TWO young sisters were taken away from their biological mother and handed over to her former lesbian partner on the orders of the Court of Appeal yesterday.

In a landmark ruling that boosts the rights of same-sex partners, the two girls, aged 7 and 4, will now be cared for primarily by the former lesbian partner instead of their mother.

The mother, a teacher, had previously defied the orders of a judge by secretly taking the children to a new home in Cornwall, in “flagrant” breach of an order by the Court of Appeal that the women should share parental responsibility for the sisters. After the mother and children were found, the High Court granted primary care of the children to the former partner. That decision was confirmed yesterday by the Court of Appeal.

Lord Justice Thorpe, who headed the panel of three judges, said in his ruling: “We have moved into a world where norms that seemed safe 20 or more years ago no longer run.” He then posed the question: “Who is the natural parent?” In the past, judges have held that the biological parent is the natural parent, he said. “But in the eyes of the child, the natural parent may be a non-biological parent who, by virtue of long-settled care, has become the child’s psychological parent.”

He said that in this case, the upbringing of the children had been shared, and the sisters would not distinguish between the women on the ground of biological relationship. None of the parties can be identified, by order of the court.

Mark Harper, a family law partner with Withers and a member of the Law Society family law committee, welcomed the decision as ground-breaking. He said: “It shows how the courts recognise that it can be the quality of parenting, not genes, that matters, especially in the face of flagrant disobedience of court orders.”

Andrew Greensmith, national director of Resolution, the family solicitors’ association, said: “This is welcome recognition of the fact that the world has moved forward and of the effect of a joint parental responsibility that would come from a civil partnership anyway.”

Andy Forrest, of Stonewall, the gay rights group, said: “We are really pleased that the courts are doing what is in the best interests of the child.”

The biological mother, referred to as CG, gave birth to the children during the relationship with her partner, referred to as CW. That relationship broke down in 2002 and the mother found a new partner. After initially being denied access to the children, CW was awarded joint residency rights. But despite a condition that the girls’ mother could not take the children to Cornwall, she and her partner moved there. In February this year, Mrs Justice Bracewell heard the case in private at the High Court Family Division and allowed the mother’s partner to take over as the children’s primary carer.

The mother took the case to the Court of Appeal, where yesterday Lord Justice Thorpe said the child’s views on which partner was the psychological parent should be taken into consideration when deciding the claims of same-sex unions. “The family may be created by mutual agreement and with much careful planning. Both partners seek the experience of child-bearing and child-rearing in one capacity or another.”

Lord Justice Thorpe, dismissing the mother’s appeal, said that he agreed with Mrs Justice Bracewell’s conclusion that she had “no confidence that if the children stay in Cornwall that CG would promote the essential close relationship” with her former partner’s family.

Lady Justice Hallet said that she dismissed the appeal but “with a degree of hesitation”. “I am very concerned at the prospect of removing these children from the primary care of their only identifiable biological parent who has been their primary carer for most of their young lives and in whose care they appear to be happy and thriving.”

She said that despite changing attitudes, she still attached greater significance than others to the biological link between the mother and her children.

Although unmarried couples now have fewer legal rights than same-sex couples in a civil partnership, the ruling gives no extra rights to gay couples that unmarried couples do not have. An unmarried father can apply to the court for a joint parental responsibility order.

()HAPPY FAMILY TO COURT OF APPEAL

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure