Additional Information for Past and To Come|
I suspect that "pre-parental" agreements, by analogy with pre-nups, will become more common. Although I must say that no matter how careful a drafter is, the problem that actually emerges tends to be one that was not contemplated by the agreement!
|Date:||January 18th, 2007 04:30 pm (UTC)|| |
Yes, there is that. And there's also just the fact of people changing their minds! And, unlike with pre-nups, when parental disagreements go to court the guiding factor is not what was originally agreed upon, but "the best interests of the child" as judged by the court. And that's how an ex of mine is coparenting 50/50 with her known donor, with whom she had an unambiguous agreement, in writing, that he would never be a custodial parent.
This Ontario case was one where they did want the donor to be a father, albeit a non-custodial one, but lots of lesbian couples choose known donors for other reasons - they want complete medical history or they don't want to pay for semen. And many a man feels like a sperm donor going into this whole enterprise but like a father later.
Who's the guy in your icon, btw?
I look forward to a day when courts give equal weight to the wishes of female as male litigants, although I'm not sure I'll be around to see it.
My default icon is Dr. Simon Tam of Firefly & Serenity--here's another look.
|Date:||January 18th, 2007 08:59 pm (UTC)|| |
Although I'm sure you're right on the gender issue in courts in general, I don't think that's what's operating in these cases. I think it's a preference for giving legal rights first and foremost to the legally married and in the absence of a legal marriage, granting rights to the biological parent. I see it as an overvaluing of genetic connection, not an overvaluing of male contribution...