Pride Angel

A TV production company ‘Garden Productions’, have approached us, as they are in the process of making a new groundbreaking documentary series for Channel 4.

The series is concentrating on people who are about to make a very significant life-changing decision and they are keen to explore the area of fertility and parenting within the series.

As part of their research they would very much like to reach out to couples and individuals who are thinking about starting a family through sperm donation, IVF or egg sharing, but are still at a point where they are not entirely sure if they want to proceed and may be exploring other methods as well.

At this stage they keen to reach out to couples (both same sex and heterosexual) and single people who are still deciding and are yet to take the first steps. Samantha from Garden Productions thought that Pride Angel would be a good place to let people know about her research.

Samantha would be really happy to speak with any interested people in more detail about the project and about how the programme works, all of which will be in confidence. There is no obligation to take the process any further once you have spoken with Samantha, so please feel free to contact us at Pride Angel for more information or with any questions.

Finally, a note about ‘Garden Productions’. They produces a wide range of interesting, sensitive television programmes including Channel 4's ‘24 Hours In A&E’ and they’re really excited about this new groundbreaking project for Channel 4.

Read more about parenting options at www.prideangel.com

There are many ways my family has an advantage over the regular two-parent model. That extra pair of hands, for one thing, that makes a massive difference, particularly in the foggy, newborn days. But it also throws up a number of problems that, while not absent in other families, can feel more acute in ours. Specifically, I'm thinking about the issue of control.

Parents who live together may not always agree on every aspect of raising their kids but, somehow, they have to find a way to compromise and put on a united front for their children. The rules their kids live by are the "house rules". There might be small differences – Dad lets us have a second bowl of ice cream, Mum helps with our homework, that sort of thing – but, essentially, there's one way of doing things; one style of parenting.

For us, it's not so clear. Our children are growing up, much like the children of divorced parents, with two homes and, in many ways, two different ways of doing things. Catherine, for example, is one of life's organisers and needs to know what she's going to be doing and how her day will go. She does a lot of structured activities with the kids – swimming lessons, baby gym, play dates etc. Cam and I, on the other hand, tend to take a much looser approach. The kids have a daily routine with us, but there is plenty of space for just pottering about, watching telly or kicking around the park. I know that Catherine sometimes finds our laissez-faire approach frustrating, just as I think she sometimes over-organises. If we lived together all the time, we would doubtless find a balance, but because we don't, what happens is that the kids have two homes with somewhat different parenting styles.

Does it matter? For the children, I would say not. First, kids are incredibly adaptable and seem to have no problem understanding that different things happen in different houses (especially if that's all they have ever known). And, over the course of a week, the organised and laid-back approaches probably balance out. But for us parents, it's been an exercise in learning to cede control. It requires a huge amount of trust in the other parent; trust that, though they may do things very differently, they are still doing what's best for your child. But you learn to let go and, in time, even see the benefits of this dual approach. Interestingly, when Hal arrived and we all started living at Catherine's house, Georgia became really unsettled. She only seemed to return to her normal, sunny self when Cam and I took her back to spend the night at our place. Of course, for her living in two homes is "normal" so suddenly being in the same house all the time felt strange. Her routine had been disrupted and she didn't like it.

Some things are sacrosanct. Whichever house the kids are in, they have the same bedtime routine and discipline is consistent. It's important that there is never a suggestion that they can get away with behaviour with one parent that would be unacceptable with the others.

As always, our family works first and foremost because we talk a lot and listen to each other. That is the golden rule, and the first thing I say to people who are considering entering an arrangement like ours. You won't always agree on everything, but it's how you handle it that counts. Remember that you all have the best interests of the children at heart and trust each other.

Article: 28th April 2012 www.guardian.co.uk

Read more about gay parenting and becoming a co-parent at www.prideangel.com

Amelia from Huffington Post has recently written an excellent article about the question of talking to kids about people being 'Gay'.

In some families the introduction of LBGT family members requires finesse or lengthy explanation. I don't have one of those families. After a whirlwind romance my brother Harold and his then-fiancée Jeanne, now my sister-in-law, were addressing their wedding invitations. They had a conversation that went a little like this:

Jeanne: "You have an aunt named Danny?"
Harold: "Nope, that's my uncle."
Jeanne, a little confused: "Then you have an aunt named Rich?"
Harold: "No. Wait for it. It will click."
Jeanne: "Oh! Good for them."
That's about as complicated as we get. (Although we do still tease Jeanne about it 14 years later.)

As of today, two states have "don't say gay" legislation pending: Tennessee and Missouri. One of the reasons given for these bills is that mentioning the existence of gay people in public schools will cause parents to have unwanted conversations with their children that would require them to explain "gay." The implication is that this is a conversation that is awkward, horrible, complicated, and impossible to do in an age-appropriate way.

