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.

It isn't about the adults. He isn't 'demanding to take the baby away at weekends'-he is wanting contact with his son. Everyone should think carefully before they donate sperm, as they are really giving away their child. I expect beforehand he didn't see a problem-it was only after he saw it that he realised it wasn't just sperm to him. Probably a good reason to have it anonymous and remain thinking of it as 'just sperm' until the child becomes and adult and wants to know more.
In this case there may well be grandfathers, uncles and friends as role models but who could be better than the actual father?
The adults should stop making it about them. In my view it is just insecurity and jealousy and the couple fear that he will love the bio father better. Love has no place for jealousy-you can love lots of people-and be enriched by it. I fail to see why more people loving the child is bad.(other than two of the parents don't like it).

A child isn't a possession to be 'shared'-a child is a human being. I love lots of people-when I spent time with grandparents I made my own relationships-my parents didn't 'share' me-I wasn't theirs to 'share'.

Oh yes. It's just all about those possessive jealous lesbians with no sperm of their own. FFS.

If you read the article one of the few aspects of the case that is quite clear is that the parents (by which I mean the two
women who appear to have planned and raised this child so far) have no objection to their child being loved by their donor, or for him To have a part in the child's life. What they are objecting to is the concept of shuffling the child between two households (eg three parents rather than two parents and a loving, committed godfather)

I also agree that children are not possessions to be "shared", that's why I used """"".

I don't see why they need to 'shuffle,' but they can just treat him like an honoured member of the family. e.g. when I was 5yrs old I stayed with my grandparents because my grandparents and I loved it-I wasn't 'shared' by my parents-I wasn't theirs to be 'shared'-graciously or otherwise. Obviously while the child stays with him he is in a parent role-any adult in charge of a DC has to be. He is a bit more than a godfather-biologically he is the father and I don't see what harm there is in the DC knowing it and having extra grandparents, cousins etc.

The father's only crime is falling in love with his son.

TBH, the mothers will just have to deal with that - it has fuck all to do with their sexuality.

I never planned on having to hand over my children to another household but I have to. And DD was conceived whist her father was shagging the OW and raised by me alone. I still have to hand her over for the good of the child.

i can totally see why the mothers are devastated here... if a man, their friend, has helped them out and said he wants to be an uncle-figure (hence presence at christening etc) then it's an incredibly aggressive move to ask for some custodial rights. of course i can see his perspective too...

this sounds like the sort of thing that would have sorted itself out if the dad had been able to hang back for a little while longer, until the child was fully verbal and at nursery/school. no doubt an overnight stay would have felt less of a physical wrench and more of a 'thank FUCK we get a minute alone' if the boy was four or so, two is very young. but now it sounds like the whole thing has gone toxic, which is a rotten shame.

On the other hand, if he had waited for years before suggesting he has some involvement in his child's life then there would likely be lots of about how he was nowhere to be seen when it was all sleepless nights and shitty nappies but now he wants to swan in and disrupt school routines. And he would likely be called all kinds of useless, feckless arsewipe if he walked away entirely. Essentially then, if he chooses any course of action other than to precisely toe the line that the mothers are laying down then he'll be castigated.

He was obviously viewed as closer than a typical uncle as he was present at the birth. And then it seems likely that he did something that none of them really expected - he fell in love with his son. What a cunt.

no, i disagree. but then i see exactly this situation being handled much better by some friends of ours. they would never have asked for custody that the mothers weren't comfortable with, while being available to help out.

It is up to the adults to sort out amicably, which is perfectly possible. They just stop seeing the DCs as a possession and concentrate only on what is good for the DC.
Their sexuality has nothing to do with it-you would have exactly the same problem with a heterosexual couple.
The bio father made a mistake, he saw it as sperm and helping them out. Because he is close by he saw the DC and realised that it wasn't 'just sperm'-he didn't expect the emotional bond. Now that he has it I fail to see how extra love hurts the DC, although it obviously hurts the parents who just wanted sperm and probably hope that the DC wouldn't even want emotional involvement at 18yrs.
If they put the DC first they can make it work.

what is 'good' for the dc is precisely what is at issue, though.
the mothers think that they are the best people to raise their child, as per the agreement. the father thinks they should abandon the agreement and let him take part-custody of the child. i can totally see why they are threatened by that. perhaps if the father didn't see the baby as his possession he'd not want exclusive access to him for weekends and holidays and could live with seeing him socially until such times as the child can express a view himself?

So he currently sees his son 5hrs per fortnight.

Not unreasonable to want to increase that, is it?

And if he gets overnights & holidays, the mothers will still be the primary carers, won´t they?

As I said earlier, is something happens to the bio mother, would the boy go to his father?

"perhaps if the father didn't see the baby as his possession"

Perhaps the father sees the baby as his son! FFS.

I agree with snorbs.

er, i was quoting what exoticfruits had said re possession so just keep the swearing to a minumum, okay?

i think it's stupid of the father/uncle/sperm donor to go to court over increased access to a two-year-old, thus turning a previously friendly relationship toxic. that's not really in the best interests of his child in the long-term, is it, having parents who loathe each other? totally unnecessary imo.

