[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq44pVSLU8Q?searchbar=0&iv_load_policy=3&ap=%2526fmt%3D18&wmode=transparent&showinfo=0]
Read more: https://cheezburger.com/82088193/the-struggle-is-real-as-a-baby-attempts-to-try-on-a-rain-boot
Author: JSADev1
Women who obtain baby through surrogacy entitled to maternity leave
In a welcome move, Bombay High Court recently directed maternity leave to be granted to a woman who had attained motherhood through surrogacy.
The Bench, comprising Justice Anoop V. Mohta and Justice G.S. Kulkarni observed, “Having considered even Rule 551 (C) and (E) of Child Adoption Leave and Rules, we find that a case is made out for grant of interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) as there is nothing in rule 551 (C) and (E) as referred above, which would disentitle maternity leave to a women who has attained motherhood through surrogacy procedure.”
Accordingly, the Court directed the Central Railway to grant 180 days maternity leave to its woman employee.
The petitioner had given birth to twins through the procedure of surrogacy and thereafter applied for Maternity Leave relying on Rule 551(C) of the Indian Railway Establishment Board. The application was however rejected on the ground that the petitioner, before entering into an agreement of surrogacy, did not take permission of the Railway Board.
The Counsel for the petitioner, Sandeep Shinde and Tanya Goswami had brought to the notice of the Court a Division Bench judgment of Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Dr. Mrs. Hema Vijay Menon v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,Writ Petition No.3288 of 2015, where it was specifically observed, “A woman cannot be discriminated, as far as maternity benefits are concerned, only on the ground that she has obtained the baby through surrogacy. Though the petitioner did not give birth to the child, the child was placed in the secured hands of the petitioner as soon as it was born. A newly born child cannot be left at the mercy of others.
A maternity leave to the commissioning mother like the petitioner would be necessary. A newly born child needs rearing and that is the most crucial period during which the child requires the care and attention of his mother. There is a tremendous amount of learning that takes place in the first year of the baby’s life, the baby learns a lot too. Also, the bond of affection has to be developed. A mother, as already stated hereinabove, would include a commissioning mother or a mother securing a child through surrogacy. Any other interpretation would result in frustrating the object of providing maternity leave to a mother, who has begotten the child.”
Agreeing with the Petitioner, the Court granted the relief and posted the matter for disposal on March 11.
Last year, Kerala High Court had delivered a similar ruling, observing that women employees cannot be discriminated against for maternity benefits, solely on the ground that they obtained the baby through surrogacy. Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu had considered the dichotomy of maternity- pre and post natal. He had upheld the proposition, and observed, “From day one after the delivery, the petitioner is required to be treated as the mother with a newborn baby. Thus, without discriminating, it can be held that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits that accrue to an employee after the delivery, as have been provided under the Act or the Staff Rules. Nothing more; nothing less, for the petitioner cannot compel the employer to place her on a higher pedestal than a natural mother could have been placed, after undergoing the pregnancy.”
Read more at: https://www.livelaw.in/women-who-obtain-baby-through-surrogacy-entitled-to-maternity-leave-bombay-hc-read-order/
29 Things Only New Parent Would Understand
Lack of sleep, forgetting your own name, smelling vaguely of spit-up at all times — must be a new parent! I’m not telling you it is going to be easy but I’m telling you it’s going to be worth it.
Here are 29 things only a new parent would understand.
Read more: 
Father’s hopes for single parent surrogacy law change
A father who won a groundbreaking legal case on Britain’s surrogacy laws has told the BBC he hopes he will soon be given the same rights as other parents.
As he is single and his baby was born to a surrogate mother, he cannot be given full parental responsibility.
Without parental responsibility, he cannot legally make key decisions about his own son, he said.
In May he won a High Court ruling and the government has said it will now update the law on parental orders.
The current law – the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 – allows married couples, civil partners and couples in an “enduring family relationship” to apply for parental orders after a surrogacy arrangement – but not single parents.
In his first interview since the court case, the father, who the BBC is not naming, said he turned to surrogacy because “several of my friends started having children and that made me think about having my own child or children in some way”.
His son is now coming up to his second birthday and his identity was protected in court. We will call him Sam and we will refer to his father as Michael.
‘Legal limbo’
Michael told BBC Radio 4’s PM programme that he went to a surrogacy agency in the US, which put him in touch with a woman who has “got several children of her own, she’s been a surrogate previously and she was very was happy to help me out”.
