Archive for the ‘Co-parenting’ Category
Thursday, May 23rd, 2013
There are many issues to consider for parents considering conceiving with a known donor or co-parent. With a minefield of information to navigate, parents can be left asking: what do we need to know? How do we set things up? How do we avoid problems in the future?
Where conception takes place at a fertility clinic, counsellors can play a key role in answering these questions. In the light of the recent landmark decision on known sperm donation, BICA – the association for UK fertility counsellors – asked NGA to give some guidance on what fertility counsellors need to know about the law on known donation, to help them do their job effectively.
Nicola Scott’s article in the BICA journal gives an overview of UK law and the implications of the case, and explains how early intervention by fertility counsellors can shape known donor arrangements positively by encouraging parents and donors to iron out potential issues and mismatched expectations at an early stage. You can read the full article here
We advise parents on a wide spectrum of arrangements by clarifying not only the legal issues but also the practical aspects which are all too often overshadowed. Please see our donor conception pages for more information, or contact us to discuss your arrangement and options here.
Tags: Co-parenting, donor conception, donors, fertility counselling, known donation arrangements, known donor agreements, known donor disputes, pre-conception agreements
Posted in Co-parenting, donor conception, family building, fertility law | Comments Off
Saturday, February 2nd, 2013
NGA has been contacted by UK patient organisations trying to clarify the implications of the High Court’s ruling, which has allowed two sperm donors to argue in court that they should have rights of contact with their biological children. NGA has been representing the lesbian mothers in this case.
The ruling received a lot of press attention yesterday (including on the front page of the Daily Mail, and in the Guardian, Telegraph, Independent and BBC). Natalie spoke to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the British Fertility Society, the National Gamete Donation Trust and the Donor Conception Network – all seeking further information about what to say to patients, donors and donor conceived families who were contacting them.
The HFEA and the BFS have issued press statements in response to the ruling.
We thought it would be helpful to provide a clear summary of what the ruling means for these organisations and others concerned about this:
* The ruling only gave the two donors the right to argue their case in court. It is not yet know whether they will be given any rights of contact with the children.
* The reason for the decision was very fact specific, a result of the fact that the donors were known to the lesbian mothers and had contact with the children in their early months before relationships broke down. The court was satisfied, on the facts, that the donors had sufficient connection with the children to at least justify their cases being heard in court.
* The ruling is therefore exceptionally unlikely to apply to donors who have had no contact with the child – for example unknown donors through licensed clinics.
* However, the ruling could apply to other types of known donors, including known sperm or egg donors who have donated through a licensed clinic, if they can demonstrate sufficient connection with the child in practice. Although in this case conception took place outside a licensed clinic, the law which provided that these men were ‘not to be treated as the father for any purpose’ is the same law which excludes the status of other types of egg and sperm donors.
* The ruling does not in any way affect donors’ responsibilities – it does not make it possible to hold a donor legally or financially responsible for a child they help conceive.
For further information on the case (including the judgment) see our blog. You can also follow us on Twitter for updates.
Tags: British Fertility Society, donor, donor conception law, Donor Conception Network, egg donor, High Court, Human Fertilisation and Embryology, Mr Justice Baker, Natalie Gamble Associates, National Gamete Donation Trust, Re G, Re G (a minor) and Re Z (a minor) [2013] EWHC 134 (Fam), Re Z, sperm donor
Posted in Co-parenting, donor conception, fertility law, Natalie Gamble Associates news, same sex parenting | Comments Off
Thursday, January 31st, 2013
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.
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 other fathers are, and protecting the primary family 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 the level of contact originally being sought may be considered ‘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.
You can read the judgment in full to Re G (a minor) and Re Z (a minor) [2013] EWHC 143 (Fam).
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.
Tags: dispute, father, gay dads, High Court, known donor, lesbian mums, lesbian parent, lesbian parenting law, Mr Justice Baker, Natalie Gamble, Re G, Re G (a minor) and Re Z (a minor) [2013] EWHC 134 (Fam), Re Z, same sex parent, same sex parenting law, sperm donor
Posted in Co-parenting, donor conception, fertility law, Natalie Gamble Associates news, same sex parenting, Uncategorized | Comments Off
Tuesday, November 20th, 2012
Natalie was interviewed on BBC Radio 4 Woman’s Hour on Thursday on the topic of private sperm donation. The programme feature NGA client Mark Langridge (the donor who has been pursued for child support by the CSA twelve years after donating his sperm to a lesbian couple) and Laura Witjens, Chief Executive of the National Gamete Donation Trust, with Jenni Murray asking ‘what makes a father’?
