Three-parent families may be as good as two, judges rule The religious father - who attended the birth, holding the new born baby in his arms - fiercely objected when a family judge described his relationship with his son as "limited" and effectively slammed the door on him having staying contact with the boy. Confined to seeing the boy for a few hourse, once-a-fortnight, he took his case to the Appeal Court where his challenge was today upheld by Lord Justice Thorpe, Lady Justice Black and Sir John Chadwick. Lady Justice Black said the pre-conception understanding between the three adults - all of them highly paid professionals living in central London - as to the roles each of them would play in the boy's upbringing could not necessarily hold sway in the life of a child. The judge - who questioned whether a man in the father's position could be described as a mere "donor" - added: "What happened here shows graphically how plans change over time. No matter how detailed their agreement, no matter what formalities they adopt, this is not a dry legal contract. Biology, human nature and the hand of fate are liable to undermine it and to confound their expectations. Circumstances change and adjustments must be made. And above all, what must dictate is the welfare of the child and not the interests of the adults," the judge said. Lord Justice Thorpe said: "I am cautious in reaction to repeated submissions that great weight should be attached to adult autonomy and the plans that adults make for future relationships between the child and the relevant adults. Emphasising the "paramount importance" of the little boy's welfare, the judge said: "Human emotions are powerful and inconstant. What the adults look forward to before undertaking the hazards of conception, birth and the firest experience of parenting may prove to be an illusion or fantasy. The mothers may have had the desire to create a two parent lesbian nuclear family, completely intact and free from fracture resulting from contact with the third parent. "But such desires may be essentially selfish and may later insufficiently weigh the welfare and developing rights of the child that they have created," he added. I would not endorse the concept of principal and secondary parents. It has the danger of demeaning the known donor and in some cases they may have an important role. Both mothers hold down high-powered jobs, and Lord Justice Thorpe observed: "Some would say that the primary carer is the full-time nanny." The women, both of whom have "parental responsibility" for the boy, as well as the father, were recognised as his main carers, but the judge said: "I would certainly not categorise him (the father) as a secondary parent." The father's appeal allowed, his case will now be sent back to the High Court Family Division for a judge to reassess the level of his contact with his son. The father, in his 40s, says he was always far more than a sperm donor and wants to play a full role in the life of the only child he is every likely to have as a gay man. The biological mother and father contracted a "marriage of convenience," to mollify his religious family about his sexuality, but have divorced since their son's birth. The father currently has five hours visiting contact with the boy each fortnight, but wants this gradually increased to the point where he can have his son to stay overnight and take him on holiday. Alex Verdan QC, for the father, denied his stance was an attempt to "marginalise" the mother's partner and insisted there had been no "clear agreement," pre-conception, that his role in the boy's life would be limited to occasional visits. He argued the current level of contact between father and son had "frozen" their relationship, which would "wither on the vine" without more. "The father described vividly to the court the pleasure and joy that he feels in interacting with his son when they see each other and the boy's responses to him," said the barrister. The father wants to play a full part in his development. He has a strong desire to develop a father-son relationship with the boy, with time spent alone with him. The father was at the hospital for his son's birth and held him shortly afterwards. He visited and bathed him afterwards and visited at Christmas and was later at his christening. However, Charles Howard QC, for the mothers, said they had "planned parenthood" together and, had they known prior to conception the position the father would later take, they would have opted for an anonymous sperm donor. He added: "Conflict has raged around this little boy since his birth. These kind of arrangements seem to give rise to extraordinary tensions and a sense of betrayal. At the pre-conception restaurant meeting it had been "clearly agreed" the boy would be brought up in a "two-parent" family, and the mother and her partner had been left with a sense of "bitterness and betrayal" by the father's demands, he said. The QC denied the mother and her partner were bent on excluding the father from having "any kind of relationship" with his son. He added: "Notwithstanding their sexuality and that they acknowledge to that extent that they are an 'alternative family', the mother and her partner hold very traditional views of family life and would not have chosen to bring a child into anything other than an intact, two-parent, family. The ideal upbringing for a child is a stable home in which the parents love each other and had together chosen to bring a child into the world. This is the upbringing which the mother and her partner always wanted to create for this little boy. Their choice of family life for their child should be respected. To this particular couple, the concept of 'three parents, two homes', repeated so often by the father, is very alien and it has never been something they would consider.