I agree that our current legal system has no room for the subleties of our family structures… and until there is a structural change in the legal system so that the intentions of the people creating a family are honored no matter what form that takes (be it two moms, two dads, two couples, two moms and a donor, two dads and a surrogate, three equal parents of any combination of genders, or what have you) it just seems like a bad idea to get courts involved at all. But then how do we change things in a land where the fear and old paradigms seem to rule the legislature if we don’t work through the courts? That’s what I’d like to know, because a court ruling just seems so darned authoritarian and final.

I think it’s awful when a known donor tries to get rights from one of the moms, and I in no way condone any court rulings that promote that. I’m also, however, searching for a way that families who want an involved known donor can do so, and ensure he can’t just run off at some point after he agrees to be part of their child’s life. Maybe the problem is that our current legal system has no category for a person with that status–someone who isn’t a primary parent, but who has committed in some way to the child and to his/her parents. Or someone who is an intentional third primary parent, without being romantically involved with either of the other two. We’re trying to make an old system fit new paradigms. What we need is a new system–or at least new parts of it.

All I meant was that for families who want to bring a third parent into the mix, it looks like some courts are willing to envision that. But yes, we have to be very careful where the limits are here, so that custody decisions are based on the initial agreements of the people involved. If the two moms and known donor didn’t want the donor to be involved later, then I don’t think he should have any financial or custodial responsibility.

A fuzzy and still-evolving area of law, to be sure.