UK: Three’s A Crowd?

Last Updated: 24 July 2012
Article by Richard Adams

Few will have missed the recent coverage in the press in which it was claimed that the Court of Appeal in A v B [2012] 'allowed' a two-year old boy, born to a lesbian couple and their gay male friend, to have three parents instead of two. It follows several recent high-profile cases in which the courts have grappled with disputes relating to 'alternative families'. But beyond the headlines, the judgment of Thorpe LJ, Black LJ and Sir John Chadwick reaffirms key principles regarding co-parenting arrangements and raises important issues for the future.


The boy was conceived following an agreement at a dinner party between the mothers and the father. Interestingly, the biological mother was from a religious background, and so she and the father married two years before the birth to alleviate any difficulties she might face while pregnant. While the exact nature of their intended roles was subsequently disputed, it was agreed that the boy would live with the mothers.

Difficulties in the relationship between the father and mothers soon appeared during the pregnancy and the father applied for a defined contact order shortly following the child's birth. The mothers then applied for a joint residence order and a specific issue order in relation to the father's parental responsibility.

First instance

The case came before HHJ Jenkins who made a joint residence order in the mothers' favour, and an order for contact with the father for six hours once a fortnight, remarking that the father's role would be secondary, with no staying contact, for the foreseeable future. He held that the case was not in any way analogous to a divorce model, and therefore consideration of an equivalent contact regime was inappropriate. He said that:

Any benefit [from developing the relationship] that accrues is likely to be outweighed by what I consider is likely to be confusion and disruption and the potential disruption of the relationship between the mothers and the child, and it is that relationship which provides the nurture, stability and security.

Father's position

The father appealed and, as Thorpe LJ noted, the appeal was largely directed at the judgment, as it would have been hard for the father to show a deficit in the contact order. However, while the HHJ Jenkins' comments would not bind a judge in the future, the effect was equivalent to a prohibition of staying contact without the court's permission for three to four years. The father argued that the judge had effectively frozen what would otherwise be the normal development of the relationship with the child.

Mothers' position

The position of the mothers was that the judge had been concerned with contact only in the immediate future and so the Court of Appeal should be reluctant to interfere with that. Pointing to a string of recent decisions, they argued that it was inappropriate for the father to seek to apply nuclear family arrangements to a gay family where one parent was not exercising primary care. They stressed that great importance should be placed upon the agreement between the adults.


The court found in the father's favour, allowing his appeal and remitting the case to a Family Division judge for consideration of all relevant welfare factors. Thorpe LJ gave the leading judgment with a detailed analysis of the issues by Black LJ in support. Thorpe LJ found that HHJ Jenkins should have concluded that the issue of whether the relationship between the father and the child should be encouraged to develop had to be decided in stages in light of the accumulating evidence. There were too many unforeseeable factors to declare the future as he did.

Guidance for 'alternative families'

Whether it was possible to provide general guidance to cases involving alternative families has been something the courts have struggled with for some time, with Hedley J commenting in the similar case of Re WB [2011] that providing general guidance was 'fraught with risk'. In Re P and L [2011], however, he subsequently emphasised the following:

  • the importance of agreeing the future roles of the parties before a child is born;
  • warning against the use of stereotypes; and
  • that the level of contact should be determined with the primary purpose of reflecting the role that has either been agreed or has been discerned from the conduct of the parties.

Black LJ had initially given permission for the appeal in A v B on the basis that it related to 'Important issues relating to the courts' approach to children born into 'alternative families' and the relationship of such children with their fathers'. However, on appeal she found there could not be any general guidance for such cases as each was so fact-specific, a recurring point made by both her and Thorpe LJ.

Paramountcy of welfare

Far from there being general guidance that could be given, Thorpe LJ reasserted that the only principle was that of paramountcy of the child's welfare and found that the judge at first instance had made a fundamental error in seeking to draw a yardstick from previous cases and apply it as a general authority. This ignored the commitment that the father had sought to provide and Thorpe LJ commented that:

It is generally accepted that a child gains by having two parents. It does not follow from that that the addition of a third is necessarily disadvantageous. As part of that, Thorpe LJ disagreed with Hedley J's views regarding contact in these cases, finding that the primary purpose of contact was to promote the child's welfare, not reflect previously agreed roles.

An important distinction, and one not made in the news reports, is that Thorpe LJ did not find that the child in this case, or any child, should benefit from a third parent, but that it should not be excluded from consideration. Focusing on the wishes of the parents can insufficiently weigh the welfare and developing rights of the child. This is an important point as, while it may be wrong to take 'traditional families' as a model for all, the child's welfare remains at the heart of the law.

Roles of the parents

There has been little consensus in the courts as to how to define and treat the various adults involved in the conception and care of children born to 'alternative families'. HHJ Jenkins referred to the well-known definitions provided by Baroness Hale in Re G [2006], which distinguished between biological, gestational, and psychological and social parenting, finding that the father was a biological, but not psychological parent.

