A gay man is fighting for greater paternal access to a child he fathered with a lesbian he was once married to, according to reports.
The Court of Appeal has been asked to decide whether the father should have more parental access, something the child's mother and partner are saying is a breach of an agreement “made over dinner”.
The father, who has not been identified, has requested overnight and holiday contact with his
biological son.
Subsequently, the mother and her partner claim they have been "betrayed" by the request.
The case has become a reminder of the sanctions surrounding parental
rights for gays and lesbians who conceive children outside of formal
medical settings.
According to The Telegraph, the court heard that the father currently has five hours visiting contact with the
boy each fortnight, but wants this gradually increased to the point where he
can have his son to stay overnight and take him on holiday.
Alex Verdan, QC for the father, denied suggestions this was an attempt to "marginalise"
the mother's partner and insisted there had been no "clear agreement",
pre-conception.
Verdan emphasised that the father has no desire to undermine the role of the
mother and her partner as the boy's primary carers, but wants sufficient
contact with the boy to enable a "developing relationship" with
his only son, The Telegraph add.
However, the women disagree, arguing that a three-parent family was never part of the plan.
Charles Howard QC, for the mother and her partner, said they would have opted for an anonymous
sperm donor if they knew the father would try to gain greater involvement.
British law currently states that donors who donate their sperm through a licensed clinic are not
normally treated as being legal parents of the children they help
conceive. This means that clinic donors cannot be held financially
responsible for maintaining their genetic children, and nor will their
donor-conceived children have any rights of inheritance from them.
As detailed on the Stonewall website, a donor who donates sperm outside the context of a licensed fertility
clinic (for example, a friend or a donor found through a website
online) does not acquire this automatic protection and may be treated as
the legal father of the child.
Currently, British family law fails to offer equal access to both mothers and fathers – something men's activists describe as sexist.
Commenting on this case is Tanya Roberts, a partner in the family office at Charles Russell LLP, told PinkPaper.com: “The recent case concerning a lesbian couple wishing to exclude the biological father of their son makes interesting reading and debate. It is very difficult to see how a relationship with his natural father could be anything but a positive experience for the child and how excluding the father could be in the boy's best interests.
"The mother's case that one stable home without shuttling backwards and forwards is more important than the boy seeing his father does not seem persuasive. Obviously we only have what we can read in the press at this stage and there may be more to it than that but on the face of it he has three people that genuinely want to care for him and look after him and so to exclude one whatever the 'agreement' at the time seems unacceptable.
"Half the families in England are 'shuttling' children backwards and forwards but it is still better for the children than not seeing one of their parents at all.”
Last week, the government announced plans to re-draft family law legislation to improve access and paternal rights for men.
