How to avoid a dispute when using a known sperm or egg donor

The courts are all talking about same sex parenting disputes. The Court of Appeal has this week been hearing from a donor applying for contact with his biological son against a lesbian couple who say they feel “bitterness and betrayal” (the case has not yet been decided but you can read the coverage in the Telegraph here). This follows the decision just a few weeks ago by High Court judge Mr Justice Hedley (in P&L (minors) 2011, available here in full) which dealt with a very long and bitter dispute about the role of gay donor dads to two children (aged 10 and 6) being raised by their lesbian mothers. The courts are feeling their way with what they call new models of alternative parenting, and trying to develop an approach for these types of cases, which are far from traditional family law disputes.
Having advised many same sex parents (both at the planning stages and those who end up in dispute) we see some wonderfully successful co-parenting arrangements. But where they go wrong, they go horribly wrong. What is interesting, though, is that parents always seem to fall into one camp or the other. I can honestly say that none of the clients we have advised at the planning stage has ever come back for legal representation later. Equally, not one of the clients we have represented in disputes took legal advice at the outset.

So here are our tips on how to make your co-parenting or known donation arrangement a successful one, and how to avoid ending up in court:

Talk, talk, talk (and more importantly listen, listen, listen)

Don’t rush into trying to conceive. Get to know each other, have honest conversations about the roles you will have and how much involvement you all want. Be as clear as you can about your expectations and be honest with each other and yourselves. If things don’t feel right, have the courage to walk away. There are always other options. You could find another donor or co-parent, or choose unknown donation (as mums) or surrogacy (as dads) if what you really want is parental autonomy.

Understand what roles you will all have

Justice Hedley was keen to “stress the importance of agreeing the future roles of the parties before the first child is born“. And this fits with our experience. Almost all the cases we have seen which have ended up in dispute are ultimately about status. Is the biological dad a father or a donor? Are you equal co-parents, or primary and secondary parents, or parents with another adult role model? Make sure you talk about how you see yourselves and each other, as well as the day to day practicalities of managing your child’s care.

Understand how the law works

The law on parentage is complicated, and who will be the legal parents (and what goes on the birth certificate) depends on the facts, including how you conceive and the birth mother’s marital status. There may be all sorts of different options, both for choosing who the legal parents are and for giving some parental status to the other co-parents if you want to, and problems can often arise where parents have expectations (for example about what goes on the birth certificate) which can’t be met. Take legal advice, or check out the free information on our website about this.

Put in place a written agreement

Donor agreements may not (strictly) be legally binding, but they are incredibly useful. I have always advised parents that putting something in writing helps with the planning, facilitates honest conversations and sets a framework which everyone will feel morally bound by, giving clarity and transparency and setting a really strong foundation.

However, it now seems they may be more legally binding than we previously thought. Although the issue is still untested (the parents in P&L did not have a written agreement, which I suppose comes back to my point that it is not the parents with properly prepared legal agreements who end up in court) the case suggests that the court will pay attention if there is one. Mr Justice Hedley said, in the strongest indication yet, that “the court will be bound to give careful consideration and weight to any such agreement“.

There is no standard format for a donor or co-parenting agreement, but having something which is accurate and personal to you (and prepared with a solid understanding of how the law applies in your particular circumstances) will be much more helpful than any standard pro forma.

If you need help with planning a co-parenting or known donation arrangement, or if you need representation in a dispute, feel free to contact us.

Zack Wahls defends gay marriage and being raised by lesbian mums

Zach Wahls a 19-year-old University of Iowa engineering student defended gay marriage in a rousing testimony in front of the Iowa House of Representatives this month. Zack Wahls spoke out against a resolution which would end civil unions in Iowa by describing his own experience as the son of two lesbian partners.
"Our family really isn't so different from any other Iowa family," said Wahls. "When I am home, we go to church together, we eat dinner, we go on vacations."

Wahls emphasized the typical nature of his upbringing, as well as his own success. He is an Eagle Scout and a small business owner. He also scored in the 99th percentile on the ACT. "If I was your son, Mr. Chairman, I believe I would make you very proud," he said.

A sixth-generation Iowan, Wahls finished his testimony on an impassioned note. "In my 19 years not once have I ever been confronted by an individual who realized independently that I was raised by a gay couple," he said. "And you know why? Because the sexual orientation of my parents has had zero effect on the content of my character."

Wahls had previously written about the issue in the University of Iowa's student newspaper:

Last fall, I had the opportunity, courtesy of Iowa Public Radio's "The Exchange," to talk with a Tea Partier about this very topic. When I mentioned that two lesbian women raised me, her face turned to shock and then concern. She asked if I ever had yearning to meet my father — an anonymous sperm donor.

My answer was — and remains — "no." And no, I don't feel damaged or that my childhood was somehow scarred. Maybe I have, in some way undetectable to me, been permanently harmed by having two moms. I guess I can't be sure.

Watch Zach Wahls's inspirational speach on youtube

Article: 11th February 2011 huffingtonpost.com

Read more about gay and lesbian parenting at www.prideangel.com

To read more go to http://bit.ly/fvin5T

Gay friendly? MPs lag behind in Britain

The equality bill, with its provisions for churches to host civil partnerships, has cracked Westminster's veneer of tolerance
Anyone would think there's an election on the horizon. Jubilant Labour activists are delighted that David Cameron has been caught on camera – in an interview broadcast on Channel 4 News last night – appearing to prevaricate evasively not only over his dodgy European allies but also over whether he should have told his MPs and peers to back amendments to the new equality bill which will permit churches to host civil partnership ceremonies if they wish.

What short memories politicians have. Just three weeks ago it was the Labour party itself that refused to whip members of the House of Lords in support of this perfectly reasonable provision. Labour peers were subject to furious arm-twisting from cabinet ministers in a bid to frustrate a modest further step towards equality.

Consequently it was a heroic quartet of backbenchers, including Lord Alli, Lady Neuberger – "Which Jewish mother wouldn't want to see their child married in a synagogue?" – and the Tory peer Lady Noakes, who shamed the Lords into adopting this perfectly fair-minded proposal supported by Stonewall and others.

The Tories initially put up Lord Hunt of Wirral to explain their opposition. In the end, just like the government, the Conservatives gracelessly offered their peers a free vote.

Liberal Democrats, however cuddly, aren't immune from anti-gay spite. Yesterday the Roman Catholic peer Lady Williams also sought to move an amendment in the Lords that would have given adoption agencies the right to turn away homosexual clients. Her suggestion would have driven a coach and horses through the now settled principle of adoption, that it's solely the welfare of the child and not personal prejudices that should always come first. (You might think that if Lady Williams was motivated, as suggested, by the need to "protect children", the Roman Catholic church might have other priorities at present.)

The message seems pretty clear. Whatever parties tell gay voters they've done for them in the recent and distant past, ask what they'll be doing in the future. And don't make presumptions about individual candidates on the basis of their party allegiance either.

Stonewall's analysis of MPs' votes in the current parliament shows that George Osborne and Francis Maude have better recent voting records on gay equality than one in five Lib Dem MPs. And Kate Hoey, the least gay-friendly of all Labour MPs, has a voting record worse than more than 120 Conservatives.

All of which demonstrates that, however gay-friendly they are or claim to be, most politicians still lag sadly some years behind the progressive instinct of a decent British public. But then we, of course, are the one group of people whose voices won't get heard in the next six weeks at all.

Article by Ben Summerskill from www.guardian.co.uk

Read more about gay parenting options