Thorpe LJ did not directly engage with those definitions, but referred to Hedley J's comments in Re B contemplating the use of the principle of primary and secondary parenting in such cases, which Thorpe declined to endorse. He noted that while here the father was only on the threshold of providing secondary care, viewing a father as a secondary parent had the danger of demeaning him where he may otherwise have an important role. Black LJ also commented that the habit of referring to a biological father as a known donor should be reconsidered.

Thus there should be a distinction between the roles of parents and those of primary and secondary carers. A father may not even be providing secondary care, but could be considered a parent with a valuable role to play. This appears to reflect the importance placed by Baroness Hale in Re G upon the biological connection between parent and child.

Pre-conception intentions and Agreement

Advisors have for some time stressed the importance of obtaining co-parenting agreements before starting the process of conception, and there has been some debate as to whether they could or should be binding. Black LJ firmly took the view that while the intentions were relevant factors, they could not be determinative. While any such agreement cannot be considered a legal contract, she noted that it would be sensible for people to consider and spell out, in as much detail, what they contemplate will be the arrangements.

This must be right, as it would not be in the child's best interests to determine, before conception, what role each parent will always play. However, a common factor in cases involving alternative families has been the lack of considered and detailed agreement between the prospective parents before conception took place. Even where roles have been considered, there appear to have been misapprehensions (whether retrospective or otherwise) as to the exact nature of their role which may have been smoothed out in pre-conception discussions.

Available orders

Black LJ said that consideration should be given to whether other available orders might assist in addressing particular difficulties or concerns that the parents have. Both here and in T v T [2010], a joint residence order was made between the mothers to alleviate their anxiety about the arrangements if the biological mother died. However, in T v T, Black LJ noted that such considerations would not regularly tip the balance in favour of a joint residence order.

Parental responsibility

The appeal was not directly concerned with parental responsibility, but this is an issue central to families as much, if not more, than contact arrangements. HHJ Jenkins, in making the joint residence order, stressed the importance of parental responsibility, noting the status and responsibilities that it conveyed. This raises an interesting issue in that the father in this case had parental responsibility as a result of his marriage to the biological mother, but while no restrictions were placed on this by the judge at first instance, his comments about the status conveyed would appear to conflict with the order he made. While the cases in this area in which the father is married to the biological mother are likely to be few, the issue of parental responsibility remains a thorny one. In the similar case of R v E and F [2010], Bennett J dismissed a father's application for parental responsibility and held that a key element of parenting involved taking decisions and exercising responsibilities in relation to the child. Other recent cases have also refused to grant parental responsibility to the father or restricted the exercise of it. Each case is of course fact-specific, but a situation in which contact is allowed to develop, but where parental responsibility is restricted, can be envisaged.

Role of the second mother

The second mother was understandably concerned about her vulnerability without a residence order in the event that the biological mother died, and anxiety around the role the non-biological mother plays has been a feature within many such cases. The court was not directly concerned with the details of her role in this case, although implied that they see her as a primary parent in the same manner as the biological mother and father.

However, with Re G still the leading authority in relation to disputes between two mothers, and in which primary care was given to the biological mother in large part due to that biological connection, there may still be concerns about the role of the second mother in the event the relationship between the mothers break down. Both Re G and this case place importance on the biological connection, and it will be interesting to see if future decisions continue in this vein. It is important to note that here, and in other cases, the second mother will not be the legal parent of the child, and many will remember T v B [2010] in which Moylan J held that there was no financial obligation by the second mother, who had joint residence but was not the civil partner of the biological mother. It is clear that there are still anomalies relating to this area that the courts can do little to counter, and so primary legislation will be required.


This will not be the last, or even definitive, case involving alternative families, and, given the emphasis on each case being fact-specific, it could never be. This is due to the variety in the methods by which such families are formed, and the assortment of intended and actual roles that each adult involved can have. However, it provides helpful clarification to those entering into such arrangements, and those advising them, that while they may not be analogous to the more traditional models, the key principles remain the same.

Some critics of the judgment have complained that this is likely to lead to increasing number of lesbian couples conceiving using anonymous donors through a licensed clinic, which would enable both to be legal parents following the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, and that men will find it more difficult to enter into co-parenting arrangements as a result. It is clear from A v B, and cases like it, that whatever path is taken, it is vital that careful thought is given to the best avenue for conception, and the legal and practical rights and responsibilities for each adult involved, to help avoid the acrimonious and traumatic disputes that end up in court.

A v B & anor [2012] EWCA Civ 285

Re G (Children) [2006] UKHL 43

Re P and L [2011] EWHC 343

R v E and F (Female Parents: Known Father) [2010] 2 FLR 383

T v B [2010] EWHC 1444 Fam T v T (Joint Residence) [2010] EWCA Civ 1366 Re WB (children) (contact) [2011] EWHC 3431 (Fam)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.