Cases that end up in the Family Court are generally the result of a breakdown in adult family relationships. Where a family has been created outside of the heteronormative model, cracks can emerge when expectations are not fulfilled or have been misunderstood. This case is an example where the three parent model just did not work in practice.

In F v J and Others [2024] EWHC 2802 (fam)  https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2024/2802.html an application was made  by F for child arrangements orders and a Parental Responsibility order regarding 11-month-old L. The case was heard by Mr Justice Trowell in the High Court of Justice, Family Division. The respondents were J (L's biological mother), B (J's wife who has parental responsibility via a stepparent agreement), and L (represented by a Guardian).

Background

F and J were longstanding friends who had discussed having a child together since their teenage years. J approached F initially as a sperm donor, which he declined, but later agreed to be an active father. J and F proceeded with fertility treatment, with J as the sole legal parent. During this process, J formed a relationship with B, whom she later married. The three adults initially planned to co-parent L together and even rented a property jointly, but their relationship deteriorated over disagreements about their respective roles. F was asked to move out shortly before L's birth in November 2023.

Legal Issues

The court considered two main issues: whether F should have Parental Responsibility for L and what contact arrangements should be made. F sought Parental Responsibility and contact building up to 4 days and nights each fortnight. The respondents opposed Parental Responsibility and initially proposed limited contact once every 8 weeks. The Guardian ultimately recommended starting with contact every 8 weeks (initially 1 hour, building to 4 hours), then after 10-12 months shifting to every 4 weeks, with duration extending to 6-8 hours when L reaches 3ó years old.

Expert Evidence

Dr Pettle, a consultant clinical psychologist, recommended that contact every 8 weeks was inappropriate as L would not retain memory of F between visits. She recommended contact every 4 weeks instead. The Guardian initially recommended contact every 8 weeks due to concerns about J's ability to cope, but modified her position to eventually transition to every 4 weeks after a period of stability.

Court's Decision

The court ordered contact in line with the Guardian's final recommendation: starting at every 8 weeks with increasing duration, then moving to every 4 weeks after 12 months (6 sessions). When L reaches 3 ½ , contact would increase to 6 hours, with an option for up to 8 hours. The court declined to grant F Parental Responsibility, citing concerns about destabilising J, but ordered that F be notified of significant developments in L's life, including health issues, name changes, adoption plans, and any intention to move L out of the jurisdiction.

Conclusion

Mr Justice Trowell emphasised that the order was a baseline and encouraged the parties to agree additional contact as appropriate. He urged all parties to work together in L's best interests, noting that while their relationships had become strained, all three adults had much to offer L, and the order was designed to allow L to benefit from a relationship with his biological father while maintaining stability in his primary home environment.