The two women, who used artificial insemination, gave the child the surname of her biological father and put his name on her birth certificate as well. However, in court they argued, through text messages, Facebook posts, and Tweets that he is too immature to provide care for his daughter.
“A scotch a day helps me work rest and play,” one message read.
“Coke is always good after a big night of drinking. I agree. Both the powder and the liquid.” said another message.
The women agreed that they would like their daughter to know their biological father, but they want to limit it to daytime encounters.
The women looked for legal advice about his role three months after their daughter was born. While they said they regularly invited him into their home to spend time with the girl, they didn’t think the father was mature enough to be left alone with her because he is unable to change a diaper and ignores her special dietary needs.
Though the man is the biological father, the mothers are in a de facto relationship so he is not legally considered a parent.
Regardless, Judge Judith Small said that this doesn’t mean he doesn’t have rights to the girl.
“It appears from the evidence that the Applicant is committed to being [the girl’s] father, and to having a significant role in her life. He clearly loves [her], and wants what is best for her,” she said.
Judge Small also argued that he “spent consistent, regular and frequent time with her since her birth, had provided child-support payments despite not legally being required to and had proven he was committed to building a meaningful relationship with her.”
Judge Small decided a gradual custody plan would be put in place, eventually ending with the girl spending weekends with her biological father.