What a lucky kid, he has 3 loving parents fighting over who loves him the most.
There are a lot of kids out there who don’t even have 1.
3 loving parents? Sounds like the father is more serious about the child than the two women. Reneging on an agreement with the ‘father’ is just distasteful and shows what they are like as individuals, mothers and ‘friends’.
Wasn’t he the one reneging on the deal? Changing his mind after the fact and wanting to be more involved that he originally agreed to be?
Fighting is the word. That is not good. Children need stability and self worth. Fighting over children, whether during a divorce or separation is damaging.
Wow! A sea of grey area. Sounds like this guy was more than just a “donor” and deserves to be an equal third parent to his son. Just hope it’s the exceptional circumstances of this case that swayed the decision rather than an attitude towards private donations generally. Donor should not automatically equal parent!!
Crafty bitter dykes, using the guy first to appease one of their parents, then father a kid, then kick him to the kerb. Ingratitude. Mind you drawing up plan over dinner about the future of a child sounds so flakey.
Find your own name @$$hole!
Donating 23 chromosomes does not automatically equal “Father” in the nurturing sense. The couple should have sought professional legal help with the contract and kept the “father” where he belongs, in the background.
Oooh man hater alert! If the father had expressed a willingness to be part of the child’s life pre birth- which he did- and the female couple agreed and later changed their minds, then the fault does not lie with the father in this case but rather two women who can’t keep their word. Of those 23 chromosomes you mention how many are you missing? Man hating troll.
Gee, don’t hate men, being a man myself. But the “father” changed the level of his involvement, not the couple (pretty telling of you saying “two women who can’t keep their word” instead of “couple…”). If I chose to have children and involved a woman to carry, I would make damn sure I had an enforceable contract to have her keep her distance after the birth. And a sperm donor has even less involvement with the whole process – doesn’t make him a “father” just because he shared his chromies.
This decision suggests that the courts are ready to give more recognition to co-parenting, and to the idea that children can have more than two parental figures. This is good news for children whose family feature co-parenting, step-parents and so on.
But it is a reminder that donors who do not want paternal responsibility (and mothers who do not want donors to have it) should use a registered clinic for the insemination rather than inseminating privately. Courts are particularly likely to overturn “father-lite” or “donor-plus” arrangements; if there is any ambiguity about a donor’s role, a court may well use its discretion to consider him a father. A written contract between the adults (not a spoken contract as in this case) may provide some clarity, but the courts can choose to ignore it.
All children require decent parents to provide love, stability but also a moral compass. Luckily this child will receive the latter from its father as clearly the two women are lacking in some of the finer points of decency, honesty and integrity.
why is it not whatever is best for the child? You can’t seriously ask a friend to help you create a child, marry them and then exclude them from the child’s life. You couldn’t do that in a hetrosexual relationship without a court order, what the hell made her think that this case would be treated any different to any other marriage breakdown. Its not one rule for the straights and one for the gays, thats not how the law works.
Ok, I can get behind that the case wasn’t realy cut and dry – I’m reminded of the words of Lord Bowden (which I was previously reminded of in another article I read on this site recently):
“When I hear of an ‘equity’ in a case like this, I am reminded of a blind man in a dark room — looking for a black hat — which isn’t there.”
So what was their reasoni-
““two-parent lesbian nuclear family” could be “essentially selfish and may later insufficiently weigh the welfare and developing rights of the child””
Yes, I noticed that.
Co-parenting is such a huge grey area legally. I chose a clinic & an anon donor (to me but not to my child) for these reasons.
Deals between adults that this or that birth parent shall be excluded from the child’s life have more to do with the adults’ fantasies than the interests of the child. The child in this case may well wish to know his birth father and appears likely to benefit from the contact. What conceivable good to the child could accrue from excluding the father from the picture? That the mothers want this does not seem to me to wergh decisively against the interests of the child.
The lesbian couple in this instance seem selfish, foolish and naive.
Selfish for wanting to deny their son access to his father when the father seems like a decent person.
Foolish and naive for thinking a pre-conception agreement would EVER be enforced.
Pre-conception agreements are not legally binding.
“DIY” donation is pretty clear in UK law; the “donor” has the right to change his mind and apply for parental responsibility. This applies irrespective of whether the conceiving woman is gay or straight. The only way to conceive with a donor who cannot have these rights is through registered donation. In all events I am perturbed that these people at attracting such hostile name calling. Seems to me that 3 adults who were sadly somewhat naive, misinformed, humanly imperfect and somewhat under the influence of society disapproval (married because of parents’ views etc) made some stupid mistakes on the road to parenthood and have ended up in the courts. Dunno, but this sounds like many a mushed up relationship triangle to me, sad and painful for all involved, especially the child whose needs are rightfully the priority here, but I see no monsters, only human frailty.