|
Post by siennasun on Jul 23, 2013 4:11:15 GMT -5
While I don't think Dianne is a great mum, let not forget that she got involved with Rob ( Finn and Sinead ) father when she was 15 years, and their own mother had abandon them, so it is not surprising that she may not always come across as a mother when she is dealing with Sinead, their relationship have always fluctuate between parent/child or best friends. While Sinead may love Katie,it more of "I love my child so she should be with me, she is mine" rather than I "love child so I will do what is in her best interest" Dianne didn't even want to adopt Katie at first she understood,Sinead persuaded her to do it,yes she was over zelous when the baby was born and didn't think about Sinead feelings but she never gave birth to a child herself and Sinead for months had made it clear that she didn't want to have anything to do with the baby, how was she to know that Sinead would have change her mind. As for Sinead have chosen to make stupid and dangerous choices despite that fact that she have been given options,put herself and her child's life at risk. When has Sinead put Katie's life at risk? That has never happened. She is never left alone, she is kept clean and fed. Unless you mean because she lives in a grotty flat. So do thousands of other kids - being poor/not having a nice house doesn't mean your life is at risk! If/when Sinead actually does something to endanger Katie I would agree that she should give her up but you can't take someone's baby away because you don't like them. You can be a horrible person, even criminal and still look after your child well. Diane cannot look after Katie, she has an out of control teenage son, twins on the way and the father, who is financially supporting her, has cancer. Katie's only other option is the care system. She is better off with Sinead.
|
|
|
Post by siennasun on Jul 23, 2013 4:25:16 GMT -5
Is Robbie coming back? He's not in the new opening credits (unless he was so fast I missed it).
|
|
trini
Junior Member
living and loving life
Posts: 514
|
Post by trini on Jul 23, 2013 16:05:23 GMT -5
Is Robbie coming back? He's not in the new opening credits (unless he was so fast I missed it). Robbie is not in the opening credits but the actor is back filming Hollyoaks.
|
|
HQ75
Full Member
Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)
Posts: 4,200
|
Post by HQ75 on Jul 23, 2013 19:03:29 GMT -5
What I think is that EVERYONE regardless of their age needs help. Sinead needs a job and she has tried to be hired and been turned down by everyone in the village and that was when she was still pregnant. She's a lot of things but she has NEVER been lazy. I don't why repeatedly saying "It's her responsibility" seems useful. Of course it's her responsibility and she's trying to manage that responsibly. No one thought Ste and Doug couldn't raise the kids in that SAME apartment when they were still happy and living together. It's not like the apartment itself has changed. It's looks the same as when Amy and Ste were living together raising there kids. They are working class people living in a council flat. Teenaged mothers STRUGGLE to take care of their responsibilities. I don't think Sinead should have been so careless as to get pregnant and I think she should have had an abortion when she found out she was pregnant. But that is neither here nor there. She has had the baby now and she wants to raise her and be a mother to her and the truth is, she is pretty much dedicated to Katie. The snob that Sinead is would NEVER have allowed herself to be put in the situations she is in now if she weren't doing it for her daughter. People are really oversimplifying this. Right or wrong, the baby is here, she is Sinead's daughter and Sinead is 18 so she is perfectly capable of being a good mom with the right guidance and support (just like very other young mother without a partner) I never in all my days thought I'd be defending Sinead, LOL, but in this case, I think she is doing all the wrong things for the right reasons because she is DESPERATE and doesn't have the life experience or guidance to do things differently. Much like Diane, she is far too used to thinking of "men" as the solution for all problems. Once Diane realized that Sinead was serious about raising Katie, THAT is when she should have changed strategies and just tried to support Sinead in doing so. Help her find a job, help her send out resumes, call contacts, help her with groceries and diapers WITHOUT judging her and trying to make her come back to live with her and Tony. That is the kind of help a mother should give her her daughter who has a young baby to care for. It's what people do when young parents are a couple who intentionally have a baby. Baby showers, checks for the baby, etc. That is what normally happens when you have a baby. Sinead got none of that because up til now she was a horrible person to everyone around her and she had no friends throughout the last 1/2 of her pregnancy. I think she has paid for her past mistakes. He future in university was taken away, she got kicked out of college and she lost her friends. She deserved it all and now it's done. She shouldn't have to be punished for the rest of her life. IF Esther can move on and forgive her, then certainly I can People make bad choices, they get past it and they move on. I know a lot of young mothers in real life who started off rocky but who grew into great moms with the right help. At 18, I don't think any young woman should be written of as hopeless and Katie should get to be with her mother who loves if IF Sinead can sort herself out. It's so weird to me that folks seem to be ok with fathers having doubts about unexpected pregnancies and maybe taking a moment to wrap their minds around it but mothers aren't supposed to have doubts? Feel unprepared? Not be sure what they want to do? Change their mind?
