news.com.au.
“This is about as bad as it It gets".

http://www.news.com.au/national/cou...g/news-story/9768dee2e4c0ec615a43f7bd1c98a2b2

 

[jjenny]

From an ethical and moral standpoint I would hope they would have considered keeping and raising this little boy. Why does surrogacy allow for an option to pick which child to keep? I don't get it. Given the father's sex offender status, neither child should be with him IMO.

In my opinion the boy is likely better off without a sex offender raising him.

 

[they'll get you]

Is this what pedophiles are doing now? Having their own children to abuse?

David Farnell, the biological father of the pair, has 22 prior convictions for child sexual abuse.

NOW THIS?

Victorian man had twins through surrogacy and abused them when just weeks' old.

The man was already abusing his nieces when he began preying on his own daughters when they were just 27 days old. The abuse went on for seven months and was documented and shared online, where the 49-year-old bragged about his crimes and encouraged those who commented on his posts.

He pleaded guilty to a total of 37 charges.


Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...h-surrogacy-to-abuse-them#WSYtjVX0Om857sB0.99

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Is this what pedophiles are doing now? Having their own children to abuse?

David Farnell, the biological father of the pair, has 22 prior convictions for child sexual abuse.

NOW THIS?

Victorian man had twins through surrogacy and abused them when just weeks' old.

The man was already abusing his nieces when he began preying on his own daughters when they were just 27 days old. The abuse went on for seven months and was documented and shared online, where the 49-year-old bragged about his crimes and encouraged those who commented on his posts.

He pleaded guilty to a total of 37 charges.


Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...h-surrogacy-to-abuse-them#WSYtjVX0Om857sB0.99

He needs to be imprisoned for life, there is no rehabilitation possible for someone like this!! He's as deeply depraved as it gets!!

 

[they'll get you]

He needs to be imprisoned for life, there is no rehabilitation possible for someone like this!! He's as deeply depraved as it gets!!

David Farnell, got to keep Gammy's sister!!

Aghhhh! I ....just .....can't .....understand .....this. Faaaaarout!

 

[Supernovae]

The court judgment is here:

http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/...A035&action=openDocument&SessionID=EE48N0279F

The judge seems to give them an awful lot of benefit of the doubt for people who have repeatedly lied and broken Australian law:

343 Since then, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people finding the “solution for [their] various reproductive challenges” in commercial surrogacy arrangements utilising the services of poor women in a cluster of developing economies. There are major public policy issues associated with this development. Indeed, the circumstances surrounding the present case have apparently been influential in the banning of international commercial surrogacy in Thailand, which was until then one of the major destinations for those who wanted to buy a baby.

344 Before beginning my discussion of the factors the law requires me to take into account, it is important to identify what I perceive to be the policy considerations underpinning the State laws pertaining to the status of children born as a result of a surrogacy arrangement. In doing so, I am conscious that this is a controversial area of law that is presently under review. In seeking to identify the public policy considerations, I must deal with the law as it is, rather than how it might look after the review.

345 First and foremost, commercial surrogacy arrangements are forbidden by the law of every state of Australia. In some states, the law is expressly given extraterritorial effect, while in Western Australia the prohibition of commercial surrogacy has some extraterritorial effect because of the operation of the Criminal Code. In my view, there could not be a stronger expression of public policy than the imposition of criminal penalties (including terms of imprisonment) for participating in a commercial surrogacy arrangement.84

346 Secondly, the law of the Commonwealth not only respects the various state laws by picking them up in the federal Act, but s 21 of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2002 (Cth) makes it an offence punishable by 15 years imprisonment to give or offer valuable consideration for the supply of a human egg. Many surrogacy arrangements depend upon the provision of eggs from a third party, and there is every reason to believe that money changes hands.85

347 Thirdly, although altruistic surrogacy is allowed in Australia, it is permitted only subject to conditions, and the rights of the birth mother (and her husband or partner) can only be extinguished by order of a court. Again, this demonstrates a strong expression of public policy against even altruistic surrogacy, save for those arrangements that meet the legal requirements.

He'd have to be brazen indeed to reoffend with the measures that have been put in place, so that's likely to be a vanishingly small risk, but how is this healthy?

95 Having noted information still missing, including a current assessment of the likelihood of Mr Farnell reoffending, the report set out DCP’s findings:


Due to [Mr Farnell’s] history of sexual offending, there is a significant risk of sexual harm to Pipah and children, in particular girls, who spend time with [Mr Farnell] in the future. Risk of sexual harm will be substantiated.

Substantiation of risk of sexual abuse is assessed, in part, because of the significance of the impact of sexual abuse on children, the ongoing effects into adulthood and the intergenerational effects on families and communities. Trauma such as sexual abuse and intimate violence are associated with poor physical and mental health outcomes, increased likelihood of substance misuse and lower than optimal brain development in children.

