Sperm donor must pay out for daughters he barely knows

Originally posted by chishuppu
reply to post by AQuestion

 

when you donate you give up responsibility, that part has yet to sink in, when it does then maybe we can move on. As fot the voting comment you will have to explain yourself.

Just to be clear, if I give part of me, I am not responsible for what I become. Is that right? We will have fun tomorrow.

www.guardian.co.uk...

He has had no contact with the family since 2004, but the CSA said that he has to either pay up, or take a DNA test to show that he is not their natural father. His story will send shivers down the spine of any man who was asked to donate their sperm by a childless woman in the 90s. Back then it was impossible for women to use official sperm banks unless they had a male partner – something that is no longer the case. Changes to the law mean that if Langridge made the donation today in similar circumstances he wouldn't be financially liable for the children, and he has called for the law governing this area to be applied retrospectively. It is thought that there are several other men caught up in the same position.

this adds more clarification to the ops original point it seems originally the law didnt allow lesbians to solicit anonymous donors (sounds kinda prejudice to me and probably why law was changed)so that's why he was unable to do it anonymously. under the law as it is now he would not be liable but it seems as he is being charged with the previous law not the current one.and evidently the good deal of the money that is being asked of him is gonna go to CSA as opposed to the actual mother......so it seems its basically the government just wants its slice of cheddar so to speak. so in the uk now sperm donors wont be held liable for child support and it seems there is a growing effort to get the law clarified in the united states so these kinds of things dont happen here as well

reply to post by AQuestion

think he was talking about how if he donated a kidney if that kidney killed the donor he would not be liable but you can continue putting words in other peoples mouths

I was under the impression you can get off the hook by agreeing to pay as little as a penny a week under some loophole judges don't like? Probably been amended now likes....

First off, i dont believe he should pay a single penny.

Secondly, he should have used his nugget and taken a legal route - Shot himself in his own foot for being careless.

Thirdly, the Daily Mail (Or fail to be fair) Is a conservative "news" paper that is notorious for fabricating stories, attacking the marginalized members of British society (i.e, working class, immigrants, benefit claimants, homosexuals etc) And it makes me laugh that many of the threads of the OP starts often have a source link to this site.

How can i be sure you're not Rupert Murdoch!?

reply to post by Just Chris


Its a pound a week and yes you're right, as long as your willing to pay that there's nothing else the debt collectors can do except suck it up.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas

 

Dear RalagaNarHallas,

this man in no way agreed to help raise the child and the women knew it their relationship fell apart and now its magically some random gay guys job to take care of the child? why aren't you screaming for the girl who left this poor woman with a kid to raise on her own....guess its elementary school logic boys have cooties and must be the bad ones

He did agree to have a child, he did, he gave his sperm with that purpose. Okay, he is responsible for his actions, why should he not be. He didn't have to participate in creating a child; but, if you do then you should be responsible for taking care of that child. Are you also pro-abortion. That would be interesting.

Jesus you are misguided....

In the intervening years the lesbian couple separated, leaving the biological mother with both children. She has since started claiming benefits from the State.

That explains it, this is nothing to do with the lesbian couple, this is to do with the state not wanting to pay for your child. So, instead of handing out child benefit to the mother, they are going to the donor! The mother will have no choice in this affair, the state are not going to fork out for this child when the father is alive and well, its his fault he's in this situation because he didn't take the legal route.

Feel sorry for this poor chap but hey, that's conservatism for you.

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Thirdly, the Daily Mail (Or fail to be fair) Is a conservative "news" paper that is notorious for fabricating stories, attacking the marginalized members of British society (i.e, working class, immigrants, benefit claimants, homosexuals etc) And it makes me laugh that many of the threads of the OP starts often have a source link to this site.

How can i be sure you're not Rupert Murdoch!?

I don't believe that there is any suggestion that this story is fabricated.

Nor is the Daily Mail 'notorious' for fabricating stories as you claim, although like many tabloids, it does like to take a sensationalists slant.

I am not Rupert Murdoch although I wouldn't mind his money!

The highest ranking opinion on the Daily Mail's comment section is below

Poor man. The other parent (ie the non-biological mother) should be the person paying out. It was the lesbian couple's decision to have a child, and this man made it very clear he didn't want any involvement.

He is only guilty of having a good nature and a bit of naivety. Common sense should take over here, and the CSA should be chasing the ex-partner of the mother.

Daily Mail

I tend to agree with the above, although of course the rights of the child are paramount.

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Feel sorry for this poor chap but hey, that's conservatism for you.

It is a disgrace what the Conservatives are doing to the unemployed and the sick.

Being forced to work for nothing and being signed off as well enough to work while suffering from cancer is beyond belief.