You can listen to Natalie on Woman’s Hour here.
At NGA, we advise many prospective parents (and donors) considering a known donation arrangement, helping them to set things up with the strongest foundations.
We sadly also help people whose known donation arrangements have broken down, both representing donors pursued for child support and lesbian and solo parents whose donors seek more involvement than they want.
You can find out more from our website about known donation and about known donor disputes.
Tags: child support, donor agreement, donor dispute, lesbian parent, Mark Langridge, Natalie Gamble, sperm donation, sperm donor, Woman's Hour
Posted in Co-parenting, donor conception, Natalie Gamble, same sex parenting, Uncategorized | Comments Off
Tuesday, August 7th, 2012
Sarah Wood-Heath has written an article for lesbian magazine G3 about known donor disputes, and the recent Court of Appeal decision to award contact to a biological father who donated his sperm to a lesbian couple.
Although every case in the family court is fact specific (and the court made it clear that the only binding principle it was setting was that the child’s welfare should be paramount), it is a decision which has changed the trend of previous case law, which has always been to protect the integrity of the lesbian family unit against any claims from the donor. We have yet to see how significant it may be in future known donation disputes.
You can read Sarah’s G3 article in full or find out more and known donor disputes from our website.
Tags: Court of Appeal, donor agreement, donor conception, donor conception law, donor insemination, fertility law, fertility lawyer, G3 magazine, gay parenting, known donor dispute, known sperm donor, law, lesbian, lesbian parenting, preconception agreement, same sex parenting law, Sarah Wood-Heath, sperm donation law, sperm donor law
Posted in Co-parenting, donor conception, fertility law, lesbian parenting, same sex parenting | Comments Off
Monday, May 28th, 2012
Sarah Wood-Heath was interviewed on Gaydar Radio on Saturday morning about same sex parenting and the options and pitfalls for gay and lesbian parents starting a family.
Talking to Neil and Debbie on the Saturday morning breakfast show (as Britain’s answer to Ally McBeal!), Sarah explained how surrogacy works for gay fathers, and the differences between a surrogacy arrangement in the UK or abroad. Careful planning is the best way of avoiding legal problems, especially for gay dads planning international surrogacy, given the immigration issues and the fact that UK law won’t recognise a foreign birth certificate naming you both as the parents. Sarah was also asked about the options for lesbian couples, discussing the pros and cons of using a known or unknown sperm donor, and the need to set things up in the right way.
Although the law has become much more gay-friendly in the last few years, so much is still so untested, including what happens where relationships break down and who has rights and parental status when gay or lesbian parents break up or get divorced.
The good news is that there are so many options available now for same sex couples and single gay and lesbian parents – adoption and co-parenting are also on the list. While the law still has a little way to go, it is evolving to try and keep up and it is now much easier for same sex couples or singles to find a way to start a family. It’s just a question of knowing your options and making an informed decision so you make the right choice for you. With good advice it needn’t be complicated.
There is more information on our website for gay and lesbian parents at www.nataliegambleassociates.com. You can also check out the Gaydar Radio website at www.gaydarradio.com.
Tags: 26 May 2012, Ally McBeal, Co-parenting, commercial surrogacy, donor agreement, donor conception, donor conception law, donor insemination, fertility law, fertility lawyer, fertility treatment, gay men conception, gay parenting, gay surrogacy law, Gaydar Radio, international surrogacy, international surrogacy law, law, lesbian parenting, lesbian relationship breakdown, Neil and Debbie, same sex parenting law, Sarah Wood-Heath, sperm donation law, sperm donor law, surrogacy agreements, surrogacy law, surrogacy lawyer, UK surrogacy
Posted in adoption, Co-parenting, donor conception, family building, fertility law, gay men surrogacy, international surrogacy, lesbian parenting, Natalie Gamble Associates news, same sex parenting, UK surrogacy | Comments Off
Tuesday, May 15th, 2012
For single prospective dads, the decision between surrogacy, adoption and co-parenting is a tough one, with each option having its own benefits and pitfalls. First, ask yourself the question – what role do I want to have in my child’s life? To go it on your own or share the journey? If you want to go it on your own, surrogacy or adoption are undoubtedly the best choices. If you want a shared role, co-parenting could be ideal.
