NationStates Jolt Archive

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article2994783.ece
Sperm donor forced to pay child support after lesbian couple split

A man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple is being made to pay child support, despite having no involvement in the children’s lives.

Andy Bathie, 37, a firefighter from Enfield, North London, provided the sperm after being assured by Sharon and Terri Arnold that he would have no personal or financial involvement with the children. But now he is being forced to pay thousands of pounds in maintenance by the Child Support Agency, although he has no legal rights over the boy and girl, aged 2 and 4, born to the couple, who have now split up.

Mr Bathie said that he could not afford to have children with his own wife because of the financial implications. He is attempting to have the law changed so that he is not recognised as a legal parent to the children. “I did look into the legal side and understood that, as a couple, they would be the parents, not me. I was never ‘daddy’,” he told the Evening Standard in London. “The CSA admit that mine is an unusual case. This is double standards and I’m having money stolen by the Government.”

Mr Bathie was approached by the couple five years ago after they entered a civil partnership. At the time he was in a relationship with a woman who had been sterilised and was not planning to have children. He has since married someone else.

Unaware of the legal pitfalls, he was shocked when the Child Support Agency contacted him last November to demand payments because the women had split up. He was made to take a £400 paternity test and his pay was docked.

A spokesman for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority said that men who donated sperm through licensed fertility clinics were not the legal fathers of any children born as a result. “Men giving out their sperm in any other way, such as via internet arrangements, are legally the father of any children born, with all the responsibilities that carries,” he added.

The CSA said that, unless a child was legally adopted, both biological parents were financially responsible. “The Child Support Agency legislation is not gender or partnership based,” a spokesman said. “Only anonymous sperm donors at licensed centres are exempt from being treated as the legal father. This does not apply to men who donate sperm as part of a personal arrangement.”

Ministers have drawn up fertility reforms giving equal parenting rights to same-sex couples who “marry” in a civil partnership. This means they will be recognised as the legal parents of children conceived through sperm donation. However, the change comes too late for Mr Bathie, although he is now pushing for an amendment to make the laws retrospective.

Phil Willis, MP for Harrogate and Knaresborough, is chairman of the Innovation, Universities and Skills Select Committee, which deals with human fertilisation and research. He said: “The CSA has to look very carefully at the issue and make an assessment. I suspect Mr Bathie won’t get his money back, as there would be a flood of similar applications. Hopefully, common sense will prevail, particularly if he has evidence saying he was a donor and there was an agreement he’d have no further relationship.”

Wait...what?

There is something seriously wrong with legal enforcement of a family image that has essentially lost its universal applicability, if it ever had it.

If the family image is being legally enforced then how do you explain:
Ministers have drawn up fertility reforms giving equal parenting rights to same-sex couples who “marry” in a civil partnership. This means they will be recognised as the legal parents of children conceived through sperm donation. However, the change comes too late for Mr Bathie, although he is now pushing for an amendment to make the laws retrospective.


Also:
The CSA said that, unless a child was legally adopted, both biological parents were financially responsible. “The Child Support Agency legislation is not gender or partnership based,” a spokesman said. “Only anonymous sperm donors at licensed centres are exempt from being treated as the legal father. This does not apply to men who donate sperm as part of a personal arrangement.”
Bad luck Mr. Bathie, but maybe you should have done your research first.

Bad luck Mr. Bathie, but maybe you should have done your research first.
Why does he need to do research? He had an agreement with the couple. That's all that matters, his involvement is defined by that and nothing else.

What I mean is the idea that the parent (parent being the person raising the child) is seen to be eligible for or requiring the help of someone whose sole connection with this is the fact that the child contains some of his genetic material.

The fact that he even has to do research, and an agreement between the two can be overruled, is an intervention made on an old-fashioned family image.

Why does he need to do research? He had an agreement with the couple. That's all that matters, his involvement is defined by that and nothing else.
People can't make a personal agreement and expect that the law won't apply to it. You really think that if I told the judge that you and I had an agreement he'd let me off with killing you?

What I mean is the idea that the parent (parent being the person raising the child) is seen to be eligible for or requiring the help of someone whose sole connection with this is the fact that the child contains some of his genetic material.
Something which is being changed.

The fact that he even has to do research, and an agreement between the two can be overruled,
A personal agreement isn't, legally, worth the paper it's printed on.
is an intervention made on an old-fashioned family image.

Nothing more than bad timing, because the change in the law hasn't taken affect yet. Really, how can you complain about the law enforcing the traditional family when the law is being changed to recognise non-traditional families?

Why does he need to do research? He had an agreement with the couple. That's all that matters, his involvement is defined by that and nothing else.

What surprises me is that Child Support was enforced, I'd have thought the the due recipient of child support has a right of refusal.

Surely you can state that you don't require child support in an amicable split if you choose to do so?

Unlucky for him but he clearly should have checked his legal status.

What surprises me is that Child Support was enforced, I'd have thought the the due recipient of child support has a right of refusal.

Surely you can state that you don't require child support in an amicable split if you choose to do so?

Unlucky for him but he clearly should have checked his legal status.

Well yeah unlucky for him, but he is taking the CSA to court so lets wait and see what happens there.

The CSA though, what an enormous cock up that whole thing has been.

I know absent fathers who are paying way to much, mothers who are getting nowt, myself I was separated from my wife for three years during which time I for reasons I wont go into, we both agreed that the CSA should be notified, I payed as much as I was told to, and that bit extra that any person of conciseness would towards the upkeep of their children.

Then we got it all sorted and got back together, that was 7 -8 years ago now. I still receive letters, addressed to me at the address I share with my wife, asking me to pay X amount each month.

My wife still receives at the same address, letters telling her how much I should be paying.

