Man Who Donated Sperm To Lesbian Couple

[blackmagic]

I can't see why men are absolved of responsibility if they donate anonymously through an agency, but not if they do it to help out a friend.

 

 

 

 

Sperm donors no longer have anonymity.

 

If a child fathered by a donor wants details of the donor, they will now be told.

 

Hence the reason that there are virtually no donors now.

[boosboss]

In this case where the father has played a substantial role in raising the child, even for only a portion of his or her life, then responsibility should be taken. When a same sex partner is part of the equation, then I think that they should also bear some of the responsibility too.

[scotslass]

Sperm donors no longer have anonymity.

 

If a child fathered by a donor wants details of the donor, they will now be told.

 

Hence the reason that there are virtually no donors now.

 

I shouldn't have said anonymously, sorry. But my understanding is that such donors don't have legal responsibility for the children they help create, because those children are seen to be the offspring of the couple who elected to bring them into the world, even though the children may choose to seek the natural father out at a later date.

[EGAR]

I presume the child was conceived by biological means ie sex?

 

If he already had a role in the upbringing of the child then I think yes, he should pay for her upkeep. Can't have your cake and eat it.

[Alison]

I presume the child was conceived by biological means ie sex?

The turkey baster method by all accounts.

[scotslass]

In this case where the father has played a substantial role in raising the child, even for only a portion of his or her life, then responsibility should be taken. When a same sex partner is part of the equation, then I think that they should also bear some of the responsibility too.

 

I thought the father was disputing that allegation (that he had been substantially involved). When you say the same sex partner should bear some of the responsibility, what do you mean? How much? And why not half?

 

My feeling is that if two people arrange to create, adopt, acquire babies together, by whatever means, then the responsibility for the ensuing children is theirs. I can't see why a difference should be made because the couple happen to be gay.

 

What if the gay parents were male? Would that mean that if they separated and the one who was biologically the father claimed Income Support while the other disappeared over the horizon, the female surrogate would be liable to maintain the child she'd carried for them?

[scotslass]

I presume the child was conceived by biological means ie sex?

 

If he already had a role in the upbringing of the child then I think yes, he should pay for her upkeep. Can't have your cake and eat it.

 

I see Alison has - succinctly - answered the first part.

 

I don't think it's about being involved in the upbringing, because I've never believed that inclusion in your child's life is simply a reward for financial input. The children deserve to be wanted, cared for, and supported emotionally, regardless of who pays for them.

 

I am certainly not advocating irresponsible behaviour on the part of male donors - my argument rests solely on the equality issue. If gay parents are to be regarded as parents in a real sense, then they must act, and be treated, accordingly (ie as heterosexual parents would be).

[Happylittlegreensquirrel]

it does not matter how or why the man donated his sperm the result is a child was convinced and he is the biologic father and if he was not prepared to be responsible for a child then he really should have thought about that prior to making a very conscious decision to father a child

 

 

the absent mother should be making financial support available and to not do so its avoiding her responsibility as the parent she choose to be with her ex partner , she may not have a legal duty but surely she has a moral duty ( but clearly as the law stands the CSA can not approach her for maintenance )

 

after all 3 of these adults made a choice to bring the child into the world

[scotslass]

it does not matter how or why the man donated his sperm the result is a child was convinced and he is the biologic father and if he was not prepared to be responsible for a child then he really should have thought about that prior to making a very conscious decision to father a child

 

But legally, it does matter how he donated (ie informally, and not through an agency), and I don't understand why it should...

 

"The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority said that private sperm donors are liable financially unless they donate through a licensed clinic.

 

"We would warn men providing genetic material that the only time they are not the father is when they donate through a licensed fertility clinic. This does not apply to unlicensed websites or home insemination," said a spokesman. "

 

How is that fair?

 

I happen to think that morally all parties concerned should be showing their love for the children by supporting them and not trying to dodge their responsibilities, but that doesn't affect my feeling that justice is not prevailing here. If a gay couple wishes to be seen as "normal", then surely they must be subject to the "normal" expectations of the law?

[phoebejo]

He donated his sperm and he has played a part in the child's life, so he absolutely should be held responsible.

Since discovering that he was infact involved in this childs life then I've changed my earlier opinion whichwas based on the fact he was 'just' a sperm donor. As someone else said, he can't have his cake and eat it.