He acknowledged that it did “perhaps” seem an extreme thing for a single man to have done, but said: “There isn’t that much difference to being a single dad, to being a single mum.
“Several of my friends have said that their friends have chosen to have a child while they’re single, but obviously for biological reasons, it’s much easier for them.”
His baby was conceived using his sperm and a third-party donor’s egg. However, due to differences between British and American surrogacy laws, the child was caught in an “international legal limbo”.
Michael’s solicitor, Natalie Gamble, said that in the US, Michael was recognised as the sole parent with full responsibility.
However, under UK law, the surrogate is treated as the legal mother and she is the only person in the UK who has the responsibility and authority to make decisions about the child’s day-to-day care.
This means that Michael and Sam face potential problems.
“When he’s older, I can’t choose which school he goes to. I took him to hospital once and they asked me ‘do you have parental responsibility?'”, he said.
“Not being able to apply for a passport was an issue – because I wanted to take my son away on a trip for a short period of time.”
Natalie Gamble added that if Michael died, there could also be “a very messy situation” as technically the surrogate would be left with the default responsibility of looking after the child.
For now, Sam has been made a ward of court. This means the High Court makes decisions about his care and safeguards his welfare, with Michael responsible for Sam’s day-to-day care.
Couples
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 allows parents in this situation to apply for a “parental order”, giving them full responsibility for the child but these cannot be granted to single people.
When the law was brought in, the then Labour government felt that due to the magnitude of surrogacy arrangements, they were best dealt with by couples.
It is not illegal for single people to have children in this way but it means they cannot get parental orders.
Michael knew this but still went ahead with the surrogacy.
“The British law allows surrogacy,” he said. “Whilst the government try to make it hard by not allowing the parental order to give me those rights, they clearly haven’t chosen for it to be illegal – otherwise they would’ve done so.”
His only option would have been to try to adopt Sam but instead he decided to challenge the law.
In May, the High Court found the law to be incompatible with the Human Rights Act.
Lawyers for the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt accepted that the different treatment of single people could no longer be justified.
Health minister Lord Prior told Parliament in June: “The government has accepted the judgment. We will be looking to update the legislation on parental orders, and are now considering how best to do this.”
The Department of Health said this was likely to happen within the next 12 months.
No regrets
Michael told PM: “I’m very happy because it means that there’s a strong likelihood that the law will be changed and I will have full parental responsibility over my son.
“It will mean that I’ll be in the same situation as most families.
“I don’t see why there’s any difference between me having a child, albeit through surrogacy, and someone else choosing to have a child on their own. It’s the same situation – people choose to have the child because they want the child.”
He said the legal action cost him thousands of pounds, but he has no regrets.
Some MPs like Labour’s Rob Flello are concerned about the potential implications.
“What about the human rights of the child? For me that is absolutely paramount,” he said.
“And ultimately, all these issues around surrogacy, whether it’s parental orders or other legal requirements, are there because Parliament still has concerns about the implications in the long-term of surrogacy.”
Michael’s solicitor, Natalie Gamble, said many people were waiting for the law to change – she has more than 40 clients in a similar situation.
“In most cases people are muddling through, making decisions and hoping that no-one ever asks the questions to uncover the fact that they don’t have the status they need,” she said.
Read more: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37108407
7-Year-Old Jumps To Action When He Sees A Toddler Facedown In A Pool
All parents know that it’s extremely important to keep an eye on your kids at all times, but this doesn’t stop accidents from happening, on more than one occasion. Even the most vigilant parents have seen it happen: the one time you turn around for a minute or so, your child slips out of sight.
That’s what happened to the parents of one 2-year-old, who had no idea that their child had slipped away. The toddler somehow found a way to squeeze through the bars of the gate to a community pool.
He then fell into the water and, not knowing how to swim, found himself splashing, struggling to stay afloat.
Seven-year-old Cesar was walking past the pool, on his way to play video games at his cousin’s house, when he saw splashing and waving arms in the pool. He saw the toddler facedown in the water, and quickly moved to pull him out, thinking that he was going to die.
Though the baby was heavy for Cesar to carry out, he is the reason why the parents of the 2-year-old can breathe a sigh of relief!
Cesar then found an adult, who was able to call first responders, who were able to treat and attend to the child.
Heis thankfully expected to make a full recovery.
Like our Page 
Read more: https://www.littlethings.com/7-year-old-saves-toddler-drowning/