I can understand the rationale of forcing fathers to pay for their children but in this case, it does seem somewhat unfair.

reply to post by ollncasino


It is definitely unfair, just another instance of the state getting it wrong... again.

so we want equal rights for gay people right, Me too.

I would not be a hypocrite though and say that the ex-partner somehow is less obligated to pay child support than the biological father this child never knew.

IF true.

He should be treated like any other sperm donor. He is not this Childs parent. the two mothers should stand up to the situation and take care of their kid between them both, like hetero couples do.

This just gives ammo for people against gay marriage. So now if you get pregnant you can cop out of child support and pin it on a donor, an exception to hetero couples if I ever saw one.

Pay your child support, you dead beat mom.

Never trust anyone ! it seems to be a good advice even we like to think the best of people.

It looks like there is a legal problem, in my country if child is born to unmarried couple they have to sign legal papers of parenthood, fatherhood and motherhood when they agree to support and raise the child.

If gay couple decides to have a child, in my opinion they should also be demanded to sign similar paper as straight couple. If any parent or couple gay or not, decides to have children biological or not should always sign this legal agreement too.

Sperm Donors and Parents should also have a legal document where their rights are well rendered.

What comes to that another man who is not biological father and being in jail because not paying child support to nonbiological children. If he had become a parent without his knowledge that he is not a biological father when child was born, he should sue the mother/childcare to forcing him to. If he has been lied to its him who need justice.

simple, if the guy did this thru a clinic, he would have been relived of the responsibility, he wouldnt be in the situation he's in now, No court in the world will take a 'verbal contract' between 2 parties as legal and binding.
As someone else said on here, he pretty much shot himself in the foot and now he has to pay

reply to post by ollncasino


So he made a conscious decision to create a life and have absolutely nothing to do with that life afterward. There are consequences for every thing we do, no matter what our intentions. Besides, it's sort of like cheating the system by intervening in a scenario that, left alone, would not be capable of producing life. Physically incapable of producing life in even perfect health, no unfortunate illness or damaged reproduction system, straight up incapable from the get go.

reply to post by ollncasino


Back in the early 90s some close friends of ours (a lesbian couple) asked for my husband to donate his sperm so that they could have a much wanted child. They were, and still are, a very loving and stable couple. The husband and I discussed it at length both with and without them. We agreed that they would make wonderful, loving parents and had pretty much decided to give them what we considered to be the most precious of gifts- a child. Unfortunately it was not meant to be.

As we started discussing the details we were informed that once conception had occurred that they would move away and we would never see or hear from them again, and that we would never be able to have anything to do with the child. We had always just assumed that we would still have a relationship with our friends and would be a part of the child's life- possibly as aunt and uncle as they were considered aunts by our own children. It broke our hearts. My husband, whose final decision it ultimately was, came to the conclusion that he could not in good conscience father a child that he could never even know or have anything to do with- even if it was only in the capacity of a family friend.

Once the decision was made that my husband could not in good conscience father a child for them under the circumstances the friendship lasted for a while but slowly faded away. Nowadays we only smile and say hello when we see each other in town, the once close relationship no more. They never had any children.

I don't understand the psychology behind donating sperm to create a child that you don't plan to have a relationship of some sort with. I also do not understand people who use a sperm donor to conceive a child going after them for child support. It seems to me similar to a couple who adopts a child all of a sudden going after the birth parents for child support. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Then again, much of what happens in this world doesn't make sense anymore. It's definitely not the same world I grew up in. It's sad.

reply to post by HomerinNC
I am not calling you out on this but check your sourses on that first, " No such thing as a verbal contract"

In employment law here in the UK if you tell your employer "To go stick his job" that CAN be taken by a tribunal as a form of resignation then dismisal then follows, and you do not have a leg to stand on.

As for the fellow whos being hounded by the CSA take it on the chin and get your lawyer to get you full visiting rights,Thier now officialy your daughters and if possible get custody.

Might be a case of "natural justice" IMO.

reply to post by foxhoundone


I KNOW there is no such thing as a legal verbal contract, thats what happened here tho, the guy ASSUMED he's be under the verbal contract with this couple as they said if he fathered the child, he wouldnt have to pay support. He shot himself in the foot, thinking it would BE binding

Those who want the child should be responsible for it. Not those whose genetic material it contains. Donating sperm or an egg does not make one responsible for the resulting children.

In this case, the issue seems to be not using the proper channels to donate, tough. If there is no evidence or a record that this was a donation.

reply to post by HomerinNC
Not trying to be an Ass here Homer,
But UK law is slightly different im lead to believe, Alot of the time especialy in employment law it comes under "resonable cause to believe" , most cases are in front of a tribunial and if you can establish "reasonable cause" you should win your case.