Sad story re gay parents - what do you think?

[Nettee]

here

Don't know what the right answer is to this one can see all the parents' point of view. And such a shame the good friendship has fallen to pieces too. Not even sure what would be best for the little boy - a proper relationship with his dad or a stable family life with one home and two parents and a known biological father.

A child has the right to see both of his parents equally. It is not fair to ban a child from seeing his father just because the mother does not want him to see him. No-one has given any reasons why it would harm the child to see his father, instead the focus is on the mother's partner and how it will marginalise her. Just because the father and mother were not in a relationship with each other does not diminish the child's rights. besides the mother did have the option to go for an anonymous sperm donor, and chose not to so it is very unfair to now state she wants the father to act like an anonymous sperm donor.
If the mother had met the fathe rin a nightclub and had a one night stand and got pregnant she would not be allowed to ban the child from seeing his father just because she was already in a relationship with someone else and they wanted a family together.

I don't think there is any suggestion of banning him from seeing his son but just not to have nights and week long holidays away from the child's main home and parents. They probably should have had a written agreement from before conception but even then it would be impossible to know how you were going to feel about it in advance.

But the biological parents had a "marriage of convenience"? Why?

I presume so the father would have parental responsibility.

Which makes me even more

The best laid schemes of sperm and Turkey baster go oft awry.

The father should have the same contact as an ordinary Non Resident Parent.

surely when he is older the couple will actually enjoy childfree weekends and the odd evening as the lad sees his dad?

I really do not see why the child is being given less rights to access to his father than a child whose father was a non resident parent like soup dragon says. He is the boys father, he did not donate sperm anonymously, but to his ex wife and was present at the birth, but now the child is being told he has less right s to see him because his mother does not want her partner marginalized? Even if they had a written agreement it means nothing, as it is the child's rights that are the issue, and parents cannot sign away the child's rights. If the mother had not wanted the child to have access ot his father then they shoudl have gone via an anonymous donor. It also works both ways, because he was not an anonymous donor the father also has legal responsibilities towards the child.
Normally when parents do not live together the child has different access days and nights, why not allow the child this here?

I also can´t see the difference tbh.

Also, if anything happens to the mother, won´t the father get custody?

I guess it depends on how you'd feel about a surrogate mother demanding parental rights following the birth. Similar situation?

I've no idea how people ensure this doesn't happen in that transaction

My gut feeling is that the child would now benefit from knowing his father and the best thing these three can do, would be to facilitate this without conflict.

I may have misunderstood but it seems to me that both the women see themselves as a parent rather than parent & stepparent?

It says something like-"the boy is now spending much more time away from them than they ever envisaged"

But shouldn´t they be pleased for the child that he has a father who is interested?

Seems from here that there are enough twatty exes who have to have contact.

And what if they seperated?

Although it´s sad for them if this man has gone back on his word, then they should have used a donor so that it couldn´t happen.

He's the biological father, so the child has a right to see him. If they wanted the benefits of an annoymous sperm donor they should have went with one. I don't get what is so alien about the concept of 'three parents, two homes', this happens to plenty of other families when the parents split up and they just have to get on with it. What happens if the mother splits with her partner? Would that parent (who until that point had been a primary carer) not have any rights because the bio mother doesn't want anything other than the ideal of two parents, one home? Or would that access be acceptable to her?

Mother's relationship with father has broken down and she now seeks to shut him out of son's life. Tough. That's not how that works.

He was at the birth, he was at the christening, that to me indicates a willingness on all sides to involve him in the babies life, regardless of what was agreed pre-conception.

if the report is correct then the father is asking for gradual increasing in visits to build up to an overnighter or holiday. It will take time for all parties to get used to this, understandably.

This little boy could have the best of all worlds a stable home life with 2 parents who are the RP & legal guardians and support and access from a man who happens to be his biological father. It by no means undermines the 2 parents role as the main caring home.

Such a shame if they can't work it out.

What soupy said.

If you just wanted "sperm" why so much involvement? There is clearly something else to this story. If a surrogate mother felt bonded to the baby at birth, was an ex partner with a new partner and was kept in close contact with the child I suspect the court would be treating their attitude to the case very differently

Bound to happen sometimes IMO.
Beforehand people can see it as just sperm and think you can do it and walk away. Afterwards it is obvious that it is rubbish-it is a child and part of you. I don't see why the DC can't have 3 parents-the more people who love him the better.
It appears to be jealousy as in 'it takes love away from us', as if there is only so much to go around. I can only see that it undermines them if they treat the DC as a possession as in my baby- instead of an individual who can only benefit from an extra parent. Much healthier to have 'it takes a village.........' and who better to start with that the very person who gave him half his genetic make up and has a good chance of understanding him as he gets older?
It seems a shame if they get all caught up in possessiveness and can't make it work.

