‘I said I’d be the mother and carer, and he could visit the child any time’ . . . The pair used a home insemination kit at Peter’s house. . . . Although the unorthodox birth arrangement was described by the gay couple during the legal battle as a ‘surrogacy pact’, it was never considered that by Rosanna. . . .
[Peter] and his lover went to the family courts to fight in a private custody battle . . . . Initially, the court ordered that Rosanna should give Peter the child for two nights, and for one day each week. . . . But in January, an independent social worker — they are appointed by courts in any private custody battle to look after the child’s interests — told Rosanna that her daughter was being prepared for an ominous-sounding ‘adoption-style change of residence’. . . .
The judge believed — on what she said was the ‘balance of probabilities’ — that Peter wanted to be a loving parent . . . The judge accused Rosanna of using ‘stereotypical images and descriptions of gay men’, claimed she ‘insinuated that gay men in same-sex relationships behave in a sexually disinhibited manner’, and that she suggested they were ‘sexually disloyal to each other’. . . . In a withering judgment, she said Rosanna ‘has sought to present herself . . . as a victim and someone whose rights as a mother have been trampled over and abused.’ . . .
The judge said the toddler was very young and would ‘settle quickly’ with her father and his lover, adding that Peter had the ability to allow her to grow into a ‘happy, balanced and healthy adult and reach her greatest potential’. . . . The judge removed parental responsibility from the mother and gave it not only to the child’s father but also to his lover, despite the fact that the two men are not in a civil partnership . . .
The men are now seeking child maintenance from Rosanna.