I ignore these letters, shred them and then right into the recycle bin they go. In the whole of that time, I have not been chased once. The CSA, what a fuckin' joke.

Well yeah unlucky for him, but he is taking the CSA to court so lets wait and see what happens there.

I thought he was just trying to get amendments made to new laws to make it retroactive(rather than retrospective, stupid journalist).

It seems silly that there's a legal difference between a known sperm donor and an anonymous one.

I thought he was just trying to get amendments made to new laws to make it retroactive(rather than retrospective, stupid journalist).

Heh I guess thats what you get when you place your trust in the press. Hah of course I got my knowledge of this form the press also, so who knows what's really happening?

It seems silly that there's a legal difference between a known sperm donor and an anonymous one.

Isn't anyone who gets a woman pregnant essentially a sperm donor?

People can't make a personal agreement and expect that the law won't apply to it. You really think that if I told the judge that you and I had an agreement he'd let me off with killing you?
He won't, but he should. That's what happened in Germany a few years ago with that cannibal guy (linky (http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,511775,00.html)).

Really, how can you complain about the law enforcing the traditional family when the law is being changed to recognise non-traditional families?
Because the change is not going far enough. All that happens is that legal parenthood is changed in the case of same-sex "marriages". I want the biological part removed completely. Parenthood in a legal sense should be settled by something like a pre-nuptual agreement, regardless of anyone's legal or biological status.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm glad that the changes are being made. More than anything I'm annoyed at the fact that we have allowed the state to get involved to the stage of requiring a legal change to settle something as blatantly obvious as this situation.

He won't, but he should. That's what happened in Germany a few years ago with that cannibal guy (linky (http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,511775,00.html)).He got let off for canibalism, if I'm not much mistaken, as this isn't illegal. "Killing on demand (by the victim)" however is illegal in Germany.

Isn't anyone who gets a woman pregnant essentially a sperm donor?I wouldn't say so, no.

He won't, but he should. That's what happened in Germany a few years ago with that cannibal guy (linky (http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,511775,00.html)).
So if you and I decide that I'm not employing you, then could you get unemployment benefits, despite the fact that I'm paying you for work that you're doing for me?


Because the change is not going far enough. All that happens is that legal parenthood is changed in the case of same-sex "marriages". I want the biological part removed completely. Parenthood in a legal sense should be settled by something like a pre-nuptual agreement, regardless of anyone's legal or biological status.
Someone's legal status should be definded regardless of their legal status......

Don't get me wrong though, I'm glad that the changes are being made. More than anything I'm annoyed at the fact that we have allowed the state to get involved to the stage of requiring a legal change to settle something as blatantly obvious as this situation.

You can't just snap your fingers and change the law.

I wouldn't say so, no.

What other part does the man have in the process of a woman becoming pregnant?

"Killing on demand (by the victim)" however is illegal in Germany.
Yeah, that was the point.

Anyways, I should probably also come clean on my feelings on alimony. I think it's fine in the case where both parents are happy to have the child, and then some time after it was born the couple split up. What angers me about this case (and which isn't really a question of whether or not this happens to be a lesbian couple) is the fact that the guy can be made to pay child support for a kid he never wanted.

To put it simply: you can accidentally conceive a child, but you cannot accidently (barring some sort of abnormality) carry it to birth and have to bring it up. This enters the abortion debate, of course, but even the fact that the option of receiving child support makes it easier to choose to have the child than would naturally be the case skews the situation in favour of moralistic types already.

I thought he was just trying to get amendments made to new laws to make it retroactive(rather than retrospective, stupid journalist).

I noticed that mistake too, although it's nice to see retrospective/retroactive/retrospect being used in a news article at least.

So if you and I decide that I'm not employing you, then could you get unemployment benefits, despite the fact that I'm paying you for work that you're doing for me?
Leaving aside the fact that unemployment benefits are wrong to begin with, the option of receiving them is not a question of my agreement with an employer, but the "agreement" I have with the government. Whether or not I should be receiving unemployment benefits therefore depends on that latter agreement's criteria of eligibility. If I am employed, they are not met, and I get no cash.

My agreement with government on murder or child support should similarly take into account my relationship with the people I deal with, both my agreement and whether or not people are acting on it (and failure to do so should be grounds for court action...if I agree to kill you, you should be able to sue me in a court of law for failure to do so). You create an artificial problem in your example because someone is lying - but then you can do that to any argument of any sort.

I believe in freedom to contract, as you would have gathered. It is the most consistent and non-moralistic legal philosophy I have come across. Regardless of whether or not the law is changed now, this freedom is still compromised because it is still subject to potential intervention (undesired by both sides) of a third party which has nothing to do with the agreement or the subject matter.

Someone's legal status should be definded regardless of their legal status......
What I meant is that parenthood shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not the couple is married, or even knows each other.

You can't just snap your fingers and change the law.
But we can question both the law itself, and more importantly the thinking behind it. And that thinking hasn't changed, it just so happens that what is accepted as a morally correct norm is being expanded. It's treating a slit throat with a band-aid.

If the family image is being legally enforced then how do you explain:



Also:

Bad luck Mr. Bathie, but maybe you should have done your research first.

What's wrong isn't that he is being forced to pay, but that the same agency saying You are the father, PAY - is also saying You are NOT the parent and have NO rights!
If both women see the kids, both women should pay for the kids.
If he must pay for them, then why can't he SEE them?
No one has said he's unsafe for children to be around- these two @#$% just figured out how to use him for his wallet AND his sperm!

What's wrong isn't that he is being forced to pay, but that the same agency saying You are the father, PAY - is also saying You are NOT the parent and have NO rights!
If both women see the kids, both women should pay for the kids.
If he must pay for them, then why can't he SEE them?
No one has said he's unsafe for children to be around- these two @#$% just figured out how to use him for his wallet AND his sperm!