Perhaps if the mothers were more reasonable the father wouldn't have to go to court. He has as much right as they do to a proper relationship with his son.

I loathe and detest my children's father. He is an utter wanker. I do not let my children see this and hand them over as is in their best interest even though it rips my heart out every time. This sorry scenario is no different.

If the mothers didn't want the father's involvement they should have used an anonymous donor. They didn't and now must deal with a situation that is of their making.

You can't fault the father for falling in love with his child given that he was at the birth.

Oh, and I'll swear if I think it warrants it, thank you very much. I hardly think one "FFS" is not keeping swearing to a minimum

Its fucking not fucking like I fucking pepper my fucking posts with fucking swearwords every fucking other fucking word.

he should have bided his time. presumably he knows these women well, presumably this was not a spur-of-the-moment decision for any of them and they talked it through... but he's done a complete turnaround on what was agreed and talked through. also, this has nothing to do with divorced fathers and access, this was never the relationship here.

how do we all feel about surrogates who say that they are going to give up their child to a couple and then change their mind and want to keep the baby? i just don't think it's that clear-cut an issue.

but as i say, i know people in this exact 'parenting' situation, and they handle it much better than this. definitely not 'divorce' access, more like a brilliant set of uncles who take them for weekends when their mothers need a break and because everyone gets on they go on holiday etc. don't remember the kids coming overnight much when pre-verbal, that all started at around three.

If the mothers didn't want the father's involvement they should have used an anonymous donor. They didn't and now must deal with a situation that is of their making.

Exactly.
He found he had an emotional involvement and it seems unfair to me that if he wants contact he is told he is treating the DC like a possession. He could keep it friendly and amicable if the parents let him have a reasonable place in the DC's life.
It should at least be a lesson to others-if you don't want any contact until the DC is 18yrs-don't use someone you know. If you go ahead and use someone you know then realise they are not a robot-they have feelings.

well in future don't swear at me, soupdragon.

TBH I think they were all naive to not get a legal agreement drawn up before they started. A verbal agreement is worth the paper it's written on and for something so important you'd think they'd have taken a bit more care.

As for the child, I think he should be allowed to know his father. When I think how important my boys' dad is to them I find it very sad that so many kids are deprived of one of their parents for no particularly good reason. Two mothers is great, but a dad has an important role too and I don't think he should be sidelined just because it suits the two female parents.

And yes, they should've used an anonymous donor if all they wanted was his sperm.

but they didn't, though, did they? he clearly had a role, he was at the birth, he was at the christening, he gets five hours' access a fortnight already (more than my kids get with any other single person). he's not a sperm donor, he's a gay dad of a child whose primary carers are two lesbians. new family set-up, new rules. he agreed to 'parent' in a certain way, he should should have stuck to that until the child is verbal enough to express what he wants to his mothers. a year or so of five hours a fortnight versus a lifetime of his child's mothers loathing him... he didn't do the right thing i think.

I agree with grumpola completely
"A "pseudo mother" ? A step-mother? Those are incredibly insulting as well as inaccurate terms."

These are by insulting terms. A child can have two mummies, two daddies etc. if you told my partner she was a pseudo parent she would be more than a little pissed off. Our children are her children as much as mine. We used a sperm donor as our fear of a situation like this arising was not unfounded.

It's a tricky one as he was at the birth and has obviously grown attached. If they are all as intelligent as they make out to be, the really should have had a legal agreement drawn up before hand or used an anonymous donor. It's very sad for all involved. But please, don't undermine the non biological parent as her role, her involment, her time and her love for the child are no less real, and no less important as the biological parents.

'he shoudl have bided his time' - and then have the next argument thrown at him, namely that since he hasn't got a 'proper' relationship with the boy, then overnights are not possible.

I really think the mothers needs to grow up, tbh.

they wanted the father involved. they didn't want an anonymous donor. he was married to the birht mother at time of birth, and is presumably named on the birht certificate - giving him parental responsibility, as far as I know. none of that had to be done that way.

but the situation as it is, is that there is a father, wanting very much to be involved with his son, who thinks that 5 hours every fortnight is not enough time with him. he isn;t wanting (as far as the article goes) full residency, but some overnights and a holiday once a year or so. not actually a big deal. ther eis no question of his care or commitment, and no question that he would not adequately look after the boy, or that the boy does not enjoy seeing him.

to keep them apart any longer will only lead to a fractured relationship - not in the best interests of anyone.

how many 2 year olds (is the boy 2, or have i made that up?) spend the odd overnight with their grandparents? that does not lead to a breakdown of the family home, nor does it undermine the parents (well, rules do soemtimes get bent ) - but generally, peopel see it as a good thing, the more people to love a child the better, etc.

but change the dynamic slightly, and make it a father wanting overnight access and no way, no sirree, not allowed. the child is too young, it's unsettlign, it's disturbing the harmony of the home etc.

what bullshit.

Aitch - do you really believe that a 3 year old (or a 4, 5, or 6 year old) will be able to say to the mothers in this scenario (who are making it clear this is not what they want) that he wants to do something against their wishes?

my step children still can't manage that, and they are adults.