The Supreme Court has ruled that a man who donated his sperm to a lesbian couple - enabling one of them to have a baby boy - should have access to the child.
The court overturned a High Court decision that the man was not entitled to access, but it upheld a decision that he was not entitled to guardianship.
This landmark case was taken by a 42-year-old gay man, identified only as ‘A’.
He agreed in 2005 to donate sperm to a lesbian couple and signed an agreement with them that he would have the role of ‘favourite uncle’ and access would be at the discretion of the couple.
The child was born in 2006. The man subsequently went to the High Court seeking guardianship and access to him.
The High Court then found that the welfare of the child was best served by the little boy continuing in the custody of the couple and that the man should not get any court ordered access.
Mr Justice John Hedigan also found that where a lesbian couple lives together in a long-term committed relationship, they could be regarded as being a de facto family and enjoy family rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The judge ruled that the only relationship between the man and the child was a biological one and he did not enjoy those rights.
But five judges of the Supreme Court have now overturned this decision.
The court today found the man was not entitled to guardianship of the three-year-old boy at this time. But it found it would be in the child's best interest for his father to have access to him.
Ms Justice Susan Denham ruled there was no such institution as a 'de facto' family in Ireland and that the lesbian couple were not a family under the Constitution.
She found that the High Court had given insufficient weight to the fact that the man is the biological father of the child and she said he had rights as a natural father.
She also found that there was benefit to a child, in general, to have the society of his father and was satisfied that the High Court also gave insufficient weight to this factor.
The court ruled that if it was not possible for the parties to agree on access, the matter should be determined by the High Court.
The man was in court but did not want to comment afterwards. He hugged his lawyers repeatedly.
They said he was 'very, very happy' with the decision.