These two expletives who have split up and have nothing at all to do with the CSA?

I find it odd that the CSA were able to identify him as the father. Who gave out his name to the CSA? Is it still possible to put father unknown when registering the birth - certainly used to be able to do that?

Leaving aside the fact that unemployment benefits are wrong to begin with, the option of receiving them is not a question of my agreement with an employer, but the "agreement" I have with the government. Whether or not I should be receiving unemployment benefits therefore depends on that latter agreement's criteria of eligibility. If I am employed, they are not met, and I get no cash.

My agreement with government on murder or child support should similarly take into account my relationship with the people I deal with, both my agreement and whether or not people are acting on it (and failure to do so should be grounds for court action...if I agree to kill you, you should be able to sue me in a court of law for failure to do so). You create an artificial problem in your example because someone is lying - but then you can do that to any argument of any sort.

I believe in freedom to contract, as you would have gathered. It is the most consistent and non-moralistic legal philosophy I have come across. Regardless of whether or not the law is changed now, this freedom is still compromised because it is still subject to potential intervention (undesired by both sides) of a third party which has nothing to do with the agreement or the subject matter.
Except for it to be a legally binding contract the law has to be involved. And if there isn't a basis for what legally constitutes a contract then you can't seek legal recompense when it is violated.


What I meant is that parenthood shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not the couple is married, or even knows each other.
And it doesn't in this case.


But we can question both the law itself, and more importantly the thinking behind it. And that thinking hasn't changed, it just so happens that what is accepted as a morally correct norm is being expanded. It's treating a slit throat with a band-aid.

But it's setting a precedent, in that one of the biological contributors to a child's existence will not be considered a parent.

I'd react by beginning to sue the government for EVERY LITTLE THING in order to make up for the money.

Or by robbing a bank. Either way it's not fair and I'd force it to be fair.

What other part does the man have in the process of a woman becoming pregnant?

Umm the sex, lets not forget the lots and lots of sex!

Umm the sex, lets not forget the lots and lots of sex!

So how the sperm gets there matters?

I find it odd that the CSA were able to identify him as the father. Who gave out his name to the CSA? Is it still possible to put father unknown when registering the birth - certainly used to be able to do that?

Well according to what I read this morning, the birth mother split with her girlfriend, the birth mother is unemployed, and decided to give the sperm donors name to the CSA in order to force him to start making payments.

She says that she is entitled to this, as although they had a agreement he did in fact see the child for the first several months of it's life, at least once a week.

His counter to this, was that he was asked to babysit a few times after which he has had no contact with the child.

So how the sperm gets there matters?

Shit of course it does! If as in this case, the birth mother and the sperm donor had an agreement, which both were fine to go along with, then one side or the other has second thoughts, then the exact means of the conception is certainly an issue no?

On the other other hand if it was a straight couple who conceived in the normal way, then had a row, again the manner of conception should also be taken into consideration yes?

We should all allow our selves an emotional response in the matter of rearing children, to try an demote it to a purely logical, matter of law, seems cold and indifferent to me.

This is one of those times in life that I have to admit that I'm grateful I'm not a male, and almost embarrassed to be a female. :(

Traditional/non-traditional families, anonymous/non-anonymous sperm donors, conveniently enforced legalities, oh my. I don't think we're in Kansas anymore, Toto.

Not that anyone asked, but here's my two cents...

If two people in a relationship decided they wanted children, and needed a donor to accomplish this, the donor is just that, a donor. Unless a legal agreement is entered into before conception which allows each of the three adult parties equal legal rights to the child/children, there should be no reason that the donor's required participation should change at any time.

Come on now. If the man had no legal rights to the children before the couple split, and still has no rights to the children now that the couple has split, then he shouldn't be required to provide financial support for the children at any time.

In no way am I advocating against what's best for the children. I simply wish that some people would be forced to realize that life shouldn't revolve around what's convenient for them at any given time.

The problem isn't whether or not we're talking about same sex or heterosexual couples. The problem is that people don't want to handle their own responsibilities unless it's convenient for them.

Grow up already! If you choose to be the sole parents/caregivers/legal guardians of the child/children while your relationship is going well, without involving the donor, then take responsibility for your children and your decisions when your relationship goes down the toilet. You shouldn't get to have it both ways. You shouldn't get to pick and choose when the donor's status should change to "financially responsible donor", simply to suit your needs. It's parenthood, not bargain shopping. :headbang:

Shit of course it does! If as in this case, the birth mother and the sperm donor had an agreement, which both were fine to go along with, then one side or the other has second thoughts, then the exact means of the conception is certainly an issue no?
I meant in general.

On the other other hand if it was a straight couple who conceived in the normal way, then had a row, again the manner of conception should also be taken into consideration yes?
Why? Do the courts ask the details of how the child was concieved when ruling on custody cases?

We should all allow our selves an emotional response in the matter of rearing children, to try an demote it to a purely logical, matter of law, seems cold and indifferent to me.

And that would achieve what, exactly?

And if there isn't a basis for what legally constitutes a contract then you can't seek legal recompense when it is violated.
Yes. But "what constitutes" is not the same as "it must contain and cannot contain". I'm all for guidelines on what is and isn't a contract - as long as there is no intervention into the content. As far as the law should be concerned, a contract is not defined by what is in it, but by how it is created.

But it's setting a precedent, in that one of the biological contributors to a child's existence will not be considered a parent.
So? I don't have to disagree with a government policy to question the mandate of the government to even make it.

As long as the government has even one law containing even one sentence on what can and cannot constitute a parent, there is a problem. Infinitely more so if that definition then confers certain entitlements and duties.