Due to the safety network, their knowledge understanding of the Department’s concerns and their [ongoing cooperation] with the Department, and the evidence which suggests [Mr Farnell] has not reoffended since leaving prison, Pipah is assessed as safe enough to remain in the care of [the Farnells].

Due to the risk of grooming, which may take place from a very young age, Pipah is assessed as not safe alone in the company of [Mr Farnell]. It is identified that Pipah should never be alone in the company of her father.

Currently, due to the incalculable level of [Mrs Farnell’s] ability to protect Pipah from grooming behaviours, [Mrs Farnell] is not to be the person who supervised contact between [Mr Farnell] and Pipah. A member of the safety network will do this. Presently [redacted] has moved into the home of the Farnells to assist with this. Other members of the network have assisted when this is not possible.

Pipah is the subject child in this assessment, however no harm has occurred to her, therefore harm is not substantiated. [Mr Farnell] does not meet the criteria to be named as a person assessed as causing harm (ASH) for this reason. Sexual harm of Pipah, does however remain a concern for the reasons discussed above.

...


101 Resolutions Consultancy and DCP developed a safety plan for Pipah, which included a requirement for Mr Farnell to move out of his home for six weeks. This was in accordance with the approach recommended by Resolutions Consultancy in other cases involving concerns about sexual abuse. The six-week period occurred just after Mrs Farnell and Pipah returned from China after the funeral of Mrs Farnell’s mother. The focus of the work in this period was to assess and support Mrs Farnell’s capacity to keep Pipah and other children safe. It was also designed to allow Mrs Farnell to demonstrate that she was drawing on the safety network for support and was not solely reliant upon Mr Farnell.

102 Documents were prepared to assist and guide DCP’s work. One of these, created in consultation with the Farnells and the safety network, was a “Words and Pictures Story” to be read to Pipah. The “final” version of the Words and Pictures Story was completed in March 2015 (and will now be translated into Chinese for the benefit of Mrs Farnell’s family). In essence, the document records, in terms a young child will learn to understand, the history and method of Mr Farnell’s offending. It is designed to help Pipah understand why she is not permitted to spend time alone with her father, and serves as a reminder to the safety network of the need for vigilance.

103 The story was first read to Pipah by Jane Farnell in the presence of the Farnells and some other members of the safety network in March 2015. It is proposed that the story will be read every three months, along with other “Keep Safe” literature. All members of the safety network have committed to sharing the story with Pipah. Since the story was first read, there have been review meetings approximately every 10 weeks involving DCP and members of the network. As part of these reviews, members of the network and the Farnells have been requested to complete a document identifying the ways they have been complying with the safety plan. It is proposed that the Farnells will continue completing that document during the period of any protection order that I might make on the application of DCP.

104 DCP officers have made regular home visits to ensure that the Farnells and members of the network have been complying with the safety plan. The records indicate full compliance. There were 24 visits between September 2014 and September 2015, some scheduled, but many unannounced. Mr Farnell has never been found alone with Pipah. Mrs Farnell has always been there, and Jane or Mrs Farnell Senior have often been present.

...

15 The minutes of many meetings facilitated by Resolutions Consultancy with the Farnell family and the safety network from August 2014 to September 2015 demonstrate a high degree of cooperation with DCP, and an understanding on the part of the Farnells of why DCP insists on compliance with a strong safety plan. It appears that the Farnells have never missed a meeting with DCP, notwithstanding there has been a very large number of them. The discussions recorded in the minutes show attention to the smallest of details relating to compliance with the requirements that Mr Farnell not be left alone with Pipah and not be involved in her intimate care.

116 The discussions at the meetings have dealt with how Mrs Farnell would schedule play dates for Pipah at their home when Mr Farnell is away working, or at the homes of other children where Mr Farnell will not be present. The discussions also identified protective measures that the Farnells claimed to have put in place even prior to DCP becoming involved; for example, how they explained to third parties why Mr Farnell did not change Pipah’s nappy and how he was never involved in her intimate care. I accept that this was their practice and I also accept that, since his release from prison, Mr Farnell has avoided ever being alone with children.

117 The minutes of the meetings demonstrate that the Farnells and members of the safety network have, at times, questioned the need for some of the strict conditions that have been imposed. They felt that Mr Farnell’s efforts over many years to reform himself had not been acknowledged. For example, the Farnells challenged the necessity for Mr Farnell to leave home for six weeks when Mrs Farnell was still grieving the recent death of her mother (and in light of the fact that Mr Farnell’s office and workshop were at the home). The Farnells expressed particular concern about the indefinite requirement for Mr Farnell never to be alone with Pipah, even to walk her to the shop. In my view, there was nothing untoward in this robust exchange of views in the meetings, which appear to have been conducted in a respectful fashion.