One Child, Two Mothers, One Father

JUDGEMENT:

Application allowed, for the following reasons:

[Please Note: this is a very generalized summary of the judgment - too many considerations in the Australian context were looked at so I tried to incorporate them automatically into the summary and explain them at the same time.]


1. In the interests of the child:

In deciding an issue such as this, Australian legislation requires a court to regard the bests interests of P (and any other child) as the PARAMOUNT consideration - it was such considerations of what were P's best interests which formed the cornerstone of the judgment and remained its final determinant.


On application, P had a loving relationship with the mother and her co-parent, but also was familiar and loving, without force or coercion with the father - P was comfortable and enjoyed the father's company and gained significant reward and benefit from their mutual interaction. The father had sensitively, with compassion and understanding approached this unique family circle and could still give P many advantages during P's development.


2. what is a "parent":

(This was an issue which worked against the father), for there was no legislation nor court case/precedent which specifically addressed the issue of whether a sperm donor, anonymous or known was a parent, but generally the full court had held that a sperm donor for a lesbian couple was not a parent.

In regards to legislation it was provided that the child was a child of the biological father and the latter was a parent only if the subjected legislation of that jurisdiction expressly conferred such status on a sperm donor, which in the current jurisdiction and case, there was no such situation.


Therefore prima facie the father was not a parent, but Justice Guest had held that looking at the practical situation, of the father's love and active role as a parent it was difficult to understand why he should be excluded as being a "parent" merely on legal technicalities. The judge called for extensive review and change in this part of the legislation.


3. the orders sought:

The orders sought by the father were sensible and carefully considered proposals with a graduated increase in his contact with P and underpinned a responsible awareness to the current situation and promotion of P's best interests alone.


[To make a long judgment short, the orders sought were agreed by the judge with variances as he thought appropriate.]

It was reported that the orders and its consequences caused much distress to the mother - she was reported to have been extremely upset when her son came home smelling of his father's body odour and gave him a fierce bathing and doused him with other oils. She made sure that the father complied with the orders to the letter and gave personal limits, such as how many books he could give to P, what photos he could and could not show P, what music he and P could listen to and forbade the father again and again to encourage P of any father-son relationship.



A TRAGIC CONCLUSION:


There is a sad ending to this whole family situation. A few months after the above happenings, the mother and her son were found dead in their home - P had been killed by his mother, who then hanged herself on the back veranda. P was only three years old. The judge was extremely distressed when the counsel who represented the father contacted the judge with the sad news and has said publicly that sometimes he (the judge) blames himself for the two deaths at times: he doubts his judgement's accuracy and wonders whether he had overlooked any of the facts and other considerations when giving judgment. As he has said to one academic: "I began to feel I was my fault…"


It has been commonly agreed however that the judge did nothing wrong. Academics and lawyers have read his judgement and agree that he did not "turn a deaf ear to the mother's claims" but rather gave the appropriate considerations to both sides and their family and psychiatric witnesses. He had hoped for the best in deciding this case - the best being that the public maybe would come to terms with today's evolving definition of "family" - that it could include homosexual families or blend in with the traditional definition of "family."

MY OBSERVATIONS:

My feelings over this complex and maybe controversial case are brief: I agree completely with Justice Guest and the academics whom defend his judgement.


I cannot see the sense behind the mother and her partner's restrictions, complete and utter unreasonable restrictions on a man who was none other than a simple loving father who fathered a child and wanted to participate in the son's life and growing up.


I would not blame them if the father was a convicted criminal or a sexual offender. I would not blame them if he was a violent man.


But he wasn't. He was merely a male who had fathered a son and had entered the contract in good faith, only to have the contract attempted to be terminated and court case after court case to obtain what most fathers would regard as an occasion taken for granted.


It has been suggested that Justice Guest may have been too sympathetic to the husband's and father's cause and thus indirectly or unconscionably ignored the mother's pleas. I refute this, via two arguments:

- the judgements and academic commentary as above already prove this possibility an impossibility

- mothers and wives always have been given much benefit in such cases and I believe it is high time that the fathers and husbands should be given an EQUAL, not lessor opportunity, to be heard. There is no proof that sole and/or single father's make bad or unsatisfactory parents compared to women - I am living proof that the opposite is the case as I have been raised by my father, ever since I was born and I would vehemently disagree with women who attempt to argue that only mothers can look after children - and believe it or not but such women/mother groups do exist in Australia.

What a tragedy.

I too agree that the judge made the right decision. No one suggested that the mother was so unstable.

I have not heard so many people saying fathers are not fit to raise their children. I've known several single, widowed, whatever fathers who have raised their children. My father's first wife died in child-birth and he raised my brother for three years on his own.

I really don't see any relation to this case and to the idea that father's are unfit to raise children.

I don't think the judge made the wrong decision at all. If anything was overlooked - not by the judge, but by all of those who knew this woman who was the mother - it was probably the fact that she (as Boomerang said), was unstable.

I'm not stereotyping lesbians at all - and I fully realize that every person is different, whatever their sexual preference- but this particular case has some really interesting undertones. Given the fact that this woman was a lesbian, at the very least she may have been unfamiliar and unused to dealing with men on an emotional and intellectual level - which is what needs to happen when a man and a woman are parenting a child together. She seems to have had an abnormally strong revulsion to this man who was the father- finding it necessary to scrub his scent from the boy's skin, etc. I wonder if her insistence in terms of knowing what music and books the father gave the boy to read had something to do with an unreasonable fear that this father might indoctrinate the boy to become "macho" or gain other "unsavory" male traits.

Really, really sad for this boy - the mom was obsessive - that's for certain- if only everyone had had a crystal ball. I credit the father for taking such a strong, loving interest in the little boy. What happened to the other woman involved, Prag? (Interesting case by the way - give us more as you find them, okay?)

