Sperm donor must pay out for daughters he barely knows

Originally posted by alfa1

Could be worse.
This guy went to jail for not paying child support, and he's not even the biological father at all.

Rule 1 : Men have no rights, except to pay $$$.

Yep.
Ex got pregnant when she screwed around and I paid child support and insurance for 18 years on a child that wasn't mine.
It's not about what's right. It's about what's on an activist judges mind after he/she hits every red light on the way to work.

The father was "never found" and I was required to pay until he was but I wasn't afforded visitation even though I'd raised her until she was five.

I have no sympathy for people any more.

reply to post by Taupin Desciple


Hetero couples break up so do gay couples, that's typical. Hetero couples often don't get married, yet still have children.

Gays can't get married, in most places, Sperm donation, in vitro, adoption and surrogates are common. Hetero couple that can't conceive will use one of those options, typically. Why shouldn't a gay couple be afforded the same benefits?

Lots of gay men and women have children and raise them, there is noting strange about that either.

reply to post by AQuestion

There is a guy in England that fathered around 300 kids and has no responsibility and they won't even know they are related when they meet, if they do.

It was actually about 15, maybe 16.
Britain's 'most feckless father'

Chinese whispers are hilarious. Seriously though, that is still a lot of kids.

reply to post by Wide-Eyes


Dear Wide-Eyes,

No, the man I am thinking of had hundreds and the question was if they would have to know that they might have the same father. The end game of publicizing these things is so that you will get your DNA tested before you become involved with someone on the off chance that a relative may have been an egg or sperm donor.

Having read the article, there are a few things that can be stated:

The state and the mother should have no really have no legal ground to stand on to get him to pay. The basis for this is simple common sense, and the reasoning should be very apparent. All the man did was donate sperm, nothing more. There was no attempts on his part to seek child custody or even to be a part of the children’s lives. All he did was give the sperm that helped them come into being. Based off of the article, he did not even have sex with the woman, rather it was done via a test tube and artificial insemination. Had he had sex with the woman or sought to be a part of the children’s lives, then maybe, but he did neither. So here is the question, what is the difference between what he did and say if the woman went to a sperm bank or even used a surrogate parent to create these children?
If the courts and the appeals rule against this person, does this mean that if a woman does go through a sperm bank or a person uses a surrogate parent to create a child, or even adopts, does this mean that they would have legal recourse to sue for child support? And if so, what then does it mean for such industries?

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Having read the article, there are a few things that can be stated:

The state and the mother should have no really have no legal ground to stand on to get him to pay.

It's purely a legal issue and not really even to do with current sperm banks.

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.

Source

In the 90s a woman couldn't accept a sperm donation officially without a man as a partner. Therefore, this happened under the radar and that's why this issue has come up. Mark Langridge thought that not having a name on the birth certificate meant that there was some kind of protection, but it's not viewed that way.

Its already been brought up that the women involved didn't actually approach Mark for money, the government did. Partly this is because the government doesn't recognise that a relationship occurred between two women who had a sperm donation together.

I would at least hope that the government might allow the woman to withdraw her claim for support and maybe her expartner can step up?

Originally posted by manykapao
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.

I wouldn't say it gives ammo against gay marriage. I actually think it's quite the opposite. Marriage allows legislation and if a couple are legally married then it stands to reason their relationship including their adopted child or donated sperm would be recognised more clearly in most circumstances.

It would be some very good evidence if there was a marriage certificate on the books between these two women when they accepted the donated sperm. Unfortunately the only evidence of this happening is the opinion of those involved that an unsanctioned sperm donation occurred and there was an agreement which wasn't written down and the government doesn't recognise.

