The widely-publicised decision last month by the Court of Appeal to take two young sisters from their biological mother and hand them over to her lesbian former partner showed the court's willingness to recognise how much society has changed, and its desire to reflect those changes. But such progressiveness is not limited to the Court of Appeal.

Take the family court. No matter what its critics would have you believe, it is moving in the 21st century and is not bogged down by traditional, out-of-date attitudes towards family life. The introduction of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (which provides for formal legal relationships between same-sex couples) and the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (which, although passed some time ago, has only recently come into force and now makes it possible for a same-sex couple to adopt a child provided they are living together in an enduring family relationship) has thrown up some unusual disputes, but a number of major decisions in the past year have reflected a forward-looking approach on the part of the court. Consider a case decided in January this year.

It is not uncommon for a lesbian couple to "arrange" for the insemination of one of them for the purpose of producing a child. In this particular case the couple advertised for a suitable father by means of an advertisement. They found a prospective father, but instead of a mechanical means of insemination conception took place place by the old-fashioned method of intercourse. It was successful and a baby girl was born. Usually, that would be the end of the involvement of the father, his role having been successfully carried out. But in this particular case the relationship between the father and the couple developed in a way that had not been foreseen.

For a start, the father did not want to confine his role simply to that of sperm donor. He wanted to be involved in the upbringing of the child. The lesbian couple had no great objection to this but wished to limit his involvement to seeing the child once every three or four weeks, and perhaps more frequently if the relationship between them developed satisfactorily.

The father wanted to take a more active role, akin to that of a divorced father, while the couple wished to keep him at arm's length. The differences in their approaches led to hostility, especially when the father decided to take an interest in the education and health of the child (it was suffering from an arthritic condition).

The approach of the courts when it comes to matters affecting children is to put the interests of the children first, no matter what the family's domestic arrangements may be. In a case such as this, it would have been prudent for the parties, right from the outset, to have clearly agreed the extent to which the father was expected to be involved. But vagueness led to confused expectations and a dispute for the court to sort out.

The father relented and offered to limit the scope of his involvement, suggesting that he be granted parental responsibility but with curbs in relation to the child's schooling and medical treatment, with written consent required from the couple should he want to get more involved. The court agreed.

The court made it clear that it recognises that not all sections of society would be comfortable with the family arrangements in this case. But the fact that it decided to limit the involvement of the father in the child's upbringing illustrates the evolution of judicial acceptance of the family in modern society. We have come a long way from the days when a mother who began a lesbian relationship risked losing the care of her children.

Times Recommends

• Are top lawyers worth their huge fees?
• Solicitor forced to retire claims 'ageism'
• Drug case failure may be last straw for SFO