|
|
|
Post by Zathras on Jul 23, 2013 19:20:24 GMT -5
Please take the discussion about Sinead vs Diane (past events, suitability as parents, etc.) over to General Discussion. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by jjose712 on Jul 24, 2013 13:15:00 GMT -5
ON a shallow note. Im not fond of JP's style. He used to wear weird jackets when he was young (his style was a mess most of the time) but now i find him very conservative. The suit fits him well, but it's suit all the time, and he is too young for that (and he is high school teacher not a lawyer)
|
|
|
Post by candyflossuk on Jul 29, 2013 15:17:34 GMT -5
The new JP spoilers are interesting. So now we know that Craig is Matthew's real dad. What I don't understand is why JP is 'stunned, shocked and heartbroken' by that? We always knew that Craig might be Matthew's dad. That is the way JP wanted it to be. I understand his shock at Matthew's surrogate turning up but his shock over Matthew's paternity doesn't make much sense.
The waveguide spoilers say that Frankie gets involved and delivers an ultimatum, which sounds like it's really going to irritate me. I hope she doesn't demand that she gets to keep Matthew with her or something.
Poor JP. I wish the writers would give him a break from all the misery!
|
|
|
Post by Zathras on Jul 29, 2013 20:00:03 GMT -5
Hmm. I guess I'm not 100% convinced that Craig is really the biological father. It almost sounds like the surrogate is just trying to extort money out of JP, so I wouldn't take what she said at face value. The first step, of course, would be for JP to demand a paternity test. I'm not convinced the show will go there, but we'll see.
Of course, at this point John Paul has had over six months to bond with Matthew. I'm sure he thinks of himself as Matthew's father. Neither Craig nor the surrogate have showed any interest in parenting until now, after all. I guess I'll wait and see what his reaction really is ("shocked" doesn't sound quite right).
|
|
|
Post by anthonyl on Jul 30, 2013 6:38:49 GMT -5
I agree. How can JP be shocked? He knew Craig might be the dad the whole time. Makes no sense. But, this is Hollyoaks.
|
|
|
Post by candyflossuk on Jul 30, 2013 8:29:09 GMT -5
I agree. How can JP be shocked? He knew Craig might be the dad the whole time. Makes no sense. But, this is Hollyoaks. Shocked by the surrogate turning up and threatening to take Matthew yes. I can also understand him being sad that Matthew isn't biologically his after having bonded with him. But being 'shocked' and 'stunned' about Matthew's paternity would suggest that he believed himself to be Matthew's father biologically, when all along he knew there was a chance he wouldn't be. The same would apply for Frankie. JP told her what happened when he returned and never denied that Matthew could be Craig's (hence letting Matthew spend time with 'his grandma'), so why is she now going to start making 'ultimatums'? Also, the original surrogate was called 'Jane', not 'Chloe'. So it doesn't bode well for the continuity of the rest of this storyline that the writers couldn't even remember a simple fact like that! I also agree with you, Zathras. Perhaps Chloe is lying just to get some money out of JP. How would she even know who Matthew's biological father is anyway?! I thought they purposefully did it so it could be either John Paul or Craig's.
|
|
|
Post by jjose712 on Jul 30, 2013 10:13:22 GMT -5
My problem is not JP's constant misery, my problem is that i don't find his problems interesting at all. I want my promised dark shocking storyline and i want it now
|
|
trini
Junior Member
living and loving life
Posts: 514
|
Post by trini on Jul 31, 2013 17:03:55 GMT -5
So glad someone confirmed that the surrogate name was changed I thought I was remembering thing wrong.