It's all a bit sad and beaucratic really.

reply to post by Pinke

I think it would have a direct bearing on the nature of sperm banks. Consider this, the only difference between the lady going to a sperm bank and what she did is that she knows the identity of the man who provided the sperm. That is all. She went through the same procedure to get pregnant as any woman who would go to a sperm bank would. What she did not do, is go through and pay the fee to the sperm bank for using what they have on hand.
If he looses the case, then the precedent legally would be set and could be used in further rulings on any case similar to this nature. Consider this as a point.
Man is infertile and unable to get his wife pregnant, then they go to a sperm back, and she gets pregnant. Has a child or 2, then the man leaves, as he is not the father, is not really financially responsible for the upkeep of said children, the woman, based off of this case, would have a legal recourse to sue, and then go after the man who provided the sperm to the sperm bank for child support. And the man would have no recourse as the legal precedent is already set by this one case.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by Pinke

 

I think it would have a direct bearing on the nature of sperm banks.

It doesn't, the law has already been changed. The person is asking it to be applied retrospectively to events which were not covered by laws made later.

Consider this, the only difference between the lady going to a sperm bank and what she did is that she knows the identity of the man who provided the sperm. That is all.

It wasn't even legal for two women to be considered a couple when this happened. When the child was born, legally the father was the person responsible for the child. (Edit) Clarifying, the two women could not legally accept a sperm donation in 1998 when this occurred. (Edit) The law can't retrospectively change the parents of a child already born as a default function. It would be like the UK legally declaring your parents invalid after 15 years because of a new law that states, 'people wearing funny hats cannot be parents'.

Based on the above, everything you've said cannot occur.

reply to post by ollncasino


How did he donate the sperm? Through a sperm donation center overseeing the process or was it Er..manual injection? I bet that makes some kind of difference in the law.

Of course this could be a ploy to further gay and lesbian rights to equal status with married man and woman. I for instance are against gays and lesbians having equal rights like married couples BUT reading this makes me want to say, " heck, they want equal rights, I say give it to them and they can have the equal responsibility too" Of course I think this out of anger for how this man is getting the shaft.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
reply to post by ollncasino

 

How did he donate the sperm? Through a sperm donation center overseeing the process or was it Er..manual injection? I bet that makes some kind of difference in the law.

The method wasn't 'official', but persons couldn't legally donate to same sex couples at that time. Thus the arrangement is not recognized by the laws of the time, and children cannot have their status changed retrospectively. Therefore according to the law in the 90s he is the father.

I don't believe it was manual. >.<

Of course this could be a ploy to further gay and lesbian rights to equal status with married man and woman.

What ploy?

The law didn't accommodate for the situation, the people involved mistakenly thought it would. It can't happen again because the law has already changed. I don't know the circumstances, but it's likely because of issues like this that the law changed occurred.

I've seen persons in this thread claim this could be used against gay marriage and also say it could be used for it. I think it simply depends on your perspective and bias of the situation.

I don't think this issue is one about rights male or women's. I don't even think strictly speaking it's a homosexual issue. I do believe it demonstrates what happens when a government refuses to recognize its citizen's activities. Although this is irrelevant since the law has changed since the 90s.

Originally posted by ollncasino
Mark Langridge donated his sperm to a lesbian couple in 1997 and 2000. Now he has received a letter from the Child Support Agency demanding child support payments.

Mark Langridge didn’t want children, but his lesbian friends did – so he agreed to donate his sperm. Now his ‘act of kindness’ has come back to haunt him 13 years later, after he received a letter demanding child support payments.

He was not named on the birth certificates of the two children, and played no role in their upbringing – but the Child Support Agency insists he has to pay £26 a week to support them. ‘I feel as if I am the victim of a state-sponsored blackmail plot ... It was purely an act of kindness on my part and now I am being made to pay.’

In the intervening years the lesbian couple separated, leaving the biological mother with both children. She has since started claiming benefits from the State. He said the biological mother’s former partner continues to live near the former family home and sees the girls at weekends – but is not being chased for child support.

Daily Mail

It would appear that due to the biological mother now claiming benefits, the biological father is now being pursued for maintenance benefits to lessen the burden on the state. The biological mother’s former partner is not being pursued for payment.

Apparently the mistake that Mr Langridge made was to not use an official sperm donation centre but rather to make an informal arrangement with the couple.

Actually instances like this are a good indicator of the trustworthiness of homosexuals and if homosexuals are more likely to be immoral in their other dealings(if sexual immorality is a symptom that a person is totally immoral)