| Access for father ordered in case of lesbian mother |
| Reproduced from The Irish Times - Monday, June 7, 2010 |
McD -v- L Anor Neutral citation: (2010) IEHC 120.
High Court Judgment was given by Mr Justice John Hedigan on April 21st, 2010. |
Judgment
The biological father of a child born to a lesbian couple should be permitted direct access to the child, in the presence of an independent third party, and should have regular contact through e-mail, gifts and, eventually, Skype. His true relationship with the child should not be revealed by him, but by the women, at a time they consider to be appropriate, and he should not play a parenting role. |
Background
The Supreme Court ruled on January 25th, 2010, that the biological father of a child born to a lesbian woman with her partner should have access to the child.
Before the child’s birth, the father, who is gay, had agreed to be a sperm donor and to be a “favourite uncle” in the life of the child. However, when the child was born, he sought a bigger role, including structured access. This was opposed by the two women.
The Supreme Court ruled that a “de facto family” did not exist in Irish law and could not command protection. It ruled that the father should have access to the child and referred the case back to the High Court to determine how that access should be exercised.
Counsel for the women argued that it was open to the court to delay direct access for another two years, until the child was six years old. She said the respondents felt threatened by the applicant father and feared he would reveal to the child the reality of their relationship and cause insecurity and upset.
Circumstances had changed, in that the respondents had relocated to Australia. The applicant had indicated his desire to make contact with the child initially through presents and cards, then via e-mail and in the longer term, Skype. He would like the opportunity to travel to Australia and meet the child, which the respondents opposed. |
Decision
Mr Justice Hedigan said he had difficulty with the respondents’ interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling. He noted that the Chief Justice had agreed with Ms Justice Susan Denham, who had ordered access to the child, and had stated that this was in the best interests of the child.
She also referred to the benefit of the child’s having “the society of his father”. She clearly contemplated that this would involve direct meetings, a view shared by a majority of the court.
“In my judgment, the access that the Supreme Court has ordered includes, where possible, direct contact,” he said.
He ordered the following arrangements:
(a) E-mail contact should be opened between the applicant and the respondents and he should inform them of his proposed dates of travel to Australia, which should be between the end of June and the end of August.
(b) He should have access to the child by meeting him in the company of one or both of the respondents and an independent third party, who should be a social worker from the area.
(c) He should meet the child on three evenly spaced occasions on his trip. The first meeting should be for at least half an hour, the second at least an hour and the third at least an hour and a half.
(d) The meetings should take place in a child-friendly environment such as a zoo, an aquarium or a children’s museum. The applicant would be introduced as “John”. He could bring a gift and, with the permission of the respondents, he could take photographs.
(f) Starting two weeks before his departure, he should receive reports on the boy’s wellbeing and photographs, which should then be furnished on a quarterly basis. He could send cards and a gift on the child’s birthday and at Christmas, St Patrick’s Day, Easter and Halloween.
(g) If the respondents travelled to Europe with the child, they should let him know so that he could make an arrangement to meet the child during the visit.
(h) The respondents would, when appropriate, encourage the child to communicate with the applicant by e-mail.
(i) They would also encourage him to establish friendly relations with the applicant and, at their discretion, they would reveal to him, when it was age appropriate, that he was his biological father.
These orders were conditional on the applicant accepting to play the role of “favourite uncle”, not revealing his biological paternity, seeking no parental role in the child’s upbringing and acknowledging and accepting the familial integrity of the respondents and the child.
The full judgment is on www.courts.ie |
| Your contact for Family Law issues: |
