|
Shortly to be published in the Family Law Reports is Re D (Contact and Parental Responsibility: Lesbian Mothers and Known father) (Number 2), in which I acted for the applicant father, led by Lucy Theis QC. This case involved the sole issue of the applicant father’s application for parental responsibility for his 5 year old daughter, a little girl being brought up by her co-mothers, a lesbian couple. A full examination of the implications and facts of this case will follow upon publication.
By way of summary pending publication, I can report that the Judge awarded the applicant parental responsibility for his daughter after consideration of both expert evidence from Dr Claire Sturge, and close examination of the existing authorities on parental responsibility. The interesting aspect of the case centred on the applicant father’s agreement from the outset that he would not seek to exercise any of the rights he would normally be entitled and expected to exercise upon the grant of a parental responsibility order. For example, he agreed not to visit the child’s school or contact any treating medical professional without the consent of the mothers. This concession (not accepted by the mothers), came in the face of evidence that he had sought to interfere inappropriately in his daughter’s life in the past, putting at risk her stability and welfare. The respondent mothers argued that such interference was even more concerning given that the child lived in a family unit not yet commonly accepted in society.
In those circumstances the Court was left with an unusually complex debate about parental responsibility. The mothers drew a clear distinction between the labels of ‘father’ and ‘parent’. In their submission, the applicant could be considered to be a ‘father’ but should not be considered by the Court to be a ‘parent’. Parental responsibility was viewed by them as giving the father the mandate to ‘parent’, and to be recognised by society as a ‘parent’. A more visible father was at risk of undermining their non-traditional family unit, and particularly the role of D’s non-biological mother. The unusual structure of the order made by the Court reflects the Judge’s wish to reflect the “simple and incontrovertible but less tangible fact that he (the applicant) is her father”, whilst recognising that this father is not a parent in the understood sense of that word.
|