UK law is not geared up to cater for all single would-be parents. For men, building your own biological family through surrogacy is difficult, given the need to find a woman to carry your child and the fact that the law may not operate in your favour. The law is more supportive on adoption, but forming a non-biological family requires patience and determination.
Surrogacy – establishing a surrogacy arrangement as a single parent is difficult. As intended (biological) parents are not treated as their child’s legal parents automatically, parents through surrogacy need to go through a specific legal process to achieve this status. This particular process, though, is only available to couples, effectively denying single parents the legal solution available to everyone else. Our previous government’s rationale for this (despite our attempts to persuade them otherwise) was that surrogacy is such a serious undertaking, only couples should be eligible.
This has the knock-on effect of making it almost impossible to join one of the UK’s surrogacy organisations as a single dad, since their first question to applicant members is whether they can resolve their status after birth. This essentially ousts all single parents.
So, finding a surrogate is challenging. Some single dads find a willing volunteer among their friends and family. Others go abroad, where the same restrictions don’t apply locally. This undoubtedly overcomes the initial hurdle of getting things off the ground, but it only gets you half way there. The anomaly in the law on surrogacy means that once your baby is born, the surrogate will automatically be treated as the legal mother. You will only be treated as the legal father if the surrogate is unmarried and even then, you are unlikely to have full parental status in the UK. If born abroad, your child may not be British.
There are various options for fully securing your legal status, and/or extinguishing that of your surrogate, but the law is complex and remains largely untested.
Co-parenting can be an effective way for single dads to have a family and share the load. But, it is naturally complicated, not in the set-up, but by virtue of the distinct influences each co-parent will have on your child.
The best arrangements are built on a strong foundation of openness and matched expectations – the primary cause of co-parenting turning sour is a lack of communication at the outset. The logistics of pregnancy, childbirth and breast feeding will, in the majority of arrangements, mean that your baby will live primarily with the birth mum (and her partner). It is important that this doesn’t lead to resentment.
The courts are beginning to show an appetite for recognising co-parent fathers in situations where things have gone wrong. The law remains muddled though and there are still improvements to be made.
Your legal status (and security) will depend on the circumstances of the birth mum, and whether she is in a relationship. Co-parenting arrangements often involve more than two parents but the law only recognises a child as having a maximum of two parents. This means that the law can override your status as a legal father, instead giving the status as ‘second parent’ to the birth mum’s partner
Adoption is another way of creating a family, with children much in need of a loving parent. This is a different experience to conceiving a family, with the inherent need to engage with the authorities before you can be matched with your child, the non-biological relationship you will have and the fact that your child may have particular needs and be older.
The law is much more up to date with respect to single parents hoping to adopt. Like everyone else, you will need to go through a rigorous assessment process and additionally be able to show that you are the whole package in one, in terms of meeting the needs of a child.
Adoption is possible for you within the UK and abroad, although you will need to ensure that the laws in your destination country are compatible. In advance of your match you will need to be approved as a prospective adopter. The process usually takes 6-8 months and involves attending preparation groups and working with a social worker who will perform background checks, seek references and do home visits before preparing a detailed prospective adopter’s report which will be presented to an adoption panel for their consideration. If successful, you will then begin the matching process either within the UK or abroad.
So there are now more choices than ever for single dads to build their own families with or without sharing the responsibilities. It may not be straightforward but it is by no means impossible.
There is more information on our website about surrogacy for single dads, co-parenting as a father and adoption, or you can contact us for help or advice.
Tags: adoption, Co-parenting, conceiving, family building options, fertility law, fertility lawyer, gay men, gay men conception, gay surrogacy law, international surrogacy, international surrogacy law, single dad, single men, solo dad, surrogacy law, surrogacy lawyer, UK surrogacy
Posted in adoption, Co-parenting, family building, fertility law, gay men surrogacy, international surrogacy | Comments Off
Monday, April 23rd, 2012
Emma Brockes has written a fabulous major feature for this weekend’s Guardian Weekend magazine on same sex parenting, in which we are proud to be quoted. The piece tells the story of three modern same sex parent families:
Kellen and Patricia, lesbian mums from New York who have a daughter and are now expecting twins, following egg swapping IVF – Patricia is the birth mother but she carried embryos created with Kellen’s eggs.
Will Halm and Marcellin Simard, gay dads to three children age 15, 13 and 10, who pioneered surrogacy as gay dads in California, where they were the first same sex parents to be named on a birth certificate together, and where Will now represents others as a fertility lawyer.