As for Craig being the father, JP should be disappointed not shocked it was a 50/50 chance that either of them could be the father. Then again his family did tell him that they could see the resemblance between Mathew and JP so maybe he used that as some sort of confirmation.
I'm pretty sure their will be a confrontation between JP and Frankie over Mathew, look at Nancy's and her's relationship they had a moment where Nancy and Frankie seemed to reach some sort of understanding now she doesn't seem to even care about what Nancy is going through.
I have a feeling that Chloe will turn out to be the new member of the McQueen clan,she stay in order to allow JP to keep Mathew.
btw What are the UK laws on this issue ?
|
|
trini
Junior Member
living and loving life
Posts: 514
|
Post by trini on Jul 31, 2013 18:32:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Zathras on Jul 31, 2013 19:44:58 GMT -5
Interesting. Kind of sad. I wasn't always happy with Myra, but she wasn't too bad. I'm inclined to think they probably won't change the JP/Danny storyline too much, although it depends on what the end goal really is.
|
|
HQ75
Full Member
Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)
Posts: 4,200
|
Post by HQ75 on Jul 31, 2013 20:01:45 GMT -5
I don't know how the laws work in the UK but if she was the surrogate, she is not Matthew's mother. Her relationship ended when Matthew was born so whether Craig or John Paul is the biological father is irrelevant. She would have given up all legal rights to Matthew before John Paul left Ireland. And even if Craig is the bio dad, she could not just take the baby without Craig's permission. Surrogacy is a legal arrangement (at least it is in the US) so everything about Matthew's birth would be documents. John Paul would need all of those documents to take Matthew to the doctor, get check ups, all that stuff. I don't even think you are allowed to leave the country with a baby without proof of parental relationship.
|
|
|
Post by siennasun on Aug 1, 2013 4:44:52 GMT -5
I'm not an expert but I'm sure the surrogate has all the rights in this situation, it's very different in the UK to the US. That is true even if the surrogate is not genetically linked to the baby - birth mothers have all the rights legally. It is very rare for a stranger to be a surrogate in the uk as its illegal to make any money from it. The parents would have to apply to transfer parental responsibility to themselves, but they can't have done this as they don't know whether the bio father is JP or Craig. But, hollyoaks rarely bothers to portray legal stuff accurately so they will just make it up to fit the storyline! I don't actually care what happens with this story. It sounds boring. JP, in general, has been very boring since he was back. I'm sad that Myra is leaving - the McQueens won't be the same without her
|
|
|
Post by jjose712 on Aug 1, 2013 9:48:35 GMT -5
Well, that's really absurd. Why they give the surrogate all the rights it's beyond any sense
|
|
dio
New Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by dio on Aug 1, 2013 11:51:46 GMT -5
welp...
|
|
|
Post by siennasun on Aug 1, 2013 15:15:39 GMT -5
Well, that's really absurd. Why they give the surrogate all the rights it's beyond any sense It's cultural. Surrogacy is completely illegal in a lot of European countries. Tbh it makes a lot of sense to me - to make a mother give up all rights to her baby as soon as she has given birth, just because she has signed a contract seems very wrong. Don't know what the law is in Ireland. The whole baby story is already stupid - the dr and health visitor would need to see the baby's documentation and legally JP has no rights to the baby so he wouldn't just be allowed to Keep him. Social services would be involved, etc, etc. and aside from all that he doesn't seem that bothered about him anyway, he's always palming him off on his sisters.
