Harbottle pioneers 'preconception' agreements for non-traditional families
Harbottle & Lewis is offering preconception contracts to non-traditional families looking to have children in the wake of a landmark High Court case that introduced the concept of principal and secondary parenting.
Linzi Bull
Harbottle senior associate Linzi Bull came up with the idea for a preconception contract after representing a gay couple involved in a hostile custody dispute that lasted for three years and was seen by 11 different judges before Mr Justice Hedley gave judgment in July 2011.
In the case, a lesbian couple and a gay couple between them had two children through IVF treatment. The foursome raised the girls happily for a number of years, with the lesbian couple as primary carers, but along the way the relationship between the two couples broke down and a bitter custody fight began.
In his judgment, Hedley J raised the problem of non-traditional families not clearly setting our their respective roles before conceiving and also the inadequacy of legal language to deal with such situations. In his judgment, Hedley J created the concept of primary and secondary parents, asking the couples to accept these roles or else go back to the court for a contact order.
According to Bull, the case was a “real warning for couples entering into artificial insemination agreements” to think about their roles before they conceive and gave her the idea of offering clients a preconception agreement service.
The agreements can be tailored to suit any kind of family and reflect their priorities, with the aim of encouraging prospective parents to discuss who would be on the birth certificate, where the child lives, what the adults will be called (mum, dad etc.) and what happens on special days like Christmas.
The agreements would not be legally binding, but would be persuasive to a court in a dispute, much like a prenuptial agreement.
Readers' comments (5)
Anonymous | 14-Feb-2012 12:30 pm
Children are not a commodity and this case highlights the issues surrounding non-traditional families. There is no "right " to have a child and seeking to achieve parenthood by entering into a joint venture agreement shows a complete lack of understanding of what parenthood is about - the children not the parents. Whilst legislation prohibits child labour it seems it is powerless to pevent the conception of children as a commodity.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Lee | 17-Feb-2012 10:50 am
There may be no right but the opportunity to have children should be allowed to all if they feel they have a lot to give to the children. The very reason there is a JV agreement is impressive as such considerate planning and foresight is not often shared by thirteen year-old girls in Newcastle, who end up with child after three seconds in a council estate car park.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-Feb-2012 11:40 am
Absolutely right, Lee. The agreement is there to protect the children and the relationships them and primary and secondary parents. Sometimes the secondary parent has had a greater role in the upbringing of the child and the agreement should take this into consideration as an acrimonious split between parents could knock a key figure out of a child's life. There are agreements when heterosexual parents split. What makes gay ones exempt?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
@insurancesol | 20-Feb-2012 11:28 am
An innovative idea to a difficult problem. Society should not dictate who can have children, but this proposal gives a framework for non-conventional parenthood to succeed.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Yasmin | 18-Nov-2012 12:59 pm
So are all preconception agreements not legally binding or it depends from case to case? From where is the statement "The agreements would not be legally binding, but would be persuasive to a court in a dispute, much like a prenuptial agreement."
I'm really interested to read your response. Thank you!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment