Casey Dellacqua expecting second child with partner Amanda Judd

9
Technifibre promo

Casey Dellacqua with her partner and child

Australian Casey Dellacqua announced that she and her partner Amanda Judd are expecting a new member in their family. In August 2013, Amanda gave birth to their son Blake and a new baby is due to arrive in May 2016.

The 30-year-old Dellacqua shared the excitement on Instagram, saying:

I truly have all I could have wished for this christmas BUT we do have a little more on the way ? Amanda is pregnant again so bubba number 2 will be arriving in May 2016 ?‍?‍? + ? we are so excited to meet our next bundle of joy!!! ❤️

Congratulations to Casey and Amanda!

9 COMMENTS

  1. Congratulations to Casey & Amanda, what a beautiful family! Michelle, you are disgusting & pathetic & how sad you feel the need to post hatred when this family is celebrating their love… Shameful.

  2. Michelle & darren! You both need to relize it’s the love and support you can give to a child that matters and over weighs any samesex/adoption/fostering or Surragancy issues that people tend to have issues with for the wrong reasons.
    Question to you both.. would you rather a male and female look after YOUR child, and don’t care property, nor feed or love and support them. Or have to same sex that love, feed and support YOUR child? Its that simple!

  3. Regardless of what people might say about Casey and Amanda being a “family”, the reality is that these children have a father with whom they have an absolute right to have a relationship, and vice versa. If that is denied to them, we run the risk on bringing up another stolen legislation. This has all been missed in the same sex “marriage” debate, in that if Commonwealth legislation is changed, Parliament should also enact or alter existing legislation to ensure that children are entitled to pursue relationships with both of their parents, and vice versa. It is noteworthy (and disappointing) that none of those pursuing the gay marriage agenda never see fit to confirm they will be encouraging such a relationship – that only serves as to make me all the more suspicious that they have no intention of doing so.

  4. These two are utterly disgusting and are more interested in fulfilling some selfish ego trip to prove how ‘clever’ they are to have children without a male in the family than the lasting development of the child(ren). Michelle is correct when she says that both creatures should be charged with criminal child abuse. I agree.
    The comments by Kelly are utterly pathetic and the grammar is appalling.

  5. Bulls-eye, Hugh! Amanda was impregnated by a MAN’S sperm, certainly not by another female. Therefore, who is and where is the father of this precious child made in the image and likeness of almighty God? Two women cannot “make” a baby. These shenanigans may be acceptable with today’s society, but they are not natural and certainly not of God. Only He is the supreme judge and author of life. It’s God’s way, not man’s; it’s God’s laws, commands, precepts, and statutes, not man’s. He had the first and the last say on the subject of the creation of mankind, and this is definitely is not His way of creating life. It’s called unnatural affections, people. This abnormal relationship is nothing to celebrate; the life of the unborn child, yes celebrate that, but not in the realm of a same-sex abnormal, unnatural relationship; and, there again, where is the father who helped produce this child. If not for him, there would be no baby.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here