Pride Angel

The news has recently highlighted a number of high profile cases involving disputes within lesbian families and alternative family structures. Primarily these concern fathers or known donors seeking more of a relationship with their child than they originally wished for. However, another interesting and sadly increasing area we are witnessing is the breakdown of relationships in two-mother lesbian parent families.

As with any relationship breakdown, issues to be dealt with include division of the finances, any civil partnership dissolution and with whom any children will live (as well as contact with the non-resident parent). But these types of divorce cases have a more complex dynamic, with difficult legal and social questions arising from the mismatched biological (and often legal) status of the two female parents.

To date there has been very little judicial guidance as to how much weight the family court will place on the importance of being a birth mother in divorce proceedings, and whether in such cases the birth history and biological link should be considered more important than the relationship between the non-birth mother and the child.

Of course every case is unique, but the two main cases so far where the court has considered and explored these issues in principle make for very interesting reading.

The first case was that of Re G [2006] UKHL 43 which involved a difficult dispute about where the children conceived by a lesbian couple through artificial insemination should live following their separation. The High Court and Court of Appeal ruled that the non-birth mother should have primary care of the two children (mainly because the birth mother had behaved badly and removed the children to Cornwall deliberately to obstruct her former partner’s relationship with the children). However, in a landmark judgment the House of Lords ruled that the lower courts had not given sufficient weight to the fact that the birth mother was the biological mother of the children and ordered that the children should continue to live with her. The House of Lords expressly stated that the lower courts had placed too much weight on the behaviour of the birth mother and not enough on the biological basis of her relationship. This was a ‘significant consideration which was of importance’. Being the birth mother is, it seems, significant.

The more recent case of T v B [2010] EWHC 1444 (Fam) involved a lesbian couple who were not civil partners but had lived together for many years and had undergone fertility treatment to conceive a child together. Once the child was born they both undertook the role of parents. Although the law at the time did not recognise the non-birth mother as a legal parent, she sought – and was given by the court – parental responsibility, which meant she had full legal authority to take decisions as a parent and to be involved in her child’s care. Following separation the birth mother applied to the courts for financial provision from the non-birth mother. The court ruled that as the non-birth mother was not a legal parent she had no financial obligation despite the fact that she had to all intents and purposes been a ‘parent’ to them from the very start. The court was somewhat constrained by the wording of the law (and its frustration was evident) but it was clear in this case that whether you were a birth mother or not was deeply significant.

When the court are considering cases involving disputes about care arrangements for children, the court has a range of factors it has to take into consideration. These include: the child’s age, sex and background; their physical, emotional, educational needs; the effect of any change in circumstances; their ascertainable wishes and feelings; any harm the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering and how capable each parent is in meeting the child’s needs. The welfare of the child will be the court’s paramount consideration and any decision made by the court will be based on what the court considers to be in the child’s best interests. In practice this gives a lot of flexibility, although it is clear that the court is inclined to place weight on the importance of the biological link with the birth mother. In relation to child maintenance questions, this bias is more institutional, with clear legal rules which make only legal parents (and their spouses) financially responsible.

On 6 April 2009 the law in the UK changed to allow two mothers to be named on the birth certificate, recognising them both as the legal parents and giving them both financial responsibility for their children. It is notable that both of the birth mother vs non-birth mother cases have involved children born before this legal change. Whether or not the new law will give greater weight to the non-birth mother’s position waits to be seen (although this will certainly be the case in relation to financial questions). Things are likely to be muddied further by the increasing blurring of the lines between birth and biological parenthood for lesbian couples. We are certainly seeing more egg swapping cases, where an egg has been taken from the non birth mother, fertilised and then transferred to the birth mother. Where parents in these situations separate, will the birth mother or the biological mother be the one with the upper hand?

Same-sex divorces are undoubtedly legally complex where children are involved. In a dispute over a child within an alternative family structure, an argument often run is the importance of the biological link, and the genetic identity of the child. With changes to the law and even more complex family structures emerging, it will be interesting to see how the court responds.

Article: by Sarah Wood-Heath of NatalieGambleAssociates; originally published 8th May 2012 www.bionews.org.uk

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

A trans man is believed to have become the UK’s first ‘male mother’ to give birth despite having already had gender reassignment surgery. According to the Sunday Times, the man in his thirties gave birth to a child last year via a caesarean section.

Joanna Darrell, of the Beaumont Society, which helps men who wish to or have changed gender told the newspaper that the unnamed father got in touch to enquire for help having a child after having undergone surgery.

Through the charity, the unnamed man had hormone treatment to reactivate his womb. The womb had not actually been removed during his original surgery. “He got back in touch about six months ago to thank the society for its help and to say he had the baby,” Ms Darrell said.

Thomas Beatie, a trans man who lives legally in his acquired gender in the United States, conceived and has given birth to three children since 2007. His wife Nancy is unable to conceive. The Oregon couple’s first daughter was born in June 2008 and a son followed a year later and a son in 2010.

Despite being legally defined as a man for over ten years and having had some gender reassignment surgery, Beatie kept his female reproductive organs. He is thought to have had natural births with his three children and his wife breastfed both.

Before starting a family, Beatie had been on hormone treatments, but stopped taking them in order to resume menstruating and conceive through artificial insemination. All children were conceived with the help of sperm donors.

Last month, Yuval Topper, became the first Israeli trans man to give birth. Mr Topper underwent gender confirmation surgery three years ago. He was travelling to Jerusalem, but stopped to give birth in Tel Aviv.

There is a cancer risk associated with retaining a uterus and ovaries after they are exposed to high levels of testosterone associated with gender reassignment which means many choose to have them removed. Christopher Inglefield, a surgeon specialising in gender reassignment surgery told the Sunday Times: “The obvious thing is to get them to store eggs before they have the surgery, so they can have babies later using a female surrogate.”

But not everyone is supportive of trans men having children. Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary’s University College told the newspaper: “The fact that the medical profession is facilitating and encouraging this is a serious problem. You are hardly going to end up with a baby that’s going to have a happy, productive and optimal childhood.”

Are you gay, lesbian or transgender, wishing to find a known sperm or egg donor? visit www.prideangel.com

Currently rated 1.7 by 52 people

• Currently 1.673077/5 Stars.
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5