Beware! For That Way Lies... SANITY!
Here's what happened:
A lesbian couple, both white collar professionals (if that matters to you) who have been in a committed relationship since 1996 had a child using sperm donated by a long time friend of theirs a few years back (2001). The biological father sees his child twice a week, and had legal standing as a parent and legal guardian along with the mother.
The female partner, supported by the biological parents, applied to become a parent of the child she had been helping raise over the past five years. Under current law, if she had succeeded, the father would then no longer have been considered a legal guardian; this was something none of the adults wanted.
Hence Justice David Aston's decision to have three parents on the child's birth certificate.
He expressed concern that this ruling could "open the floodgates" to other legal actions by step-parents and extended families, but could not see justifying the exclusion of one parent from legal rights to what was, in his words, "a bright, healthy, happy individual who is obviously thriving in a loving family thatmeets his every need."
Now here's the self-interest:
My brother is married. The woman he is married to has two daughters by a previous marriage. I won't go into details, but the biological father is not exactly a world-class individual; but he hasn't actually done anything illegal. Now, while this helps my brother look great in comparison, he still cannot actually become the legal guardian to the girls who call him dad because that role is supposedly filled by the biological parents.
Meaning if anything happens to his wife, the kids go back to a support-skipping couch surfer.
Oops! Did I say that out loud?
With this ruling, there's a chance my brother could keep the kids with him, or at the very least retain visitation rights, should the children lose their mother.
Can anyone tell me why that would be a bad thing?