I've never seen it that way, but I decided to call my friend Anne, whose children are the same age as mine, to ask her if she'd ever explained "gay" to her kids. In her family the conversation started because of the lesbian couple that owns and runs our local café. Their daughters knew the couple lived together (in our neighborhood), and one day their oldest daughter asked why.

"At first my husband told her it was because they were really good friends," Anne recalled. "Later I talked to him about it, because that wasn't really the truth. We then explained to the girls that they lived together because they loved each other just like Mommy and Daddy."

Nothing horrible there.

To get another opinion I called Jeanne. My nieces are in their tweens, and she might have another take on it. "I'm thinking," she said, taking a moment to collect her thoughts after I asked. "You know, I don't think we ever had a big conversation about it. Gay people have always just been a fact to them. There really was never a need. More than anything, we talk about how bullying gay people is wrong, and how important it is to stand up for your friends."

What always baffles me about those people who fight against equality "for the sake of the children" is that they always act like explaining homosexuality to kids is the same thing as explaining homosexual sex acts to them. When I asked both moms whether they had conversations about what gay sex looked like with their kids, they were both a little stunned.

"That's not age-appropriate for my kids," Anne said, "but neither is explaining the mechanics of heterosexual sex."
"We haven't," Jeanne told me, "and the girls haven't asked. But I am sure they will. One of the girls' friends came out to her recently, so that's probably on its way."
"Do you worry about it?" I asked.
"Not really. Talking about sex with a kid is always awkward and embarrassing for them. It won't be any worse or better than any other sex talk."

The truth is that explaining to children (or anyone, for that matter) what being gay means isn't difficult. It's about love and attraction. It's about whose hand someone wants to hold, or whom someone wants to ask to a dance. It's about emotion and the way people feel. It only gets complicated when adults make it complicated, when parents and other adults try to deny the parts about being gay that aren't related to which body part gets put where, when being gay is diluted to only being about sex.

And why do people feel like boiling it down to only sex? Because then they can make it bad. They can make it about "evil" acts done by "sinful" people and vilify them. It is harder to make a villain out of the women whom the kids adore and who run their favorite café and love each other so much that they want to live together and spend their lives together.

One of the many reasons the "don't say gay" laws are dangerous is that they essentially want to wipe the existence of gay people out of children's lives. But that's impossible, because some of those children are gay people. Never mentioning that some people are gay will only make those children feel isolated, alone, and wrong. It will contribute to depression and can lead to bad decisions. Just ask anyone who has lived more than half his or her life in deep self-loathing, or the woman who married the man of her dreams only to find out after the children were born that he is gay, or any of the children driven to take their own lives because they were unable to see a future in which they could be happy. Oh, wait, you can't.

As a society, we need to get our heads out of the sand and face the fact that LGBT people are a reality in all our lives. No amount of hiding or attempting to silence this fact will make it disappear, so we might as well start talking about it and keep talking about it until everyone's response is, "Oh! Good for them."

Article: 26th April 2012 www.huffingtonpost.com

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

Emma Brockes has written a fabulous major feature for this weekend’s Guardian Weekend magazine on same sex parenting, in which Natalie Gamble Associates 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.”

Article: 23rd April 2012 by Natalie Gamble Associates

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

Leaving London, pregnant and gay for the middle class suburban city of St Albans was a scary prospect. I thought I would be the only one. It was a far cry from South London.

I needn’t have worried though as I shortly found out I was not alone. Firstly, in my local NCT antenatal class you could have knocked me down with a feather when I realised there was another gay couple on our course (I had decided they must be sisters or friends). Secondly, I found a person called “marmite” posting on netmums looking for other lesbian families. Hurrah, I realised I was NOT alone and set about forming a support group using the online communities.

This group has grown from a first meeting in early 2009 in a local coffee shop to a fully fledged monthly meet up in my local Children’s Centre in St Albans and an associated yahoo group where we can “meet” online. I have made great friends, written articles and even been asked to help with a programme on same sex parenting for local radio (see same sex parenting show at www.itunes.apple.com

I want as many people as possible to be aware of this group for them if they are local(ish) to the area or to inspire them to start their own local group. I am grateful to Pride Angel in helping with this.

The St Albans (& surrounding area) gay parents' group is open to lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender parents/ aspiring parents from all walks of life, no matter what their parenting route. We meet on the 2nd Thursday of the month at the Alban Way Children's Centre @ Marshalswick (on Sherwood Avenue, AL4) 3-6pm. The sessions are drop-in and a 50p donation is requested for refreshments. There is also a yahoo group www.groups.yahoo.com/stalbansgayparents

Article: by Clare Hancock, St Albans gay parents' group 26th March 2012

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

The Court of Appeal in London has ruled unanimously that a gay man who fathered a child for a lesbian couple is not a secondary parent, allowing him greater access to his two-year-old son. As the judge who granted permission to appeal wrote, the case raises 'important issues relating to the courts' approach to children born into "alternative families" and the relationship of such children with their fathers'.

In giving the lead judgment at the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Thorpe ruled that although the lesbian couple desired to bring up the child as a two-parent nuclear family, the father's commitment to the child since birth suggested he was seeking a 'relationship of considerable value'.

The father, known as A, married the biological mother, B, in 2007 in order to appease her family who had difficulties accepting her sexual orientation. There was no intention of cohabitation between A and B.

A had agreed prior to the pregnancy that he would not assert his paternal rights and that the lesbian couple would be the primary carers for the child. They agreed the child would reside with B and her partner, C, and A's role as the biological father would remain secondary. The women were reportedly concerned about the impact any greater role of the father would have on their relationship and that with the child.

The parties' dispute over contact arrangements was heard by the Family Division last July, where the judge upheld the women's case, albeit extending A's contact hours to one meeting per week of five hours. Judge Jenkins expressed reluctance to fracture what is described in the judgment as a nuclear family’.

Lord Justice Thorpe took a different view, saying 'it is generally accepted that a child gains by having two parents'. He added that 'it does not follow from that that the addition of a third is necessarily disadvantageous'.

The court said the arrangements made before the birth of the child did not necessarily hold sway in the life of the child. 'Human emotions are powerful and inconstant', said Lord Justice Thorpe. 'What the adults look forward to before undertaking the hazards of conception, birth and the first experience of parenting may prove to be illusion or fantasy'.

He added that although it had been suggested by the courts that contact should reflect the role agreed by the parties, the primary purpose remains to promote the welfare of the child. He cautioned against B and C's wish to form a 'two parent lesbian nuclear family' without any contact with A. 'Such desires may be essentially selfish and may later insufficiently weigh the welfare and developing rights of the child that they have created', he said.

Lady Justice Black, also hearing the appeal, highlighted the difficulties faced by the courts in this area. She said the courts 'continue to struggle to evolve a principled approach to cases such as this one'. However, she concluded, although guidance would be helpful, all cases were fact specific. 'This is an area of family law in which generalised guidance is not possible', she said.

Sperm donors who donate through an licensed clinic are not regarded as being legally responsible for any children born as a result of their donation under UK law. However, this law does not apply to arrangements made outside licensed clinics.

Lord Justice Thorpe refused to endorse the concept of principal and secondary parents being developed by the family courts, saying, 'it has the danger of demeaning the known donor and in some cases they may have an important role'.

A's case will now go to the High Court Family Division for a judge to reassess the level of contact with his son.

Article: 20th March 2012 www.bionews.co.uk

Read more about the law when using a known sperm donor at www.prideangel.com

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.

Article: by Natalie Gamble Associates 10th February 2012

Read more about your legal rights when using a known donor at www.prideangel.com

Sir Elton John and David Furnish talked about their first year of parenthood, the pair spoke of their pride and joy at becoming parents to Zachary, who was born via a surrogate in America on Christmas Day, 2010.
The couple, who met in the early 1990s, said they had enjoyed a “brilliant” year with their 13 month-old son, whose full name is Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John.

But they admitted he faced “challenges” and potential “double” stigma as he grew up and have consulted counsellors to find out the best way of dealing with any potential problems.
As a result they have created a scrapbook to give to him when he is older in order to explain his “creation” and birth from his unidentified surrogate mother.

“We're going to have challenges, of course we are,” Sir Elton said in a magazine interview. “But we talked about that before we had him.”
Mr Furnish, a Canadian-born film-maker, added: “I think he's going to have a lot of attention thrust upon him.

“He's going to be potentially doubly stigmatised, because one of his parents is extremely famous and because he comes from two dads.
“We've taken advice from counsellors. We've put a whole scrapbook together about his creation, the people who were involved in the process and how the intent was about love.”
Mr Furnish, a former advertising executive, added: “We're going to raise him to be proud of who he is.”

Sir Elton, 64, and Mr Furnish, 49, made the comments in an interview with the British Attitude magazine, Europe’s popular publication for gay men. The pair, who had a civil partnership in December 2005, reportedly spend the majority of their time at their mansion in Windsor, Berks. They tried to adopt an AIDS-infected orphan in Ukraine in 2009, but were thwarted by government regulations.