Yes. But "what constitutes" is not the same as "it must contain and cannot contain". I'm all for guidelines on what is and isn't a contract - as long as there is no intervention into the content. As far as the law should be concerned, a contract is not defined by what is in it, but by how it is created.
If you say so.

So? I don't have to disagree with a government policy to question the mandate of the government to even make it.

As long as the government has even one law containing even one sentence on what can and cannot constitute a parent, there is a problem. Infinitely more so if that definition then confers certain entitlements and duties.

Parents shouldn't have any duties relating to their child? I don't see that working very well.

I meant in general.

Then I don't get what you mean?


Why? Do the courts ask the details of how the child was concieved when ruling on custody cases?

Ahh but in case like this, one they should. How a child was conceived can show what 'relationship' the parents of any child planed to have before the birth. In this case the way the child was conceived suggests that the biological farther was happy to have no input into the rearing of the child. I'm talking a case by case thing here. Isn't that the way law should work?



And that would achieve what, exactly?

Let me answer that by asking you, why should we not be allowed to have an emotional response when it comes to childcare? Do you not believe, that a parent (however you wish to define that) should be emotional when it comes to their child?

Yes. But "what constitutes" is not the same as "it must contain and cannot contain". I'm all for guidelines on what is and isn't a contract - as long as there is no intervention into the content. As far as the law should be concerned, a contract is not defined by what is in it, but by how it is created.


So? I don't have to disagree with a government policy to question the mandate of the government to even make it.

As long as the government has even one law containing even one sentence on what can and cannot constitute a parent, there is a problem. Infinitely more so if that definition then confers certain entitlements and duties.

With all due respect you need to brush up on contract law...

Content also comes under legal scrutiny....

Then I don't get what you mean?
I was asking if the details of how the child was concieved should have a bearing on who the parents are.



Ahh but in case like this, one they should. How a child was conceived can show what 'relationship' the parents of any child planed to have before the birth. In this case the way the child was conceived suggests that the biological farther was happy to have no input into the rearing of the child. I'm talking a case by case thing here. Isn't that the way law should work?
There's a system in place for donating sperm without being the father of children that result from it. If he didn't want to eb the father of the child then why didn't he use it?



Let me answer that by asking you, why should we not be allowed to have an emotional response when it comes to childcare? Do you not believe, that a parent (however you wish to define that) should be emotional when it comes to their child?

Suggesting that parents should be emotional about their children doesn't address why the law should be emotional about who is legally the parents.

I was asking if the details of how the child was concieved should have a bearing on who the parents are.

Ahhh okay. Umm because it just does. Two years after I was born, my mum and dad divorced, I stayed with my dad, and didn't even meet my birth mother until I was 11 or so. My dad got remarried, and I was brought up by another women. Now This means I have two mums, and I do indeed call both of them mum.


There's a system in place for donating sperm without being the father of children that result from it. If he didn't want to eb the father of the child then why didn't he use it?

You realise of course I can't answer that. Perhaps he didn't know, perhaps the birth mother was a good friend and he thought at the time it didn't matter?


Suggesting that parents should be emotional about their children doesn't address why the law should be emotional about who is legally the parents.

Huh, I never advocated that. I said that parents should be allowed an emotional response, and that such emotional responses should be taken into account.

As to who is a parent or not, well thats easy really, if you are the birth parent then you are entitled to that title, and if you are not a birth parent but have brought up a child as if it was your own, then you are also entitled to that title.

If I have a car, and decide to give it to you without recourse to any legal documentation, then in 3 years time I can come and take it back. Is that legal? Is that fair?

If you say so.
The only way one can argue against it is by using the law to impose moral judgements.

Parents shouldn't have any duties relating to their child? I don't see that working very well.
And that's what has allowed the state to take over so many aspects of our lives. You yourself probably wouldn't let your child starve. But somehow you believe other people will and conclude that only imposing your own standards on other parents by force will do.

What I propose is a lot like pre-nups: the two parties make a deal, sign it and it can then be enforced if it ever becomes necessary. The idea that anyone who didn't want to have a child would be forced to have any sort of duty towards it or anyone else as a result of the child existing afterall seems ridiculous.

Content also comes under legal scrutiny....
I know. Hence why I said "should", rather than "is".

Though I suppose I should add one qualification, namely that contracts shouldn't contain clauses that contradict other contracts in existence, because that would imply the courts choosing between one and the other, which it cannot do.

The idea that anyone who didn't want to have a child would be forced to have any sort of duty towards it or anyone else as a result of the child existing afterall seems ridiculous.

Heh as does the idea of anybody not wanting a child actually having one. I think that if you don't want a child and then have one anyway, and then decide to keep it. Then sure you should be forced to take any and all steps to provide for that child.

Ahhh okay. Umm because it just does.
That's not really an answer.....



You realise of course I can't answer that. Perhaps he didn't know, perhaps the birth mother was a good friend and he thought at the time it didn't matter?
I'm just find it odd that he'd donate his sperm without finding out whether he'd legally be the father or not.


Huh, I never advocated that. I said that parents should be allowed an emotional response, and that such emotional responses should be taken into account.
Ah, so you did.

As to who is a parent or not, well thats easy really, if you are the birth parent then you are entitled to that title, and if you are not a birth parent but have brought up a child as if it was your own, then you are also entitled to that title.
How long do you have to have brought the child up for? What exactly constitutes bringing a child up as if it was your own?

If I have a car, and decide to give it to you without recourse to any legal documentation, then in 3 years time I can come and take it back. Is that legal? Is that fair?
It is perfectly legal. The car is yours, you were just letting me use it. If you had sold me the car and I was the legal owner of it, and then you wanted it back then I wouldn't have to do it.

