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.

i know AT, actually i sort of agree with that , not that i think its the way thing should be.

< just trying to lighten up the thread a little>

Back to the original scenario, I think his five hours a week is with the two mothers present.

you said "i don't buy into the liberally bullshit of fathers being equal...I think mothers should have the say in what happpens" etc etc. Your stance is very clear, why backpedal now?

Nice c&p list, sterling work there, but sociology studies dating back to the 70's that you haven't read aren't really relevant to the legal standpoint of equal parenting laws.

This is all beside the point. One child, 3 parents, they should share the love around more fairly. End of story. You don't need a study to prove that, though if you would like I have some nifty c&p skills too......

i guess i'm just surprised at the assumption that the women are in the wrong here, droves. they're all of them dense beyond belief for not having had a document covering this, but i guess it's like omitting a pre-nup because you believe all promises of undying love will be kept to.

in this case he's not kept to his promise (not too surprisingly, i might add) but they have accommodated that and he is welcome at family occasions/christmas etc... i just think that asking for more in a legal setting before the mothers are ready to make that adjustment will have turned a bad situation worse. i'm going by what their QC says about him being welcome etc, that's not supposition... so to me it does sound like a salvageable friendship that won't be salvaged now. regardless of whether the five hours is in their house or alone with the child, that's something that can be built on when the child starts to voice an opinion.

i can totally see why it seems unfair and imperfect to him but i'd say for the longer term relationships of all concerned (not least the child) that backing off would be the smart move, for a while, until the mothers have to refuse their child to see more of him. which they won't, imo, if the dad is their friend.

that's the advice i would give a pal of mine in this situation. no court, no guns blazing, do everything you can to retain proper friendship until such time as the kid gets a say. but then as i have said, our pals have had their ups and downs in their parenting of their children, but it all works swimmingly now thanks to lips having been buttoned and playing the longer game.

Sorry, Lenin, I said that. I suppose for me, I could have chosen either a known donor or unknown and I went for unknown precisely because of this sort of thing.

I have been told that's very selfish

I don't think anyone is saying it was unwise to do this rather than use an anonymous donor - more that if they wanted a "traditional" family set up where the boy doesn't see his father they would have been better to use an anonymous donor. It sounds like the set-up has worked well for you Leningrad and I must say I'm inclined to think it is much better for the boy to know his dad and have a proper relationship with him, but I think they were naive to think that the donor would be happy to take a back seat - especially having seen his son being born. I don't think any first-time parent can quite believe how overwhelming it is to see your own child for the first time and to expect him to want to stand by some loose arrangement made when the boy was just a turkey baster full of sperm is unrealistic. I'm sure many sperm donors would feel the same if they actually saw their children it's just that most of them don't.

Sorry, yes I meant have control over how much he would want to see him.

Precisely - that is why an anonymous donor might have been better in their case (though not better for the boy).

I actually did say that earlier on in the thread.

If the father is restricted so severely in his time with his son, then it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy that he isn't as involved in or experienced at childcare.

I feel sorry for the father, to be honest (as well as the son, who is a bit of a pawn in all of this).

I doubt any of them realised quite how they would all feel after the child was born. It's one thing to make lovely, rational, black and white plans before your first child, but quite a different matter when it's actually born and all your emotions come into play.

Leningrad , I think the way you handled your children's conception/ birth / registration of birth is completely the right way to go if you only want the child to have yourself and your partner as parents.

Your donor is exactly that ...a donor.

Lines are kept clear , and goalposts can't be changed .

If you decide to let the donor see your child in the future , that's your choice , but legally your child parents are yourself and your dp.

It's what I was trying ( but badly ) to say earlier in the thread , what the mother should have done.

Why wouldn't someone want to be their child's legal parent ?

sorry, hang on a minute, that's exactly the story that the women in this instance are telling, isn't it? it's a classic she said / he said. from the piece;

"The mother says she made a pact with the father during a restaurant meeting before the boy was conceived that she and her lover would fill the role of "primary parents" within a "nuclear family" and that he would not stand on his paternal rights.

But now she and her partner say they feel "bitter and betrayed" after the father - a former close friend who attended the birth and held the new-born baby in his arms - demanded overnight and holiday contact with his biological son.

All three parents are highly-paid professionals living in central London and the father, in his 40s, insists he was always far more than a mere sperm donor and he wants to play a full paternal role in the life of the only child he is every likely to have."

so lenin's uncle/donor could have said at any time that he was 'far more than a mere sperm donor' (which he clearly is if at some point she anticipates them spending some of the hols together) and had changed his mind and now wants to play a full paternal role and the vast majority of this thread would be lining up to call Lenin and her dp all the names under the sun.

No , because lenins donor isn't named on birth certificate , her dp has adopted the child so is actually in fact the other parent , and I don't think she invited the donor to the birth .

The couple in the link have blurred the lines and confused the man .he is the dad , not just the donor and has probably always thought himself as such.

It's very different. Lenin put in place measures to ensure what she and her partner wanted , happened.

is this guy on the birth cert? where does it say that? have scanned piece and can't find anything to that effect. surely this would be much more cut and dried if that was the case?

re 'at the birth', again, what does that mean? that he was at the hospital or in the room? not that it's hugely relevant if he was, as he was the mother's best friend anyway and it's perfectly common for friends to be at births nowadays.
the mothers, remember, have NEVER said he was merely a sperm donor, according to the quote from their QC. (rather than according to a journo's rendering of at birth/in room/at the hospital, which may not be accurate).

and 'he probably always thought of himself as such' is pure supposition on your part and goes back to the he said/she said. From the piece; "The mother says she made a pact with the father during a restaurant meeting before the boy was conceived that she and her lover would fill the role of "primary parents" within a "nuclear family" and that he would not stand on his paternal rights."

Lenin, if your donor came back and took you and dp to court demanding his parental rights, would the fact that your dp adopted him mean he wouldn't get them? or does it just protect her from having your kids taken away altogether in the event of your death?

If your DC's bio dad isn't on the BC and your partner has adopted, would he get any rights at all without going through a DNA test? Surely then it's just his word? (am feeling v uncomfortable discussing a scenario in which you are dead!)