Sir Elton, who is due to perform at the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee concert in the summer, said the couple had experienced the “most incredible year” with their son as they introduced him to family and friends and took him on holidays.
“I can't tell you how brilliant this year has been and how much love he's brought us and how much we're getting,” Sir Elton said.
“We thought that the civil partnership brought us together, but having a child has been magnificent, and I never thought I would have a kid.
“I don't feel 65, which I will be next year. Now, having a kid there's so much more to do. There's so much more I want to see happen before I die.”

Their son’s middle name “Levon” is thought to be a reference to John’s 1971 song of the same name, whose lyrics were written by his long time collaborator Bernie Taupin and inspired by drummer and singer Levon Helm.
In the interview, reported in the Daily Mail, Sir Elton said he was proud of his sexuality and that he had no problems performing in front of people that found it hard to accept.
Despite being “the world's most acceptable” gay man, he insisted he would not be fearful of performing in countries such as Iran, which had known homophobic cultures. He added: “I'm like the Queen Mother of homosexuality, basically.”

Article: 10th February 2012 www.telegraph.co.uk

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

A gay man who donated his sperm to enable his lesbian ex-wife to become pregnant is demanding overnight and holiday access to their two-year-old son. The woman and her female partner have instructed their lawyers to fight the man's demands on the basis he has 'betrayed' a 'pact' the threesome made before the baby was conceived, in which they allegedly agreed he would have 'limited' parental rights. The parents are not being named in order to protect the little boy's identity, but are reportedly all highly-paid professionals living in central London.

The father is said to have attended the baby's birth and currently has five hours of contact a fortnight with him. He claims he was always more than just a sperm donor, and now wants the right to have a full parenting role in his son's life. The Appeal Court heard that the man had been 'utterly consistent' in his desire to parent the little boy, and gained 'pleasure and joy' from interacting with his son.

The child's mum, however, says they had a 'clearly agreed' pact with the man before the baby was even conceived, which stated she and her female partner would be the 'primary parents' within a 'two-parent, nuclear family'. The court heard that the man was previously in a marriage of convenience with the woman which ended in divorce.

The Appeal Court judges are now being asked to rule whether the toddler would the better off with 'three parents and two homes'. The lawyer for the mum and her partner said the couple had been left with 'bitterness and betrayal' and would have used an anonymous sperm donor if they had known the dad would take this stance.

Charles Howard QC, told the court: "Notwithstanding their sexuality and that they acknowledge to that extent that they are an alternative family, the mother and her partner hold very traditional views of family life and would not have chosen to bring a child into anything other than an intact, two-parent, family.

"The ideal upbringing for a child is a stable home in which the parents love each other and had together chosen to bring a child into the world. This is the upbringing which the mother and her partner always wanted to create for this little boy. They were always of the view that their son's best interests militated against him spending very much time away from them or from his home.

"The intention was always that the father, who was at one time their close friend, would generally see the boy in their company by sharing in activities and family events. The breakdown of the friendship has had the result that the boy is spending far more time away from his primary parents than they had anticipated."

"To this couple, the concept of 'three parents, two homes' repeated so often by the father, is very alien and has never been something they could consider. This is something which they have had to accept but it represents a significant departure from their initial plans for their son's upbringing. They cannot conceive of their child being shuttled, physically but more significantly emotionally, between two homes and it is something that they believe will harm their son and cause significant emotional damage."

The dad's lawyer said his client had no desire to undermine the role of the mum and her partner as the child's primary carers, but wants sufficient contact with the toddler to enable a 'developing relationship' with his only son. What a messy situation!

This article shows the importance of setting out clear intentitions between recipients and donors prior to conception and that legal sperm donor agreements must be put in place to help with any possible future disputes. Read more about sperm donor legal rights.
www.prideangel.com

Article: 7th February 2012 www.parentdish.co.uk

A reaction video posted by user charper 140 on 11 December 2010 of a gay couple hearing the news that they are to be grandparents has gone viral after a year on popular self-broadcasting site, YouTube.

Titled "We told Dads they're going to be Grandpas", the video depicts a family gathering of the two men and a young woman in a kitchen in America, a third man is filming.

The cameraman asks the couple: "So, tell me what it's going to be like, now that you two are going to be grandpas".

The reaction of sheer joy and disbelief, in particular displayed by the man in white, has become a huge hit across the web. Although it is unclear why the video has suddenly become so popular.

Comments include, "I challenge anyone (with a brain, heart or soul) to see such genuine love and tell them it's wrong."

"Every child should be born into a house with this much love and joy, the world would be a much better place."

The most popular comment, currently standing at 55 Vote Ups, stands firm with YouTube's satirical following: "Hold on, THIS is what's destroying my traditional family?"

In second place comes "This is why same sex marriage should be legal" with 17 votes.

Article: 16th December 2011 www.gaystarnews.com

Gay,lesbian wishing to become parents? find your parenting match with pride at Pride Angel