And on a similar note, if I borrow a DVD from you and refuse to return it, is that legal? Is that fair?

And that's what has allowed the state to take over so many aspects of our lives. You yourself probably wouldn't let your child starve. But somehow you believe other people will and conclude that only imposing your own standards on other parents by force will do.
You think that parents should be allowed to let their child starve? Surely not.

What I propose is a lot like pre-nups: the two parties make a deal, sign it and it can then be enforced if it ever becomes necessary. The idea that anyone who didn't want to have a child would be forced to have any sort of duty towards it or anyone else as a result of the child existing afterall seems ridiculous.
If one didn't want the child then how has it come to be?

I know. Hence why I said "should", rather than "is".

I guess I'm blind....can't see that....

Though I suppose I should add one qualification, namely that contracts shouldn't contain clauses that contradict other contracts in existence, because that would imply the courts choosing between one and the other, which it cannot do.

Impossible to do. The sheer volume of contracts will eventually lead to a court case and which contract is correct or not or how to deal with contradictory contracts...most of the time it does not lead to court...it gets resolved between the two parties...but sometimes it does. My own experience is along the lines of a global support contract for a customer who's subsidiary company has a lower level support arrange via one of our local regional offices...and its usually easily resolved by talking to the relevent persons in the each organisation. No need for court.

The other thing to remember is that commercial contracts are controlled by legislation.

That's not really an answer.....

Heh why didn't you quote the rest of the answer?


I'm just find it odd that he'd donate his sperm without finding out whether he'd legally be the father or not.

You have a point, but we are not all the same, and we don't all think the same. So bearing that in mind, I don't find it odd at all.


How long do you have to have brought the child up for? What exactly constitutes bringing a child up as if it was your own?

Again I think that comes under the answer each case on its own huh. In my own case, I have never thought of the woman who brought up up as anything other than my mum, and when I did get to meet my birth mother it was a matter months before I also saw her as my mum. Again, the emotional factor cannot be ignored, especially that of the child.


It is perfectly legal. The car is yours, you were just letting me use it. If you had sold me the car and I was the legal owner of it, and then you wanted it back then I wouldn't have to do it.

And on a similar note, if I borrow a DVD from you and refuse to return it, is that legal? Is that fair?


Yeah I agree, when the item in question is another life though, then things are not as clear cut, and nor should they be so.

With the DVD, I would just let it drop, label you as thief, and have no more dealings with you. Again it's a case of looking at each situation on it's own. For the car expect me to take you to court, for a child expect a full on emotional ride, for a DVD, forget it.

I think I basically agree with Neu here. If the parties had an agreement about this the government shouldn't be able to step in and override their agreement.

In my opinion, no man should be responsible for any child he creates with another person, unless he agrees to be the father. You may ask how is this fair? Well, its simple, everyone should be able to decide for themselves if they want to have a child, since a man has no say as to whether a woman he has impregnated give birth, he should be allowed to opt out of legal responsibility. The woman will then have her own choice of whether to continue with the pregnancy or not (essentially relinquishing responsibility in the same sense as the would be father has), as is the case now.

Of course in many places the woman may still give birth and then relinquish her responsibility for the child, which the state will then care for, men have no such option, but they should. I don't know why the law has taken the standpoint that a donor of genetic material (purposefully or not) should be held liable for the actions of another human being.

In this case it is fairly obvious that the man wanted nothing to do with his offspring, this should be treated as though he was never the father, and therefore have to legal responsibility for it.

EDIT: The method of conception should not matter because there is essentially just one way: a sperm uniting with an egg. It is still possible (even likely) for a man to have sex with no intention of having a child.

I think I basically agree with Neu here. If the parties had an agreement about this the government shouldn't be able to step in and override their agreement.

In my opinion, no man should be responsible for any child he creates with another person, unless he agrees to be the father. You may ask how is this fair? Well, its simple, everyone should be able to decide for themselves if they want to have a child, since a man has no say as to whether a woman he has impregnated give birth, he should be allowed to opt out of legal responsibility. The woman will then have her own choice of whether to continue with the pregnancy or not (essentially relinquishing responsibility in the same sense as the would be father has), as is the case now.

Of course in many places the woman may still give birth and then relinquish her responsibility for the child, which the state will then care for, men have no such option, but they should. I don't know why the law has taken the standpoint that a donor of genetic material (purposefully or not) should be held liable for the actions of another human being.

In this case it is fairly obvious that the man wanted nothing to do with his offspring, this should be treated as though he was never the father, and therefore have to legal responsibility for it.

EDIT: The method of conception should not matter because there is essentially just one way: a sperm uniting with an egg. It is still possible (even likely) for a man to have sex with no intention of having a child.

Yes I sort of agree. That is I do agree with the latter part, in this case I would side with the bloke. However if you help to create a life, then you should be held accountable for the provision of that life. Unless as you say you can in someway opt out. So for sperm donors yep what a good system, for children convinced in love between a male and female, to do otherwise would make it too easy for peole to dodge their responsibilities.

After thinking about this issue, I started in one camp and find myself ending in another...

The original intent of the parties involved, i.e., the agreement between them that the two mothers would raise the children in a loving two parent home, is now a moot point as far as the courts should be concerned. The primary concern of the court, at this point, should be the welfare and best outcome for the children alone.

Since the promised two parent home is now dissolved (mothers separated) then the previous agreement between the women and man are irrelevant because it has already been dissolved/broken. The Father is responsible for his own offspring. If he had a legally binding agreement with the two women, then he should pay the child care costs and THEN counter sue the mothers for their breech of contract and try to recover some of his loses through business civil action.

