Coronation Street

I wouldn't think so. He seems to be remorseful about Sunita, but Cameron is just plain evil.

Is Karl going to turn into a serial killer, like Cameron in Emmerdale?

Ooh, I think I must have missed that one!

I'm wondering what Craig has seen, he seems frightened to tell anyone. Maybe this will lead to Karl's exposure, I certainly hope so!

I understood that the Tina/Izzy/Gary baby is 2 months premature, which would mean around 2-3lbs in weight, but the one in the cot looks like a 3 month old?? I think Tina should not keep the baby herself, and the fact that she is keeping it, goes against her the principles she displays on the soap, and so it is totally out of the coro character she portrays.

Well, he should wear an overcoat or a fleece, then! Not an old-mannish mac...

It's chilly oop North! You should know!

Why is Dev constantly wearing that huge raincoat? Even in the house?

Ooh heck! Watch out Dev!

I think Tina is wrong too but I do think Izzy should have tried again as I'm sure the Drs said she could.

There was a lady in hospital the same time as me when I had DD 25 yrs ago.
She had four children of her own and was carrying a child for someone else. I had not come across the situation before. But I admired her for what she was doing. I have often wondered how things are for them all.

Tina is wrong in my opinion.

And she'd have to tell the child at some point who his biological parents are - how hard would all that be for him to take on board?

I think the surrogacy law needs sorting out. I mean, it's Izzy's egg and wots-'is-name's sperm. There is absolutely nothing of Tina in that baby. Even the baby's blood stays separate while it's inside. She will feel so bad when she starts seeing Tina/Tina's dad in the baby's face.

That's interesting Ariadne

The few surrogacy arrangements I have heard about involve a surrogate mother who already has children. It would also probably be advisable that everyone concerned does not live in the same street!

DH and I argue about Tina's motives. I think she is protective towards the child and doesn't think Izzy and Gary, now apart, will make good parents. DH disapproves of Tina and thinks she just wants the baby for herself, period.

Still trying to catch up on Corrie after our holiday, but the whole surrogacy thing is interesting - I found this:

"The law says that the birth mother is the natural birth mother, whether she conceived the child naturally or artificially, and therefore has parental responsibility. Thus, the surrogate has the legal right to keep the child, even if it is not genetically related to her.

Surrogacy agreements are also unenforceable in UK courts. Even if a contract has been signed and the expenses of the surrogate have been paid, it is not legally enforceable. However, in practise the court system has been sympathetic towards intended parents who try to enforce a surrogacy arrangement.

The surrogate will be the legal mother of the child unless or until parenthood is transferred to the intended mother through a parental order or adoption of the child after the birth. As for who the father is, this is more complex. If the woman bearing the child is married, her husband is the father. The only exception to this is if he does not consent to having his name on the birth certificate. If he does not want to be named as the child’s father then the man who helped conceive the child can be named on the birth certificate. The other alternative is to transfer parenthood through a parental order or an adoption order, as with the mother. If neither person in the commissioning couple is genetically related to the baby, they cannot apply for a parental order and adoption is the only option available.

- See more at: http://solicitors.contactlaw.co.uk/family-law/what-are-the-laws-on-surrogacy"

So Tina could keep the baby. I don't think there is a genetic pull, as several GNs have pointed out, but how very, very hard for all concerned.

I can't speak about my son's personal experiences in child rearing. He is nowhere the point of fathering a child. (I bloody hope )

Not true-I know from my son's experience -- see F4J website

Only being a mother Greatnan, I can only speak for mothers. I don't know if it is the same for fathers. I think so, going by immediate family.

I'm sorry I can't think of any more intelligent way of phrasing it than "gene thing". Perhaps age and other things are cutting in.

You think of something.

I think these days the courts make every effort to maintain the father/child relationship, sometimes with tragic results unfortunately.

I know of a few cases where the father was keen to keep in contact until he found a new partner.

I believe its much more often the father who is denied contact with his child after divorce.

Isn't it a shame that the 'gene thing' seems to have no effect on the large number of men who lose all contact with their children after divorce? Of course, sometimes that is the fault of the mother, but not always.
On the other hand, I know a step-father who could not love his step children more if they were his biologically and they all adore him.

Norris has a very expressive face!

Yes, Norris is a good character. Roy a bit creepy sometimes.

Norris is shrewd!

I like Roy and Norris