The wealthy 50-something gay father who offered his sperm to a lesbian couple he met after placing a “Gay man wants to be a dad” newspaper advertisement has won visitation rights for his two kids, despite an initial agreement with the women that he’d only play a very minor role in their lives.
The dramatic British court battle pitted The Gays against The Lesbians, each claiming the other had no case. The lesbian couple accepted the man’s sperm donation twice, with the understanding the man would have a “little” role in raising the children. But years after the children’s births, he decided he wanted to play a more significant daddy role. The man, who placed the ad in his 30s, will now get to spend 152 days a year with his biological kids, aged 9 and 7. All along the lesbian couple argued the man was trying to usurp the parenting rights of the non-biological lesbian mother; the pair have been together for more than twenty years. But a judge knocked down the lesbians’ argument, saying it’s what’s best for the kids that matters.
A judge at Brighton County Court earlier this year awarded ‘shared residency’ orders to the mother and father and directed that the children should spend almost half the year with him, including more than 100 overnight stays. The lesbian couple challenged that ruling at the Court of Appeal, but Lady Justice Black, sitting with the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, and Lord Justice Patten, today refused to cut down on the 152 days-a-year the children spend with their father. The judge did recognise the importance of the the mother’s lover in the children’s lives when she said she should be named on the shared residency order, but otherwise dismissed the appeal.
Urging the parents to ‘put aside their differences’ for the sake of the children, Lady Justice Black said: ‘If the adults do not manage to resolve things by communicating with each other, the children inevitably suffer. The adults may also pay the price when the children are old enough to be aware of what has been going on. Describing the court battle as ‘a great shame’, the judge added: ‘It is a tremendous privilege to be involved in bringing up a child. Childhood is over all too quickly and, whilst I appreciate both sides think that they are motivated only by concern for the children, it is still very sad to see it being allowed to slip away whilst energy is devoted to adult wrangles and to litigation. What is particularly unfair is that the legacy of a childhood tainted in that way is likely to remain with the children into their own adult lives’.
samthor
unfortunately, this is one of the hazards of procreating this way.
all parties have to understand & agree on their role going into it. if they signed an agreement that his role is to be “this” and only “this”. he has to stick to it, no matter what his feelings may be. you have to have an airtight legal agreement folks. and agreement that takes into account homophobic judges that don’t see partners as equals.
scott ny'er
@samthor: i don’t agree. I don’t think situations like this are so black and white and cut and dried. It’s not like giving away a cd.
Jaroslaw
#2 what exactly do you disagree with Scott? I understand children evoke lots of emotions, but try to think of the other side – if the lesbians thought for a minute the man would get half the year in parenting time, they probably wouldn’t have done it at all.
Personally, I have to question either party putting such an ad in the paper or responding to it.
As to “what’s best for the children” well, deciding you want to be a part of their lives when they’re 7 & 9? Think about if you were the non pregnant part of the lesbian couple. This guy most certainly does usurp the parental role of the other “mother.”
And again, why is the court so quick to completely dismiss that the man and the lesbians HAD an agreement? Agreements SHOULD mean something. I think the judge overstepped. I could just as easily see the judge saying “sorry Mr., you should be more careful when you give away your sperm. AND WHY did it take you so long to come forward?” Come to think of it, that makes him seem pretty cavalier and irresponsible and maybe a bit spiteful?
Americans=Rightwingers (John From England)
@Jaroslaw:
Agreements mean nothing when younger playing with the future of a chills who will ask ‘where did I cone from mommies’.
Now the clear story is that the dad messed up in his thirties and thought he wouldn’t want or care for kids but men ALSO have biological clocks and therefore he got it!
Americans=Rightwingers (John From England)
And what is up with lesbians and their selfishness in raising or indoctrinating kids?
Why can’t they have a male aspect to help out?
Lesbians are the worse for this!
Caitlin
John, he is not a “dad” he is just sperm donor and he has no right to butt into these people’s lives like this!
Jaroslaw has a great point.
I think this is preposterous.
Dick
In cases of children the judges can just over rule any contract as the welfare of the children in paramount. We may disagree with the ruling of what is best but we are not judges, they are. Just because two parties sign an agreement does not mean it is the be all and end all of a situation. There have been may pre-nups that have been thrown out.
the crustybastard
Christ, what an asshole.
scott ny'er
@Jaroslaw: People are complicated. Emotions are involved. And what one feels at 20 might be different at 30, at 30 it might be different at 40, etc. That is why I say it’s not black and white. I young girl who gives up her child for adoption think it’s a good idea but 10 years later regret it.