If the birth mother is now unemployed and/or unable to provide a good home for the children and can't afford her share of the agreed upon debts etc., perhaps the father's home is a more fit place to raise the children now? Perhaps the father and his wife should be suing for custody of the children since the promised two parent home for the boy and girl is not being provided anymore? Perhaps he and his wife should provide a better home for the children and the birth mother can have visitation rights and pay child support to them, or until she too can provide a home and two parent household...

Child responsibilities go both ways and financial obligations should not be the only considerations when child welfare is concerned.

I wonder if a surrogate mother would ever be on the hook for child support.

In my opinion, no man should be responsible for any child he creates with another person, unless he agrees to be the father. You may ask how is this fair?

Yes I would ask how this is fair. I would suggest that men should be responsible for any children they father except when a legally binding agreement is made with the mother that they mutually agree he will have no further part monetary or otherwise in raising the child.

Yes I would ask how this is fair. I would suggest that men should be responsible for any children they father except when a legally binding agreement is made with the mother that they mutually agree he will have no further part monetary or otherwise in raising the child.

the problem with your position is that the contract of three people is signed and agreed to by only two of the participants. The court should take the side of the child and do what's best for them from their point of view.

the problem with your position is that the contract of three people is signed and agreed to by only two of the participants. The court should take the side of the child and do what's best for them from their point of view.

As the child is not yet mature enough to know what is best for it or to actively look out for it's best interests. Yes.

There was a case of a generally similar nature here in Pennsylvania, USA. Our legislature needs to acknowledge that sperm donors are not fathers with the accompanying child support obligation. There might have been something funny hear though, like the sperm donor visiting with the child. Nevertheless, sperm donors need protection from this sort of thing.

I'm not sure what to think...I am utterly split between three opinions:

A) The pervert deserved what he got; he shouldn't done what he dun did.

B) This is really uncool; there was an arrangement that he would have no part in the whole thing except to donate what he donated, and so he really should get his dough back.

C) Why didn't he go through the usual medium? The law is the law.

What surprises me is that Child Support was enforced, I'd have thought the the due recipient of child support has a right of refusal.

Surely you can state that you don't require child support in an amicable split if you choose to do so?

Unlucky for him but he clearly should have checked his legal status.

I don't know about the law there, but I know that it isn't always true in the US that a parent can refuse child support when it is legally mandated. When my parents divorced, my mother planned on getting full custody of my brother and I and, though it would be a struggle, handling the financial side on her own. She was told that the judge could not sign off on a divorce that did not have my father paying at least the minimum amount in child support. Of course, my mother didn't bother sending the law after him when he didn't pay it.

My opinion:

The man shouldn't be required to pay child support. He donated his sperm with no intention of being a part of the child's life.

The woman should be pursuing her ex for child support, not the sperm donor. Her ex is the person with whom she planned to raise the child and now, just like any divorced couple who were raising a child together, it is the other parent who should still be involved in raising that child.

My opinion:

The man shouldn't be required to pay child support. He donated his sperm with no intention of being a part of the child's life.

The woman should be pursuing her ex for child support, not the sperm donor. Her ex is the person with whom she planned to raise the child and now, just like any divorced couple who were raising a child together, it is the other parent who should still be involved in raising that child.

Do you mean that in a perfect world that is what should happen? Or do you mean to say that you think the court should decide it in that manner now, with the laws they have in place?

I could see how you could argue that it should be that way in "a perfect world," but in the real world I don't see how that is the finding the court will end up with. The 'other' mother, in this case, is not in any way related to that child, as far as the court papers will show, she didn't adopt it and she didn't concieve it so those children will have no claim on her. She's a total hag for doing what she's doing (if that is, leaving the children like they never existed), but the birth mother, in this case, didn't go through the proper procedures for getting a sperm donor or going through the legalities of having her significant other adopt their children either...

Do you mean that in a perfect world that is what should happen? Or do you mean to say that you think the court should decide it in that manner now, with the laws they have in place?

I could see how you could argue that it should be that way in "a perfect world," but in the real world I don't see how that is the finding the court will end up with. The 'other' mother, in this case, is not in any way related to that child, as far as the court papers will show, she didn't adopt it and she didn't concieve it so those children will have no claim on her. She's a total hag for doing what she's doing (if that is, leaving the children like they never existed), but the birth mother, in this case, didn't go through the proper procedures for getting a sperm donor or going through the legalities of having her significant other adopt their children either...

If homosexual couples were treated the same under the law as heterosexual couples, a specific process to declare the other mother a legal parent wouldn't have been needed. Unless Britain has changed from common law on the subject, a child born to a married couple is legally the child of both parents.

Of course, when you relegate homosexual unions to a separate "civil union" and don't treat them the same way under the law, you get stuck having to reiterate all the things that have already been decided for married couples.

What other part does the man have in the process of a woman becoming pregnant?

So how the sperm gets there matters?Yep. If a man and a woman have sex, he aids his sperm in connecting to the egg. In this case, he (presumably) did not inject the woman with his sperm.
Two questions:
Other than anonymity, what is the difference between this man and a sperm donor?
If this man had masturbated into a receptacle with the intention of throwing the sperm away, and this woman found out, took the receptacle without his knowledge, and used it to get pregnant, should he still be liable?

The original intent of the parties involved, i.e., the agreement between them that the two mothers would raise the children in a loving two parent home, is now a moot point as far as the courts should be concerned. The primary concern of the court, at this point, should be the welfare and best outcome for the children alone.

Since the promised two parent home is now dissolved (mothers separated) then the previous agreement between the women and man are irrelevant because it has already been dissolved/broken. The Father is responsible for his own offspring. If he had a legally binding agreement with the two women, then he should pay the child care costs and THEN counter sue the mothers for their breech of contract and try to recover some of his loses through business civil action.