Andrew Solomon and John Habich, gay dads to a truly alternative family structure – a son through surrogacy who they are raising together, and three more children co-parented with two different mothers.
It is a wonderful picture of the realities of modern same sex parenting, with scenarios we are increasingly dealing with for families in the UK too. All the parents involved talk vividly about the challenges and problems they have faced as gay parents – not the playground prejudice and emotional problems many might expect, but losing legal rights when crossing borders, and grappling with obstructive passport authorities. But the biggest problem of all for alternative families remains surrogacy. As Emma says in her article:
There is, in all this, one glaringly unsubtle problem, and that is surrogacy, which as a percentage affects gay men more than any other group. Commercial surrogacy is illegal in the UK, forcing many childless couples to seek help abroad. When they return, the British government is reluctant to endorse an arrangement that undermines public policy. “English law applies its own rules as to who the parents are, irrespective of what happens abroad,” says Natalie Gamble, the country’s leading fertility lawyer. “So even if you’re named as the parent on a US birth certificate, English law will say that the surrogate is the mother and if she’s married, her husband is the father.”
This can lead to some bizarre situations. In 2008, Gamble’s firm acted for a British couple who had used a surrogacy service in Ukraine. “In Ukraine, the law said they were the parents. But under English law, the Ukrainian surrogate and her husband were the parents. The systems were in direct conflict. The result was that the children had no parents and no nationality. They had no right to stay in Ukraine, and they had no passport to cross any borders. That’s the worst nightmare of international surrogacy.” Gamble persuaded the Home Office to issue the children with discretionary entry clearance, then applied to the high court for a parental order, naming the British couple as legal parents.
We have long campaigned for alternative families, both individually in court, and by arguing hard for changes to the law (including supporting the UK’s legal changes allowing gay dads and lesbian mums to be named on birth certificates together). Why do we do this? Because we believe that parents who love and cherish their children raise wonderful families, no matter what the structure.
With that in mind we want to salute, above all, what Will Halm says about his teenage daughter: “That a test tube baby, from two gay men, is a well-adjusted, smart, polished girl at 15, who is comfortable talking about her family – she is what I would like the world to see. Not the parents who are creating the child, but the children themselves.”
You can read the article in full at http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/apr/20/gay-parenting-emma-brockes
Tags: Andrew Solomon, Californian surrogacy, Co-parenting, commercial surrogacy, donor agreement, donor conception, donor conception law, donor insemination, Emma Brockes, fertility law, fertility lawyer, gay men conception, gay parenting, gay surrogacy law, Guardian, international surrogacy, international surrogacy law, Kelen Mori, law, lesbian, lesbian parenting, Natalie Gamble, Patricia Moreno, same sex parenting law, surrogacy agreements, surrogacy lawyer, The Guardian, Will Halm
Posted in Co-parenting, donor conception, family building, fertility law, gay men surrogacy, international surrogacy, lesbian parenting, Natalie Gamble, Natalie Gamble Associates news, same sex parenting | Comments Off
Friday, February 24th, 2012
By Natalie Gamble, Published in BioNews 645
The family court has been making law on known donors, with a number of recent disputes between known sperm donors and lesbian mothers.
In one recent case (reported in BioNews 644), the Court of Appeal is considering whether a gay sperm donor should have a right to regular contact with his biological son, conceived with his ex-wife who lives with a female partner. The adults had agreed verbally at the outset that the same sex couple would be the parents and that the man would not be involved in bringing up the child. The boy’s mothers say they feel ‘bitterness and betrayal’ at his change of heart. The case follows another recent decision by High Court judge Mr Justice Hedley awarding gay dads contact with two donor conceived girls, aged 10 and 6, following a long and bitter legal dispute with the children’s lesbian mothers about their role (1).
What is interesting is the legal framework the court is developing for dealing with these kinds of issues, and how very different they are from traditional mother-father disputes.
How does UK law work?
UK law is, in theory, clear and certain about the parentage of children conceived through assisted reproduction:
The woman who gives birth is the only legal mother, and the egg donor’s claim to motherhood is excluded.
Spouses (and since April 2009 civil partners) who conceive with donated sperm are both legal parents, and the donor is not the legal father.
A sperm donor who donates through a licensed clinic as a donor (and not as a co-parent) is not the legal father, whatever the marital status of the recipient.
