Peak Guardian: We’re a queer couple looking for co-parents to raise a child with

[RoyalCorgi]

This falls squarely in the "only in the Guardian" category. A special mention to:

"In our experience, co-parenting seems to overwhelmingly appeal to cis women, trans men and non-binary people assigned female at birth."

If only there was a collective word for that group of people.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/13/queer-couple-co-parents-raise-child

This.

Is this really any different than a kid with 2 bio parents and then sets of step parents??

This was my thought, too.

I’m seeing lots of “what I want” and not much “what would help a child thrive.”

Just copped ...this is an old story. Please ignore . Law probably changed!

I haven’t read the article and I’m sure the gender identity language doesn’t help but why are posters on here slating co-parenting? There’s nothing wrong with it. 4 (or whatever number) of amicable committed parents is an amazing thing to give a child.

I am supportive of what they are trying to achieve. It’s annoying that they are incapable of calling a man a man and a woman a woman, but it seems positive and I wish them all the best.

In what sense is a child living between two homes optimum?

Does co-parenting necessarily mean 50/50 shared custody?

In fairness, do you ever see that when a regular couple wants a baby?

People have babies because they want them, regardless of their situation.

I have yet to see ANYONE say they're having a baby because they're well-adjusted individuals in a rock solid relationship with steady jobs and an extended family to help and a large enough property and good schools nearby and a motivation to help them learn and sufficient know-how to make them nutritious meals.

Most babies are probably born into less than ideal situations solely because the parents want a baby. I don't see why it's suddenly a problem when it's a less-conventional set up.

Perhaps you should read the articles @TangledRoots
It seems pretty clear that Eleanor wants a break from the stress of parenting.

In any event, is there any benefit to children living between two homes? I mean, I know a lot of children do when their parents split up but it is generally better for a child to have a home where they are grounded and anchored.

In any couple, there are compromises - about relocations for jobs, career changes, personal ambitions. They can be tricky to negotiate. Doubling those seems like to increase that risk. Effectively asking four adults to centre one child in their life decisions. It's a lot. Things change. Relationships break up. People die. Doubling the potential for trauma seems foolhardy rather than sensible.

A lesbian couple are more than capable of raising a happy, successful, healthy child. The outcomes for children born to lesbian parents are better than those for straight parents.

On a more serious note, Eleanor appears to have spent an inordinate amount of time thinking about how parenting will work best for her and the sum total of fuck all on what would be best for her hypothetical child.

Posted my previous comment too soon but completely agree with @Clymene

I read that yesterday and rolled my eyes. All sounded very self-absorbed. I don't understand why they're finding it so difficult. As others have observed already, this is hardly a new set up. 30 years ago a lesbian couple I know came to an arrangement with a gay male friend and between them they had two children, now adult. The children lived with their two mums and knew from the start that the male friend was their father. He saw them often and they were all on excellent terms. It all worked really well.

Utterly grim. I read something like this and feel like Mary Whitehouse. And make no apologies for it either.

That poor (hypothetical) kid with four parents. What the fuck is wrong with people.

In any event, is there any benefit to children living between two homes? I mean, I know a lot of children do when their parents split up but it is generally better for a child to have a home where they are grounded and anchored.

Of course there’s no benefit at all - it’s damaging an destabilising to not have one home. However, situations where you have one place which is their home, but they spend a lot of time at Granny’s, etc, can be really beneficial.

They would have to work out a way for the dad(s) to spend time with the baby, but not separating the baby from the mum for the first bit - visiting and helping out. Then as the baby got older they could look after it for a whole weekend day here and there, then having the odd weekend as it gets beyond toddler age, and then more days during school holidays when it’s older than that.

There would also be benefits to extra input, not just risk of death to avoid, for example, one of the dads, could be an actor, and it turns out that the child has a talent (more likely if this is the bio father) in the performing arts. He could mentor and guide the child, give them the benefit of his contacts, prioritise paying for their acting lessons, etc, etc. This could give a leg up and foot in the door they otherwise wouldn’t have had.

Also it would be good for the child to be able to have a relationship with their bio dad for it’s own sake too.

I think the reason it’s so hard is because all the male friends they could have had the baby with, in the ideal situation you described, were in the surrogacy talk before.

Lesbian probably have to work a bit harder to find someone, now that buying babies has become normalised for men.

Not necessarily different. Although people don't tend to plan a divorce and getting a step parent involved before the child is actually conceived

In any couple, there are compromises - about relocations for jobs, career changes, personal ambitions. They can be tricky to negotiate. Doubling those seems like to increase that risk. Effectively asking four adults to centre one child in their life decisions. It's a lot. Things change. Relationships break up. People die. Doubling the potential for trauma seems foolhardy rather than sensible.

This would be my main concern too. You'd need four people who are extremely committed, to the extent that they all agree to stay in the same location for 18 years so they can share childcare. That's quite unusual in this day and age. And then you'd have to work out what to do if one of the couples split up - does the child divide their time between three homes? What if one person remarries - does the child then have five parents? There will also inevitably be arguments over parenting styles and choices. Quite often even two members of a couple disagree about things like bedtime, food, discipline, schooling etc. Imagine having four people who want to have a say.

Why are there so many lacklustre columnists who are so narcissistic they think the world is interested in their personal lives?

you'd have to work out what to do if one of the couples split up - does the child divide their time between three homes? What if one person remarries - does the child then have five parents?

Biological parenting would win out. You could get a situation like Chris Packham and Megan McCubbin (he was in a relationship with Megan’s mum when she was small and continued to have a fatherly relationship with Megan long after he split up with her mum - he refers to her now as his ‘step daughter’ and got her into working on TV with him), where a non-biological parent has a bond and is completely committed- more than the bio parent, but it would probably be bio.

There will also inevitably be arguments over parenting styles and choices. Quite often even two members of a couple disagree about things like bedtime, food, discipline, schooling etc.

This does seem nightmarish- it should really be the mum(s) who the child lives with and has all the day-to-day decision-making to do who gets to decide on the smaller things. But it’s not unusual in ‘tight’ extended families for everyone to have an opinion and a sense of entitlement to stick their oar in, for a similar nightmarishness. However, if you look at outcomes, you can see that people who are raised within tight extended families have better outcomes than those raised in the nuclear family.

They might be better off seeking an open donor who plays more of an "uncle" type of role than a dad role. That way the child can live with them full time, and they'll be able to make all the decisions, but the child will still know its biological father. But such a donor wouldn't have any financial responsibility - not if they go via official channels, anyway.

Even then, lives are messy and people can change. A scenario that pops up is where a single guy agrees to be a known donor, and then later meets a partner who isn't keen on the idea of a donor conceived child in the background and so the guy reduces or cuts off contact with the child and the child's mother.

A scenario that pops up is where a single guy agrees to be a known donor, and then later meets a partner who isn't keen on the idea of a donor conceived child in the background and so the guy reduces or cuts off contact with the child and the child's mother.

This is possible, but it’s also possible (more likely?) that the dad will love the child and not want to lose contact.

They could also do what plenty of people around the country and the world do, that is just live their lives with all the normal complexities without the need to tell the world about their mundane existence just because some rag is willing to publish it🙄.

She could have written a good column about why she’s choosing this over the horror that is surrogacy, instead it’s just so me, me, me! I’ve met literally thousands of people in my life with infinitely more interesting life stories than her and hundreds of more interesting family dynamics. When will she realise she’s not exceptional?