If the birth mother is now unemployed and/or unable to provide a good home for the children and can't afford her share of the agreed upon debts etc., perhaps the father's home is a more fit place to raise the children now? Perhaps the father and his wife should be suing for custody of the children since the promised two parent home for the boy and girl is not being provided anymore? Perhaps he and his wife should provide a better home for the children and the birth mother can have visitation rights and pay child support to them, or until she too can provide a home and two parent household...

Child responsibilities go both ways and financial obligations should not be the only considerations when child welfare is concerned.Should women be able to get child support from anonymous sperm donors?

That sucks on so many levels. Poor guy.

This is a perfect example of the average man being blamed and being forced to suffer for the mistakes of others. Regardless of what law says, he had an agreement with the couple, and said contract SHOULD nullify any applicable (and simultaneously irrelevant) laws.

If this man had nothing to do with the raising of the child, then he should NOT be forced to pay. So after two homosexuals fail to have a relationship, blame is still placed on the heterosexual, seemingly arbitrarily, after he never had any intention of raising ANOTHER LEGITIMATE COUPLE'S CHILD. How convenient for the lesbians.....

And no, I do not think that homosexuality is wrong or evil in ANY way, (I'm a Libertarian, I think its a person's right to choose how they live), but this is just stupid.

Yes I would ask how this is fair. I would suggest that men should be responsible for any children they father except when a legally binding agreement is made with the mother that they mutually agree he will have no further part monetary or otherwise in raising the child.

I agree with you 100%. I do not think that the child's interests should trump the right to limit liability to the as of yet unborn in a contract.

Otherwise, there would be a chilling effect on the donation of sperm. Now as an Environmentalist I think that the less breeding that is going on the better off we all are, but hey, what is the point of having strong beliefs if they sometimes do not conflict with each other, right?

I agree with you 100%. I do not think that the child's interests should trump the right to limit liability to the as of yet unborn in a contract.

Otherwise, there would be a chilling effect on the donation of sperm. Now as an Environmentalist I think that the less breeding that is going on the better off we all are, but hey, what is the point of having strong beliefs if they sometimes do not conflict with each other, right?


Its not the amount of people that are causing environmental problems, its the average size of ecological footprint they leave behind.

Its not the amount of people that are causing environmental problems, its the average size of ecological footprint they leave behind.

No. It is both. Let us suppose that we measure the amount of habitat loss, pollution, landfill waste, and other environmental pressures in a measurement unit called destructos. If each person on average presently produces 1 destructo per year and we are able to reduce that average to 0.5 but we double the number of people, it is apparent that we can have just as many destructos even if we are able to reduce our impact by 50%. Do you agree?

Should women be able to get child support from anonymous sperm donors?

No. But this isn't an anonymous donor case. If this was a case that used an anonymous (or even a regulated sperm bank), this case wouldn't be in question. This appears to be a case of neighborly 'love' ;) , on more than one occassion it would appear... (perhaps it was artificial insemination though, I honestly don't know).

The fact of the matter is while this is stupid and just plain silly, he didn't do his legal research first. It's his fault. He should have checked the law.

The fact of the matter is while this is stupid and just plain silly, he didn't do his legal research first. It's his fault. He should have checked the law.

It appears that he did do some (or at least he claims to have done so). He just came to the wrong conclusions.

It appears that he did do some (or at least he claims to have done so). He just came to the wrong conclusions.

Well, to be perfectly frank, and not to be accused of pimping my own profession...he should have hired a damned lawyer first. This is what happens when amateurs try to do their own legal homework.

Well, to be perfectly frank, and not to be accused of pimping my own profession...he should have hired a damned lawyer first. This is what happens when amateurs try to do their own legal homework.

Well, that would be the way to go if you're unsure.

I'm sure he'll hire a lawyer if he ever wants to do something like this again. =)

Well, that would be the way to go if you're unsure.

it's funny, this is a symptom of something I've seen regularly. Would you think yourself qualified to do your own surgery? How about your own dental work? Would you feel comfortable building a bridge? Rewiring the electricty in your house? Redoing the plumbing?

Most sane, rational people recognize that they are not qualified to do things that require an expertise. Why in hell do people think they can write up their own legal contracts and have them cover all the necessary legal bases?

It seems silly that there's a legal difference between a known sperm donor and an anonymous one.

Of course there is, one can be found easily.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WNDRKit View Post
What's wrong isn't that he is being forced to pay, but that the same agency saying You are the father, PAY - is also saying You are NOT the parent and have NO rights!
If both women see the kids, both women should pay for the kids.
If he must pay for them, then why can't he SEE them?
No one has said he's unsafe for children to be around- these two @#$% just figured out how to use him for his wallet AND his sperm!
These two expletives who have split up and have nothing at all to do with the CSA?

I don't know if they had anything to do with the Confederate States of America but I bet if you had mentioned absent fathers to them before they'd have said "make'm pay. "

I wonder if a surrogate mother would ever be on the hook for child support.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

And yet, if she isn't the biological parent, simply the 'receptacle'...

I feel sorry for the guy - he shouldn't have to pay (seeing as how they made a law that recognizes that it would be wrong to do) and I hope he gets that law to work retroactively.

it's funny, this is a symptom of something I've seen regularly. Would you think yourself qualified to do your own surgery? How about your own dental work? Would you feel comfortable building a bridge? Rewiring the electricty in your house? Redoing the plumbing?

Most sane, rational people recognize that they are not qualified to do things that require an expertise. Why in hell do people think they can write up their own legal contracts and have them cover all the necessary legal bases?

Beats me. I get worried about signing stuff at the doctor's office without talking with someone who knows more about the law than me. But most people probably sign those things without even personally reading through them.