|
|
trini
Junior Member
living and loving life
Posts: 514
|
Post by trini on Aug 1, 2013 16:24:17 GMT -5
Well, that's really absurd. Why they give the surrogate all the rights it's beyond any sense It's cultural. Surrogacy is completely illegal in a lot of European countries. Tbh it makes a lot of sense to me - to make a mother give up all rights to her baby as soon as she has given birth, just because she has signed a contract seems very wrong. Don't know what the law is in Ireland. The whole baby story is already stupid - the dr and health visitor would need to see the baby's documentation and legally JP has no rights to the baby so he wouldn't just be allowed to Keep him. Social services would be involved, etc, etc. and aside from all that he doesn't seem that bothered about him anyway, he's always palming him off on his sisters. Babies are for the most part are always a bad idea in show because their is a limit with what you can do with a character that have a child and not make them seem like a neglectful parent. Right according to UK law the woman who have carried the child is the automatic parent. Hollyoaks might portray it as JP never taking any of the necessary legal step to become parent. Its funny when baby Katie was sick I remember thinking why haven't baby Mathew been sick as yet all babies in soap usually face a life threatening situation (Kathleen Angel,Oscar,Bobby etc)all had theirs. While I don't know how the story is going to play out I think it would have been better if Mathew had gotten sick and this would have forced the paternity issue and introduction of the birth mom. Do we know if the birth mother and the egg donor is the same person this might account for the name difference in the character,Chloe being the surrogate and Jane the donor
|
|
|
Post by jjose712 on Aug 2, 2013 9:42:54 GMT -5
Well, that's really absurd. Why they give the surrogate all the rights it's beyond any sense It's cultural. Surrogacy is completely illegal in a lot of European countries. Tbh it makes a lot of sense to me - to make a mother give up all rights to her baby as soon as she has given birth, just because she has signed a contract seems very wrong. Don't know what the law is in Ireland. The whole baby story is already stupid - the dr and health visitor would need to see the baby's documentation and legally JP has no rights to the baby so he wouldn't just be allowed to Keep him. Social services would be involved, etc, etc. and aside from all that he doesn't seem that bothered about him anyway, he's always palming him off on his sisters. Sorry, but that doesn't make sense for me at all. This is not like a mother who decides to give her son to adoption, is someone who offers herself to have another people's child (generally she isn't the biological mother). So give her the rights over the child is ridiculous. Or you ban surrogacy or you do it the right way.
|
|
|
Post by siennasun on Aug 2, 2013 15:38:17 GMT -5
Babies are for the most part are always a bad idea in show because their is a limit with what you can do with a character that have a child and not make them seem like a neglectful parent. Right according to UK law the woman who have carried the child is the automatic parent. Hollyoaks might portray it as JP never taking any of the necessary legal step to become parent. Its funny when baby Katie was sick I remember thinking why haven't baby Mathew been sick as yet all babies in soap usually face a life threatening situation (Kathleen Angel,Oscar,Bobby etc)all had theirs. While I don't know how the story is going to play out I think it would have been better if Mathew had gotten sick and this would have forced the paternity issue and introduction of the birth mom. Do we know if the birth mother and the egg donor is the same person this might account for the name difference in the character,Chloe being the surrogate and Jane the donor That's very true. Babies don't really make for good soap characters, there's not much they can do in terms of drama except get sick or be in danger!
|
|
|
Post by siennasun on Aug 2, 2013 15:40:03 GMT -5
Genetics isn't everything. Babies and mothers bond well before the baby is born. That is more important than genetics. Similarly, Ste is Leah's dad even though he's not the biological father. The law works because it outlaws buying and selling of babies but still allows friends or family to have a baby for a couple who can't. JPs surrogacy was arranged in Ireland tho, so laws are probably different.
|
|
HQ75
Full Member
Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)
Posts: 4,200
|
Post by HQ75 on Aug 2, 2013 23:36:13 GMT -5
This woman is a surrogate. She's not the mother. The baby is not hers. I hate when storylines rest on biological essentialist notions. There are plenty of biological mothers of children who never bond with them and have no emotional attachment to them.