 

 

I'm extremely alarmed that the CSA was allowed to deduct money from Andy Bathie's bank account before paternity had been established.

They don't have powers to remove cash from a bank account but they can get an order to remove the money from his wages before it gets paid to him. I think it's called a deduction from earnings order. Daisys father had it applied to him when he was incapable of voluntarily parting with a whopping £5 a week for her. But then he changed jobs and refused to tell anybody where he worked so that was the end of that

[merledogs]

it does not matter how or why the man donated his sperm the result is a child was convinced and he is the biologic father and if he was not prepared to be responsible for a child then he really should have thought about that prior to making a very conscious decision to father a child

 

the absent mother should be making financial support available and to not do so its avoiding her responsibility as the parent she choose to be with her ex partner , she may not have a legal duty but surely she has a moral duty ( but clearly as the law stands the CSA can not approach her for maintenance ) after all 3 of these adults made a choice to bring the child into the world

 

Couldn't have put it better myself, completely agree

[boosboss]

I thought the father was disputing that allegation (that he had been substantially involved). When you say the same sex partner should bear some of the responsibility, what do you mean? How much? And why not half?

My feeling is that if two people arrange to create, adopt, acquire babies together, by whatever means, then the responsibility for the ensuing children is theirs. I can't see why a difference should be made because the couple happen to be gay.

What if the gay parents were male? Would that mean that if they separated and the one who was biologically the father claimed Income Support while the other disappeared over the horizon, the female surrogate would be liable to maintain the child she'd carried for them?

 

What I meant by that, was that if there were three people involved in creating and raising a child, then each of them should shoulder an equal share of the responsibility when the relationships break down. It doesn't matter about the sexuality of any of the people involved, it just happens to be that in this case two of the people involved were same sex partners.

 

If the sperm donor is just that whether through an agency or privately and that was the extent of the involvement then that's where it should end and the couple wanting and raising the child should be the ones solely responsible. If a child was adopted and then the adoptive parents relationship broke down, would it then be ok to chase the biological parents for support?

[Melp]

Joe I'm totally with you. All three of them should be equally responsible. I would feel slightly different;y f the donor had never had any contact whatsoever with the child and was merely a donor.

 

 

 

Why the third woman should be able to evade responsibility when deciding to "have" a child via an unnatural process I fail to see but perhaps what will be my most controversial thought these days is that whilst I have no problems with homosexuals or lesbians making their own choices in their own homes I don't believe that any child should be brought up in that environment, thereby encouraged to believe that it's the norm & then likely besubjected to being made the subject of "fun" / bullying as they grow up & go to school because of it - kids can be very cruel.

 

Ian, I'm horribly offended by some of your comments.

 

"Unnatural process"? is it only unnatural because the women are gay or because the actual insemination was done without having sex? If thats the case do you feel test tube babies/artificial insemination is unnatural?

 

You say homosexuals and lesbians make their own choices in ther own homes. Choices about what exactly? being homosexual? I very much doubt that any gay person would see being gay as a choice. It's what you are not what you choose to be.

 

"Brought up in that environment"

 

Are you living in the same century as the rest of us?

 

I really am truly horrified at reading this.

Perhaps I'm mistaken and you don't mean things as they appear. I do hope you'll put me right if I'm wrong.

[dirtychicken]

Sperm donors no longer have anonymity.

 

If a child fathered by a donor wants details of the donor, they will now be told.

That's an interesting point to note for future reference, thank you

 

I shouldn't have said anonymously, sorry. But my understanding is that such donors don't have legal responsibility for the children they help create, because those children are seen to be the offspring of the couple who elected to bring them into the world, even though the children may choose to seek the natural father out at a later date.

That is certainly what we signed up for

 

My feeling is that if two people arrange to create, adopt, acquire babies together, by whatever means, then the responsibility for the ensuing children is theirs.

Would you possibly like to speak to my ex-husband and point this out to him?

 

"Unnatural process"? is it only unnatural because the women are gay or because the actual insemination was done without having sex? If thats the case do you feel test tube babies/artificial insemination is unnatural?

I await the response to this question with bated breath before unnecessarily losing my temper and hopping up on my soapbox....

[merledogs]

This article gives more insight in this case.