Not sure - didn't see it in the article. Probably for privacy reasons they didn't say anything.



Will do - I like to share these issues with everyone else. Did you see the alphomega thread - I put an australian case there about two conjoined twins:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1409858#1409858

Love your new signature by the way - but will miss seeing your sweet face on your avatar. Oh well, the bird is nice too..are you an animal lover by any chance?

very much!! Dogs are my favourite animals but I love all nature in common. I love looking at flowers as well - so many different shapes and sizes.

(PS - you do realise that the photo wasn't me? :wink: I wish I looked like her!)

You're up so early! What time is it in Australia? I really find the cases you post interesting. It's funny - I often thought if I ever went back to school for anything - it'd be in law. I was interested in child advocacy as a matter of fact. I volunteered as a guardian ad litem (sp)? - sometimes my spelling really stinks - is it litem or litum - I can't remember. Anyway - I trained to do that and did that for several cases about ten years ago. Found it fascinating, but in the end it was stressful because of the awesome responsibility I felt - my words making the difference in a child's life - and what if I made a mistake in judgement that cost that child dearly? I feel for the judge in this case- and every case....

Not at all early!! It is now 3 pm in the afternoon - if it weren't the holidays, students would usually be coming home from school now!! What made you think it was early here?



Thank you. everyone has that reaction to law generally, no matter what jurisdiction we are in.

Its a pity you did not take on law (but education is that correct?). We could have really talked about many things!! I always find talks with people on a2K who have done law or social science are very interesting and at times, aggressive!

Just because I'm not a lawyer or a sociologist - you can still talk to me about this stuff - sheesh - come on Prag! I have a brain, I can think - don't let the fact that I'm in education fool you :wink:

It's early here, and I have no idea what the time difference is between here and Australia. Now I know - about nine hours, huh- unless you guys are a day behind us - then it would be l5 yours earlier. So is it nine hours later or l5 hours earlier? (See, I'm always willing to learn new things.)

Are you particularly interested in cases that involve children? I was wondering if this was a particular interest of yours due to your situation with your mother. I know that's a personal subject - so don't feel compelled to answer here - if you want to talk about that sometime though, feel free to let me know.

I did read the other case. I didn't have anything to add that hadn't already been said. I can see both sides though. When you're a parent it is an unspeakable choice to have to sacrifice one of your children to save the other. I can see where the parents were coming from - but also agree the practical and probably most humane decision was made.

Oh, I'm sorry - I didn't mean to degrade you!! Come, I'm not a snob that only talks to those in my class!! If anything, although I find it interesting to talk to those who did do law - I also find it insightful and a good learning experience to talk to those who are specialists in other fields. Thats the way to go in life - you're never too old to learn!!



Its Friday 3:11 pm. Whats it over there in the UK?



Thank you for your kindness as well as a listening ear. As for my interest in these cases - the one on this thread certainly had my attention due to my personal circusmtances. As for the other thread about the conjoined twins, I actually found that interesting due to my stance as a Roman Catholic but also because I am a liberal in many ways and this case seemed to address all issues and all sides.



My belief exactly but I can't help but wonder how the parents will feel or act towards their remaining daughter, knowing that in a way, this girl was "unwanted", if you know what I mean.

It's 6:14 Friday - so you guys are ahead of us.

Very perceptive (as usual) of you to make this observation about the parents' attitudes toward their living daughter. I know exactly what you mean. They may elevate the status of their dead child to "martyr" and hold this little girl somewhat responsible. That would be so sad for her. It would be interesting to watch this family - from a sociological or psychological standpoint to see what ramifications and manifestations of this whole scenario work themselves out on their dynamics as a family.

Where do you go to school?

Oh, thank you!! You make me blush!



In a Queensland university. Why do you ask?

Just trying to be polite and show an interest in you. Do you find school draining? How much longer do you have to go before you get your degree? I think you'll make a great lawyer - you seem to care a lot about these issues and look at all angles from a kind and empathetic, but also pragmatic point of view.

Do you practice your Catholocism?

Thank you! I appreciate that - its easier to talk to someone once you know a bit more about them at times.



Tiring at times yes, especially during exams, but then I am not alone. I plan to graduate around mid 2007 and maybe take the next 6 months off travelling but plans are still iffy. Maybe no travel at all!!



Thank you, that's what I aim to do in all cases I look at - what is the moral side and what is the practical side. But I am more of a practical/pragmatic person so if faced with two opposing views, I take the more realistic perspective. Its a bit cruel sometimes - my teacher was saying to me once, "If I had a problem I would come and find you, but not if I needed to borrow money!"



As much as possible, but with my personality, I find myself opposing the church 50% of the time.

are you of any religion?

I was raised Baptist in the US. It definitely informs who I am as a person, and what I believe - but like you, I disagree with a lot of the stances of the church - especially as it has evolved in the US-mostly from a social standpoint- because I tend to have a more liberal, non-judgemental approach - although I do believe in accountability and responsibility and the need to behave morally and ethically.

I loved my church when I was growing up though. For me what I took from it is love your neighbor as yourself, judge not, lest ye be judged - treat others as you would be treated - you know all the big, important things that make a person a kind, loving person able to function in an imperfect world. But I don't go to church anymore - and sometimes I feel guilty about not bringing my children.

Would you take your children to church if you had them?

Maybe - it depends on whether they even want to believe in that religion. If they rathered another, i wouldn't force them - no point. But if they were curious, I would encourage them to try it out.

That seems like a good attitude to take.

What do Australians in general, or specifically you, if you don't feel comfortable speaking for everyone in your country, think of all the political/religious mayhem going on in the US right now?