But regardless of the mythology around the bond between mother and baby, this woman was a surrogate the only reason she was pregnant was so that Craig and JP could be parents. That was the deal. Craig cut and ran and let JP a single parent.
Surrogacy isn't about buying and selling babies. It's no different than giving blood or donating a vital organ.
This woman CLEARLY doesn't care about his baby (that is not hers) anyway. She just wants money from JP.
And as for adoption, I still don't see how JP could leave Dublin with a baby with no parental rights to it. You can't even fly with a baby without proof of guardianship. Even biological parents have to prove they have permission to travel if the other parent isn't with the child (in case of one parent kidnapping the child away from the other)
So how could JP have made it all the way to England AND set Matthew up with a pediatrician without proof of parental rights? I don't see how that is likely.
At most, the claim that Craig is the biological father would just make Frankie go nutzo and try to steal the baby but there would need to be a paternity test before even that could happen.
I just remember when Frankie tried to steal Charlie (who isn't in any way related to her) from Nancy. Not looking forward to Frankie foaming at the mouth about Matthew.
|
|
|
Post by siennasun on Aug 3, 2013 1:03:32 GMT -5
This woman is a surrogate. She's not the mother. The baby is not hers. I hate when storylines rest on biological essentialist notions. There are plenty of biological mothers of children who never bond with them and have no emotional attachment to them. But regardless of the mythology around the bond between mother and baby, this woman was a surrogate the only reason she was pregnant was so that Craig and JP could be parents. That was the deal. Craig cut and ran and let JP a single parent. Surrogacy isn't about buying and selling babies. It's no different than giving blood or donating a vital organ. This woman CLEARLY doesn't care about his baby (that is not hers) anyway. She just wants money from JP. And as for adoption, I still don't see how JP could leave Dublin with a baby with no parental rights to it. You can't even fly with a baby without proof of guardianship. Even biological parents have to prove they have permission to travel if the other parent isn't with the child (in case of one parent kidnapping the child away from the other) So how could JP have made it all the way to England AND set Matthew up with a pediatrician without proof of parental rights? I don't see how that is likely. At most, the claim that Craig is the biological father would just make Frankie go nutzo and try to steal the baby but there would need to be a paternity test before even that could happen. I just remember when Frankie tried to steal Charlie (who isn't in any way related to her) from Nancy. Not looking forward to Frankie foaming at the mouth about Matthew. I wasn't talking about JPs surrogacy, but uk surrogacy laws in general. Jjose said the uk law was absurd and made no sense, which I don't agree with for the reasons stated. Surrogacy is more common and widely accepted in the USA than in Europe. UK and USA are culturally very different countries and their laws reflect that. Just because something is different to how it is in the country you live, it doesn't make it absurd. In my opinion surrogacy is very, very different to giving blood or organs (in fact, i don't think i have ever disagreed with a statement more) but whatever your opinion on surrogacy (and it is just your opinion, not a fact) the law in the UK gives the rights to the birth mother. I don't understand how this storyline rests on biological essentialism. Most (but not all mothers) bond with their babies. Babies bond with their mothers because they live inside them and are dependent on them. It's not mythology - you can go into any maternity ward in the world and observe it. I'm not sure how that is relevant to JPs story? JP didn't bring the baby to England, the surrogate did. If Irish laws are the same, that wouldn't have been a problem as the birth mother would have parental responsibility. It's possible that he hasn't registered Matthew with a health centre, though that would be quite neglectful of him. In real life it's unlikely he could have kept Matthew so long without parental responsibility but Its a soap so..... Frankie is vile. She is a terrible parent/grand parent and person in general and I wish she would just shut up, so yeah, I'm not looking forward to that either.
|
|