This was the mistake the man made, and for what he now has to support the children.

Nonetheless, the man signed a document confirming that he was the biological father of the children.

Why did he sign? I wonder.

That's the stupidest court decision I've heard in months. If that decision stands up in the U.S. you can kiss off sperm donors without binding legal agreements in advance.

What?!?

This is absurd.
There are probably men who's sperm as impregnated dozens of women. They may as well close down all the sperm banks right now.

Thanks a lot to the money grubbing mother who has ruined the dreams of families who can't conceive the regular way.

I don't know how it is elsewhere, but here in New Mexico, a man is legally responsible for any child borne by his wife, regardless of the paternity of the child.

Given the laws as they exist in this country, I would have to say that a man must be mentally ill to marry and that mental illness is called romantic love.

How much do you want to bet the next thing people will go for it college education for the children or medical benefits from the donor.

How sad that one couple will effect so many people now and in the future.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Given the laws as they exist in this country, I would have to say that a man must be mentally ill to marry and that mental illness is called romantic love.

Oh, Grady, Grady, is call I believe bastard law, something like it they have it in California, if you live with a women and raise the child that she has even if is not your child you will be responsible for child support or something like that.

Grady you talk like a true bachelor don't you.

IMO this comes down to what was "signed on the bottom line" of the donor contract!

Had he not signed-ON as the "biological father" the case would have no merit whatsoever . . . ANONYMOUS.

WOW/WTF! is the thought that comes to mind.

I make a "donation" in the hopes that others, who otherwise may not have the ability to conceive, could benefit from my actions yet lo' and behold I am now a new father accountable for child support payments!?

Not sure I agree with the decision of the courts but, Hey . . . he did sign the bottom line!?

Again, IMO, you can bet your bottom dollar/bottom line this "decision" will have a profound effect on the number of "donors" who don't read the fine print!

Whew?! . . . makes me happy that I had that lil' snip-snip OP* a few years ago.

*Wife took the kids to the shore for the weekend and left me with a bag of ice and a case of my favorite "beverage".

UmBrax:

My thoughts Xactly!

There are husbands and wives [world-wide] who are unable to conceive naturally, for many reasons, and here we have a situation that could potentially limit their ability even more.

There are MANY who wish raise a family yet are unable to do so as a result of various medical conditions. Will their options be affected by this courts ruling?!





[edit on 10/12/2005 by 12m8keall2c]

That is not the kind of law I speak of, marg. In New Mexico, any child born to a married woman is the financial responsibility of her husband, regardless of paternity.

We even had a case here not long ago in which a man paid child support for years for a child who was never born, but that's a different issue.

[edit on 2005/10/12 by GradyPhilpott]

This is terrible! The couple who had the children in their 'family unit' should be responsible for supporting the children. This is so sad!

Donor beware...

Oh no!!
I'm going to the clinic tomorrow to get me my sperm back!

But in all seriousness, this is absurd. Not only does this ruin the hopes for future couples who cannot conceive, but this is a blatant abuse of human rights. That poor guy probably donated to get himself 5 bucks for lunch or something, and now he is forced to pay child support!?
This just shows how over-liberalism is starting to run its soiled feet all over our law books.

I think this article has more of a healine shock, then the actaul article does. The fact the guy signed a paper claiming to be the biological father and take care of the children makes the fact of a "Lesbian couple" rather pointless and stirr up anyone who has a strong opinion about Gay rights and doesn't READ THE @#$%! ARTICLE

I bet he was saying "BORK BORK BORK" after the trial

[edit on 10/12/2005 by Jehosephat]

This is what the article states:

The man told the court that he and the women had agreed that he would play no role in the boys' child rearing and that the two women would be their parents.

Nonetheless, the man signed a document confirming that he was the biological father of the children.

The fact that the parents were lesbian doesn't appear to be a factor, only that the deal was that the man was to have no role in the raising of the child. However, the impact could be far-reaching for those who think that sperm donation is a benign act. Frankly, I think sperm donation is a very bad choice regardless of the circumstances.

To those of you who act so shocked to read that he signed a paper stating that he was the biological father:

Whether conceived through sperm donation, or the actual act, he IS the biological father. The term "biological father" refers to the male whose sperm created half of the makeup of the child. It does not make any specifications as to how the sperm met the egg.

That said, this is still an absurd case. In any sperm doning situation, the donor is doing it mainly just for a few bucks. The recipient is the one there, paying for a service, and specifically desiring impregnation. In no means is it the responsibility of the donor. In fact, in many cases, the donor never even meets the recipient of his sperm. It's not a case of a man not being able to "keep it in his pants," but rather a case of supply and demand. Do you take legal action against a company because their product actually did exactly what it claimed to do? No. This is the same type of case. The simple fact that this ruling went as it did doesn't bode well for the alternative impregnation business, and really only serves to illustrate how thoughtless people can be, and how utterly conscienceless lawyers can be for even taking such a case.

I was under the impression that donors were anonymous. Only information such as weight, blood-type, medical history etc were to be revieled to a recipient, not personal information.
I also don't see that this will necesarily have repercussions anywhere beyond Sweden, or at least outside of Scandanavia, I know at least that my government (South African) wont be affected by this. Why should the US?

Originally posted by Jehosephat
I think this article has more of a healine shock, then the actaul article does. The fact the guy signed a paper claiming to be the biological father and take care of the children makes the fact of a "Lesbian couple" rather pointless and stirr up anyone who has a strong opinion about Gay rights and doesn't READ THE @#$%! ARTICLE

I bet he was saying "BORK BORK BORK" after the trial

[edit on 10/12/2005 by Jehosephat]

I have to agree with you....he signed the papers......he is responsible for his own legal actions.....

The fact that it was a lesbian couple has nothing to do with the matter, in all honesty. I would believe the same if it were a husband/wife couple. A good strong helping of C.Y.A. would've been in order here......but the donor legally bound himself to the child support, and therefore should have to be responsible....

Originally posted by ahnikah
I have to agree with you....he signed the papers......he is responsible for his own legal actions.....

I agree proper CYA was probably not observed; perhaps even the manner in which he donated created a ‘legal’ anomaly; hard to tell from the article.

.

I don't think that the donatation was done anonymously.

The article presents no details, but it sounds to me as if the man either donated in the natural way, or went with the women to a fertility clinic.

I don't think this affects sperm banks or even involves them.

Since the man volunteered his sperm for this, it shows that he didn't understand the law very well, and proves that old saying about good intentions.

Anonymous sperm donors would never end up in this position, and I don't think any of you donors out there should be worried about this.

This story is about a man who made poor decisions even if they were well intentioned.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
That is not the kind of law I speak of, marg. In New Mexico, any child born to a married woman is the financial responsibility of her husband, regardless of paternity.

Sorry, I though it was the same law.

I believe the judges were wrong. The guy made a donation to a couple who agreed to take care of the kids and accepted the donation. Just because he manufactured part of the product that he donated shouldn't make him responsible for the actions of that couple. The couple broke an agreement and should have to pay for their own actions instead of making an outside party pay. I wonder if this legal precedent will lead to lawsuits against all manufacturers in Sweden since they in effect provided the physical goods that other people are using but now the users are no longer required to pay for broken agreements or misuse if they don't want to take care of the goods they already accepted.

I believe if the lesbians had accepted a cell phone package instead of a sperm donation, they wouldn't have been able to get out of their agreement. Similiar principle I believe but not enough legal protection from lawyers and judges for someone making a donation.

[edit on 12-10-2005 by orionthehunter]