I don’t know the details of this case and am not rooting for one side or another, but I don’t think it’s as simple as a financial contract. It’s not just business when people and emotions are involved.
Jaroslaw
#9 Scott – I already acknowledged people are complicated and emotions are involved. You know, I got really emotional several years ago when I blew $400 bucks at the Casino, but I DID NOT get my money back. Now, I’m going for levity here (but I still think I have a point that decisions come with consquences and gee if you don’t like them go to court?), and I’m NOT equating kids 100% with slot machines, BUT you didn’t consider my questions at all.
AGAIN, the Lesbians may have opted not to have kids at all if they knew this could happen. Why don’t their feelings and legal standing count? They were totally upfront with what they wanted. Why is an idiot who puts his sperm for offer in the paper (and I don’t know if it was a financial transaction or not, so much the WORSE for the man if it was, in my opinion) feelings more important than the Lesbians who apparently have a stable 10 year or more relationship? If this man dearly wants kids, get married and have some. Adopt.
Yes, the young girl may have given up her child and regret it 10 years later. I’m sorry but SHE has to think about what is best for the child.
If the man had regrets after 6 months or a year, I would be a lot more sympathetic but my basic premise stands. He is being selfish, pure and simple. The judge SHOULD have told him to be more responsible. Mid thirties is not 18-21 or so.
Does this make any sense at all to you Scott? If not I would appreciate to know your thoughts.
Jaroslaw
#9 Scott – I already acknowledged people are complicated and emotions are involved. You didn’t consider my questions at all.
AGAIN, the Lesbians may have opted not to have kids at all if they knew this could happen. Why don’t their feelings and legal standing count? They were totally upfront with what they wanted. Why is an idiot who puts his sperm for offer in the paper (and I don’t know if it was a financial transaction or not, so much the WORSE for the man if it was, in my opinion) feelings more important than the Lesbians who apparently have a stable 10 year or more relationship? If this man dearly wants kids, get married and have some. Adopt.
Yes, the young girl may have regrets, but that’s life. One can’t always fix things to our liking 10 years later.
If the man had regrets after 6 months or a year, I would be a lot more sympathetic but my basic premise stands. He is being selfish, pure and simple. The judge SHOULD have told him to be more responsible. Mid thirties is not 18-21 or so.
Your thoughts?
Jaroslaw
#5 John, like it or not, the research shows Lesbians raise the best kids. Boys that will talk before fighting, but will fight if it is required. That sounds sensible to me.
As to the selfishness of not wanting the male aspect – hmmm. Zillions of people are single parents seemingly without a thought which is OFTEN terrible. And people hardly say anything. Parenting is a very tough job – again research shows TWO parents are better than one. NOT M/F solely. M/M, F/F….Also makes sense to me. I don’t think you can PRESUME they are anti-male – they are a couple and want to raise THEIR child. Something wrong with that?
Matt S
I would liken this to putting your child up for adoption. Once you do so, you lose rights to get them back once they are adopted. You can’t sue to get the kid back if you change your mind.
If a signed legal agreement is made, he must obey it unless all parties agree to amend that agreement.
Jaroslaw
AMEN Matt S and don’t forget to consider this was not a teenage boy doing this, he was in his mid to late 30’s….
DR
There is some important info contained within the article which Queerty neglected to mention.
Initially, the man in question was to have “little” involvement in the lives of the children. Over the years, he has bonded with them and has taken on responsibility such as taking them to doctor appointments and paying for school. It’s only natural where you have what sounds like an open adoption that the nature of the relationship among the parties can change.
If the lesbians wanted a man to just give them sperm and go home, they should never have agreed to an open adoption.
Jaroslaw
#15 I read the article, that changes things if true – but it is also true that people can assert a lot of things that are hard to to disprove. On a different level, if these women were the total witches they are portrayed to be I can’t imagine that didn’t come through when they were discussing the DNA exchange. I’m quite sure the women didn’t call him up Tuesday morning and say, hey we’ll be over in an hour for the specimen. And I don’t always trust what I read in the paper. I’ve been misrepresented, my brother was completely misquoted and of course the retraction/correction is the size of a postage stamp far from front page…..And as everyone is doing more with less, reporters are more likely than ever to make mistakes. Deadlines, on to the next story…..
Moon
Of the panoply of website I’ve pored over this has the most vecrtaiy.