But known donation situations challenge the simplicity of these black and white rules. Where a donor is known to the family, he or she may be invited to play some kind of role in the child’s upbringing. This happens frequently where solo or lesbian mothers conceive with a known sperm donor. But the nature of the donor’s (or co-parent’s) role can extend across a very broad spectrum from minimal contact to full co-parenting, with a million different shades of grey in between. There is obvious scope for dispute if the adults involved later disagree about the nature of that role.
The court’s approach
The law in these situations is complicated, but any known donor can, as a minimum, ask to apply for rights of contact with the child. The UK family court has incredibly flexible powers and the child’s welfare, rather than the wishes of the adults, is its paramount consideration.
In deciding such cases, the court will typically ask: What was intended at the outset and what is the current reality of the arrangement? What is the purpose of the proposed contact? Will it undermine the main family unit, and particularly the non-biological parent?
The trend of the case law seems to be heading towards drawing a broad distinction between known donation arrangements where the known donor gets limited ‘identity contact’, and co-parenting arrangements where the father has a more significant ‘secondary parenting’ role. However, every case is different and the court is typically concerned not to undermine the integrity of the primary family unit (usually the lesbian mothers). In practice, donors usually get a lot less than they are asking for and they will be disappointed if they expect to be treated simply as traditional separated fathers.
The significance of donor agreements
A key question is the extent to which the court will pay attention to any written donor agreement. Even if not legally binding, will it be given weight by the court? The recent case of the two donor conceived girls gives the strongest indication yet, Mr Justice Hedley noting that ‘the court will be bound to give careful consideration and weight to any such agreement’.
However, what is perhaps most interesting is that not one of the cases yet heard by the court has involved a written donor agreement. This does not surprise me – in my fertility law practice I see how known donor disputes are almost invariably a product of mismatched expectations between those involved, with latent problems present from the very outset. The process of putting something in writing (however that is done) is the best insurance against a dispute, facilitating thorough and honest discussions about the role and status everyone will have.
I have, on one or two occasions, had clients who decided to abandon plans to co-parent after going through this process, deciding on reflection that they were better suited to a different route (usually sperm bank donation for lesbian mums, or surrogacy for gay dads). These are the cases, I am sure, where legal disputes have been narrowly avoided.
Lessons learned
It would be a shame for anyone to think, as a result of these cases, that known donation arrangements are a bad idea or that those entering into them are reckless or foolish. I have over the years seen some wonderfully successful co-parenting arrangements, where children are nurtured with absolute transparency about their genetic heritage and a wealth of love and security from committed parents (usually more than two).
But known donation is not the right path for everyone. Where it goes wrong, it goes horribly wrong. I am sure that these disputed cases will not be the last – we are certainly dealing with more disputes of this kind than we were three or four years ago – and I am pleased that the court is developing a specialist jurisprudence which affords these situations the sensitive approach they deserve. In the meantime, anyone entering into a known donation arrangement would be sensible to pay heed to these cautionary tales, and to take on board the need to plan thoroughly, talk honestly and listen carefully, before they get pregnant.
SOURCES & REFERENCES
|
|
British and Irish Legal Information Institute | 20 December 2011
|
Tags: Co-parenting, donor agreement, donor conception, donor conception law, donor insemination, fertility law, fertility lawyer, gay men conception, gay parenting lawyer, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, law, lesbian, lesbian parent legal case, lesbian parenting, lesbian parenting lawyer, Natalie Gamble, Parenting Law, preconception agreement, sperm donation law, sperm donor dispute, sperm donor law, sperm donor legal case
Posted in Co-parenting, donor conception, family building, fertility law, lesbian parenting, Natalie Gamble Associates news, Parenting Law, same sex parenting | Comments Off
Friday, February 10th, 2012
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 (or preconception 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.
Tags: Co-parenting, dispute, donor conception law, donor insemination, fertility law, fertility lawyer, gay men conception, gay parenting, gay surrogacy law, known donor, legal advice donor conception, lesbian parenting, lesbian parents, preconception agreement, same sex parenting law, sperm donation law, sperm donor law, surrogacy lawyer
Posted in Co-parenting, donor conception, family building, fertility law, gay men surrogacy, lesbian parenting, Natalie Gamble Associates news, Parenting Law, same sex parenting | Comments Off
There are many issues to consider for parents considering conceiving with a known donor or co-parent. With a minefield of information to navigate, parents can be left asking: what do we need to know? How do we set things up? How do we avoid problems in the future?