I feel sorry for the guy - he shouldn't have to pay (seeing as how they made a law that recognizes that it would be wrong to do) and I hope he gets that law to work retroactively.

Yeah, it's pretty sucky. I have a friend who is single who wants to get knocked up, but doesn't want the sperm donor to have any rights or obligations. But she wants it to be a friend, not just some anonymous donor. It isn't looking good.

No. But this isn't an anonymous donor case. If this was a case that used an anonymous (or even a regulated sperm bank), this case wouldn't be in question. This appears to be a case of neighborly 'love' ;) , on more than one occassion it would appear... (perhaps it was artificial insemination though, I honestly don't know).If they fucked, he wouldn't have been a sperm donor.

Of course there is, one can be found easily.Obviously there's a legal difference - one type of sperm donation is anonymous, this isn't. However, I fail to see why such a difference should exist.

Yeah, it's pretty sucky. I have a friend who is single who wants to get knocked up, but doesn't want the sperm donor to have any rights or obligations. But she wants it to be a friend, not just some anonymous donor. It isn't looking good.

Well I'd love to help but I am snipped. :P

We don't want my hell spawn running around Canada anyway.

Well I'd love to help but I am snipped. :P

We don't want my hell spawn running around Canada anyway.

That's okay. I'll 'forget' that you're snipped, and I'll suggest that you and I have a baby. We'll have to keep trying till I get knocked up, k?

That's okay. I'll 'forget' that you're snipped, and I'll suggest that you and I have a baby. We'll have to keep trying till I get knocked up, k?


Snipped? Me? noooooo
*takes you upstairs and tries to make babies with you*

huh! this is so stupid! if the women were dumb enough to be lesbian then they can deal with there own fuckin problems...leave the man alone damn gay ppl!:upyours:

huh! this is so stupid! if the women were dumb enough to be lesbian then they can deal with there own fuckin problems...leave the man alone damn gay ppl!:upyours:

n00b forgot the gunsmiley.

No. It is both. Let us suppose that we measure the amount of habitat loss, pollution, landfill waste, and other environmental pressures in a measurement unit called destructos. If each person on average presently produces 1 destructo per year and we are able to reduce that average to 0.5 but we double the number of people, it is apparent that we can have just as many destructos even if we are able to reduce our impact by 50%. Do you agree?

I agree to the theory, and I used to be all for a lower population of the world, and theoretically, I still am. But there is no way I can think of to lower our population that would work.

Child support should be a crime against humanity. It is one of the worst things in law in existence. I have suffered a lot from the weird crappy laws about it here in New Jersey. I'm amazed a bit it exists elsewhere just as bad. This highlights two other issues though:
--sperm donation for IVF--if you can't have it the natural way or adoption, then you can't have it. IVF should be illegal.
--lesbian couple having chlidren--that's another story I don't want to get into.

/snipNow you're just being silly.

WTF is this shit?

Child Support laws are fucked up as it is. Now this?

I agree to the theory, and I used to be all for a lower population of the world, and theoretically, I still am. But there is no way I can think of to lower our population that would work.

Well as long as there are people like George Bush out there the population is going to continue to grow. He was behind us spending something like 20+ billion dollars on AIDS medicine to Africa. Ummm ok now we have a plague that has the possibility of thinning our numbers and giving the Earth a break and we did what???? Incidentally, that is over the amount of money needed to clean up the environmentalist problems in the Chesapeake Bay.

Well as long as there are people like George Bush out there the population is going to continue to grow.

Indeed. He's big on making sure that teens don't use contraceptives.

The guy got conned, sure enough. However, he's still a sucker. I wouldn't pay if I were him on principle, but he's still a sucker for getting involved in the first place.

Bad luck Mr. Bathie, but maybe you should have done your research first.
I guess next time we should do some research before we save someone's kid from drowning because we may be responsible for the kid's life till we die.

I guess next time we should do some research before we save someone's kid from drowning because we may be responsible for the kid's life till we die.

You can watch a kid drown and giggle like an idiot, if you like - at least in the U.S. You increase your liability by interfering, and you might pay dearly for that. However, you might just be a bit happier in life if you have a little faith in others' good will, even if you're risking financial ruin. That's the way I see it, at least.

Maybe it is wrong to ask this guy to pay, but on the other hand, if he doesn't I, as a tax payer, would have to pay for this kid's keep and I have NOTHING to do with the conception.

I can't believe anyone in the UK is not aware of the CSA and its role. It was brought in to make absent parents pay for children and that is what it is doing here.

Maybe it is wrong to ask this guy to pay, but on the other hand, if he doesn't I, as a tax payer, would have to pay for this kid's keep and I have NOTHING to do with the conception.

I can't believe anyone in the UK is not aware of the CSA and its role. It was brought in to make absent parents pay for children and that is what it is doing here.

The absent parent in this case is the other lesbian who planned to have this child with her partner. She should be the one required to pay child support.

Of course, this is what you get when some people aren't considered equal under the law....

Now you're just being silly.

When is he not being silly, really?

I guess next time we should do some research before we save someone's kid from drowning because we may be responsible for the kid's life till we die.
Except saving a child's life doesn't constitue adopting them. Your analogy fails.
You can watch a kid drown and giggle like an idiot, if you like - at least in the U.S. You increase your liability by interfering, and you might pay dearly for that. However, you might just be a bit happier in life if you have a little faith in others' good will, even if you're risking financial ruin. That's the way I see it, at least.

In France, and possibly other European countries, you are required to help another person in danger, though not to the point where you endanger yourself. You wouldn't be required to save someone from drowning if you didn't have any life saving training, but you'd be required to call the relevant emergency service.