The man - who was identified in court as A - reportedly had a 'marriage of convenience' with the child's mother – known as B – after her family refused to accept her sexuality.
The woman desperately wanted a child with her lesbian partner, C, and A offered to be the father.
The man was present for the little boy's birth in 2009, and later attended his christening and had input into plans for his education, but then disputes occurred between the three adults, and the couple became worried A would disrupt their 'lesbian nuclear family' and put a strain on their relationship.
The lesbian couple got a joint residence order, which gave parental responsibility to C and, according to Metro, 'further marginalised A's role in the boy's life.'
A court originally told the man that his role in his son's life should be 'secondary' for the foreseeable future, but a trio of appeal judges yesterday overruled that decision, stating it was a 'fundamental error' to decide the child's future so definitively.
Lord Justice Thorpe, sitting with Lady Justice Black and Sir John Chadwick at the Court of Appeal in London, said: "B and C may have had the desire to create a two-parent lesbian nuclear family free from fracture resulting from contact with the third parent. But such desires may be essentially selfish and later insufficiently weigh the welfare and developing rights of the child. There were too many unforeseeable factors to allow this judge to declare the future as definitively as he did."
Lady Black said the courts were continuing to struggle with 'an area of family law in which generalised guidance is impossible'.
Jane Keir, of Kingsley Napley, which represented the father, said: "The focus must always remain what is best for the child. The father hopes the decision will assist in any family situation where a child stands to benefit from having good quality contact with important adults other than those he lives with."
What do you think? Is this the right decision for the child and the father?