If you're not planning on moving to FF any time soon, I would not recommend getting FF lenses just for compatibility down the road. The 17-40L is used for FF landscapes, but your 17-50 is more versatile (faster, sharper, cheaper) than the 17-40L.
I would also suggest getting a 70-200L first before getting the macro/mid-focal length prime. A 70-200L works well for outdoor situations once your daughter gets a little older, and it will allow you to replace the 18-200. That will leave you with 3 very good lenses, 17-50, 50 f/1.4 and 70-200 (the gap between 50 and 70mm is not worth covering) that will cover almost all of your shooting needs. There are many 70-200L variants, and it really depends on your style. If money and weight are not big concerns, then the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is a great lens. The f/4 versions are lighter and cheaper but also delivery excellent results. If you get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, then the 100L becomes less appealing because you already have a great option at the focal length and you can save money by opting for the 100mm macro (non-L). If you choose the f/4, then primes and the 100L make more sense because there is a larger separation between your primes and zooms.
Each person has their favorite portrait focal length. I find I like 50-85mm on a full frame (35-50 on a crop), but you might like something longer. If you like the 50 f/1.4 on the crop, I'd skip the 85 f/1.8 because that would be another lens to carry and you wouldn't use it much. If you find the 50 f/1.4 too short, then by all means look at the 85 f/1.8.