Pride Angel Journey | The trouble with evenings

At some point, and I hazard a guess that it was about Week 3, our peaceful sleepy/hungry baby decided that evenings were a bit of a problem. Daytime was for sleeping and feeding; nighttime was for sleeping and feeding. But evenings were tricky old things, and were only really bearable if spent dangled over one of your two mummies' arms, in what is known in the parenting books as the 'Tiger in the Tree' position. The mummy of the proffered arm should be pacing the room and, if the pacing, tiger-carrying tree mummy happens to be 'Non-Milky Mummy' then 'Milky-Mummy' had better stand by for imminent feeding emergencies. Evenings did just seem to do something horrible to the lovely feed/sleep/feed/sleep cycle. And the longer the cycle was disrupted, the tireder our little baby got. Very tired babies cry a lot - but only twice did we resort to the calming effect of the cool nighttime air and pacing up and down the street after midnight carrying in the sling an exhausted Luna who was using her lasts reserves of energy to wail to the stars. And then at a certain point, some time between 10pm and 2am, suddenly she would feed to sleep and the lovely cycle would be back again until the next evening. And then at around nine weeks the evening trouble stopped altogether. The cycle, which albeit now included quite a bit of awake time in the day, would carry on through the evening, and even though bedtime had settled on a rather late 11pm, the time before that could be spent pleasantly - a drink of milk, a cuddle, a burp or two, a bit of nappy business...all very calm and content. So what was it about those evening? The weariness which comes upon one after spending a whole day feeding and sleeping? The threat of impending darkness and all the terrors that come with it - monsters and witches and creatures of the night? The knowledge that this ordinary day, almost over, was unique and will never be lived again? Of course, we will never know. Article: by Lindsey, West Yorkshire 2nd April 2014

Landmark High Court ruling on sperm donation and same sex parenting

The High Court has today made a landmark ruling, allowing two civilly partnered sperm donors the right to ask for contact with their biological children (against the wishes of the children’s respective lesbian mothers), but also warning that it will consider the need to protect the lesbian families carefully before a final decision is made. NGA is representing the mothers in the case of Re Z, one of the two connected cases and the one which brought the novel legal issues to the attention of the court. The ruling has significant implications for same sex parents and families created through donor conception. It is the first case to test rights for same sex parents introduced by Parliament in 2008, which give lesbian mothers the same legal protection following sperm donation as opposite sex parents. Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, the mothers in this case, as civil partners, are the legal parents of their children. The biological fathers, like sperm donors through clinics, are expressly excluded from being treated as the legal fathers ‘for any purpose’. Relationships broke down after the men each sought more involvement than the mothers agreed. They applied to court, and the court has now ruled that they can have their cases heard. The court’s decision opens the door to legal claims from sperm donors who want involvement but have no legal parental status. But the judgment also makes it clear that every case will be considered carefully. Donors will not simply be treated as fathers, and protecting the primary family’s autonomy is also a ‘material consideration’. Donors will only be able to seek redress on the basis of the the particular facts, where this is justified. In Re G and Re Z, the fact that the donors had had early contact with the children was what persuaded the court that they should at least be allowed to have their cases heard. However, although the court has given the donors ‘leave’ to apply, it does not necessarily follow that they will actually be given any rights of contact, and the court has warned that the underlying legal framework will be a significant consideration, and that any expectation of very significant contact is likely to be ‘wholly unrealistic’. Mr Justice Baker suggested that there was no principle being created of automatic rights for donors to lesbian couples: “I endorse the submissions that the policy underpinning these reforms is an acknowledgement that alternative family forms without fathers are sufficient to meet a child’s need… Thousands of children in this country are being brought up happily and successfully by same-sex couples.” Going forward, there are some significant lessons for same sex parents (and anyone conceiving through known donation): Lesbian mothers need to understand that being named on the birth certificate does not give absolute protection. Conceiving with a known donor will always carry some level of risk if things don’t work out as intended, so mothers should be very careful about giving any level of contact unless they are absolutely sure. Gay fathers who act as known donors need to understand that their legal position may be more fragile and uncertain than they think. Men who want to be fully involved fathers will not have any automatic rights if there is a dispute. Everyone going into known donation or co-parenting arrangements should be crystal clear about their expectations from the outset. Setting the strongest possible foundations at the start is the best way of avoiding later problems. One way to do that is to put an agreement in place, but the real key is good communication – an agreement is a means to that rather than an end in itself. There is more from our blog on How to Avoid a Known Donor Dispute. At NGA, we provide leading specialist advice to parents conceiving through known donation, including same sex parents, both male and female, and leading representation to those in disputes. We have worked at the cutting edge of the law, pushing boundaries, for many years, and were instrumental in helping create the rights for same sex parents in the HFE Act 2008. There is more information on our website about known donor disputes and about planning known donation for mothers and for fathers. You can also follow us on Twitter for the latest updates on our work and campaigns.

Gay parents are just as good as straight parents says the American Psychological Association

A recent study called into question the ability of gay parents to raise well-rounded children, but the report has been widely blasted as biased, manipulative, and agenda-based. Now the American Psychological Association has stepped in to reiterate its belief that gay parents are just as good as straight parents. "On the basis of a remarkably consistent body of research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, the American Psychological Association and other health, professional, and scientific organizations have concluded that there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation," the APA announced on its website earlier this week. "That is, lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. This body of research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children are unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish." The APA was responding to the "New Family Structures Study," which called into question the effectiveness of gay parenting. But according to several equality groups, the study is majorly flawed. According to a joint press release from the Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Marry, Family Equality Council, and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, the paper was "written by rightwing author Mark Regnerus (of the Department of Sociology and Population Center at the University of Texas at Austin) and funded in large part by the antigay Witherspoon Institute." It "makes a number of claims about negative outcomes for children raised by gay and lesbian parents. However, for the most part, the paper doesn't even look at same-sex couples raising a child together in a longterm committed relationship." Many of the study's children considered to be raised in gay households were not being raised by parents in a committed same-sex relationship, whereas many of the children in heterosexual households had two married parents. Children of parents who had at one time in their lives been in a same-sex relationship were considered to be part of a "gay household." The bias of the report has sparked much ire. The equality groups point out the study's major funder, the Witherspoon Institute, is connected to antigay groups like Opus Dei and the National Organization for Marriage. It's no surprise that people and groups connected to NOM and the Mormon Church jumped on the findings. Article: 14th June 2012 www.advocate.com