I think this is a very sad situation but I dot agree that the father should have the same rights as any other NRP.

Clearly the intention was not for him to be a parent for the child but more of a godfather / special uncle sort of role. The child already had two parents (the biological mother and her partner) and although they wanted the father to have involvement in the child's life (and I can certainly understand why) it doesn't mean that the child should have "three parents two homes", overnight stays away etc.

I would compare that to a grandparent / uncle / godparent suddenly demanding overnight stays, holidays etc - it doesn't seem reasonable to me at all.

However I think what this story really demonstrates is the importance of communicating clearly what intended roles are to be before a child is actually in the equation. Perhaps there does need to be a change in legislation to both define and protect the role of known donors, surrogates etc. And also the role and rights of the non-biological parent here. I think the fact that effectively her rights are being totally sidelined whilst people are very keen to establish the father in a role the child's parents did not wish him to have has very worrying implications for other non-bio parents. She is not a "stepmother" but is effectively being treated like one and that does not seem fair to me.

I can't help but feel that a man whose child was conceived with donor sperm would not be treated in this way.

What a bloody mess, poor child in the middle of this madness, but lets take away the sexual orientations and look at it like this

Person A and person B have a baby, relationship breaks down person B then meets person C and they live together raising the baby, Person A who is a biological parent still has rights to be involved in the child's life and have visitation rights and holiday visits.

The child has a right to have both parents in his life the same as any child, Shame more thought was not given to the child before they went on their little jaunt, that child is a PERSON not a possession, he has the right to know his father and have a male role model in his life.
In this case I am rooting for the dad

But my reading of the article is not that chronology at all, but that Person X and Person Y (the lesbian couple) decide to have a child, with person Z (who just happens to have previously had some sprt of relationship with Person X) as a known donor. That changes everything.

There are obviously some ambiguities in the story (marriage of convenience for example - rather peculiar?) but there are some big differences between your reading of what has happened and mine.

The main issue (I feel) being Person Y's status as relating to the child - in my reading they are a parent (albeit non-bio) and Person Z is not, in yours Person Z is the second parent and Person Y is a step-parent / partner of parent.

That's a massive difference.

There is a big difference between an anonymous donor (where there is, I imagine, a contract in place with the clinic stating the rights of the donor/no contact kind of thing) and this scenario where you allow the father to be at the birth, to be involved in his son's life and then try to limit his contact when he bonds with the child.

I don't see it as a mess at all. The DC has 3 parents who love him. The only mess is for the couple who want exclusive rights to our baby.
If you set aside treating the DC as a possession, then it is all to the good. Presumably it is then a lucky DC with 3 sets of grandparents, extra extended family.

The DC doesn't have to wonder about his father- and wait until he is an adult to find him-he gets to grow up knowing him.

It seems to me that the couple being homosexual is irrelevant. This could be the story of any couple who could not conceive for any reason, without recourse to an alternative supply of sperm. If an "anonymous" donor is wanted, then there is a regulated route available.

If the couple chooses a non-regulated route, then a tangle such as this is unsurprising. FWIW, I think the father does have rights in these circumstances which fall outside regulated anonymity. But I am glad this matter is being examined in by the Courts who will, I hope, thoroughly examine all pertinent issues.

Bloody hell ! . Stupid situation . Surely a child would benefit from having 3 parents ( 2 bio , 1 step ) who love him and want whats best for him ? .

Sorry if i cause offence , but unless the mothers partner has adopted the child , then she is only a step-parent. The boys father has a right to a relationship with him and the child has a right to his own relationship with his father (and perhaps his fathers family).

If the women wanted no male parent involved then they should have went for annoymous donor sperm instead of an old friends sperm.

I hope they sort this out , in the best intrests of the child...not to the whims of the adults.

Exactly droves.
The couple being homosexual is totally irrelevant. It is in the best interests of the DC to have 3 loving parents, which is what he will have-the couple just selfishly want to cut out the 3rd-as if a baby is their possession-rather than -is the case of all babies-a precious gift that they have to nurture for a very short time.
What they need to think about is how they explain to a DC, as an adult, their reasons for cutting out a parent because they didn't want to share.