Sperm donor must pay out for daughters he barely knows

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.

I've made a few informal arrangements before, but had the smarts to use condom's.

reply to post by ollncasino


Dear ollncasino,

So basically he wanted to have kids, have other people bring them up and not take any responsibility or even know them, nothing new there. Get women pregnant and leave. How is that a generous action, how is donating sperm to strangers generous, how much was he paid for getting women pregnant? Lets consider all sides of the issue.

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 $$$.

Originally posted by ollncasino

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.

Think so?

In his own words:

‘I did not ask for anything to be documented legally and with hindsight perhaps I should have done,’ he said.

Originally posted by AQuestion

So basically he wanted to have kids, have other people bring them up and not take any responsibility or even know them, nothing new there. Get women pregnant and leave. How is that a generous action, how is donating sperm to strangers generous, how much was he paid for getting women pregnant? Lets consider all sides of the issue.

If nothing else, it is a cautionary tale that if you wish to donate sperm, do it through an official sperm donation centre.

It does strike me as unfair that he is now being pursued for child support payments while the former partner of the biological mother is not.

A cautionary tale.

reply to post by ollncasino


Dear ollncasino,

It does strike me as unfair that he is now being pursued for child support payments while the former partner of the biological mother is not.

I have to call you on this. If I marry someone who already has a kid, should I have to pay child support for that kid if I divorce the mother and I would not have to. It is not my kid. I want to point out something else, I put my stepchild through college and gave her the down payment for a house and paid for her wedding when I was being divorced by her mother. I think if you marry someone with a kid then you have a moral responsibility to take care of them as your own and I did, never got one dollar of court ordered support from the biological father and never took him to court over it. I believe in personal responsibility and have lived my life in that manner. I don't respect her partner either, she should pay, she asked to have the kid or at least that is my understanding. Let them both pay.

If you are going to create kids, you need to take responsibility and I do not respect people that do not. 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. He could care less, he wanted lots of kids, some income and no responsibility. That is what began the chain that leads to these court decisions now.

reply to post by AQuestion


guy is married with a HUSBAND/male partner who didnt want kids.....hence why he was a sperm donor and not just having willy nilly unprotected sex its not like he knocked up the woman and then said hey not my problem you deal with it she and HER partner asked for a sperm donor why arent they going after the other girl who i guess either used to be married to or what ever they call it there an then left her high and dry.......yeah lets have the sperm donor on the hook not the person who told that woman that they would raise the kid together........
few links on what i could find from cases in the usa
www.straightdope.com...
seattletimes.com... seattle seems to think so
www.msnbc.msn.com...-dIZtiUk PA says no and is some what similar to the ops case
dfw.cbslocal.com...
Texas says no as well so it seems its still a moderately muddy issue but i dont think holding sperm donors liable serves the purpose of them donating the sperm to begin with(wanting to help those that could not conceive get kids)

and just cuz im curious could another woman who received a donor egg try to claim child support from the donor in a similar fashion if so i could see a steep drop in the people willing to donate eggs and sperm if this catches on

blogs.findlaw.com...

Many states have adopted codes, like the Uniform Parentage Act, which seems to specifically say that donors are not parents. Yet, it seems that courts often focus on the relationship between the sperm donor dad and the children when figuring out if there's any legal responsibility.

reply to post by ollncasino


This is a classic example - to me - of how we as humans do not focus on the big picture. I cannot for the life of me understand why all the Children all over the world, in orphanages and similar - in some they are abandoned in the gutter or get thrown out with the garbage - are not worthy of the love of parents!!!!?????

By this I mean - if you really want to be a parent and you really want a baby and for whatever reason you cannot have one in the natural regular way - why are all the abandoned and orphaned Children all over the world not an option.

I know there are restrictions - like money and politics and it takes too long and all the rest. It boggles my mind that people can spend huge amounts of money on in vitro fertilisation but spending the same (or sometimes less) for a baby that is already here ....

The guy in this article is the unfortunate trusting victim - of himself - the government system and a world where people make commitments that are not honoured at some point down the line. I feel for the Children in these circumstances.

Much Peace...to all the Children on this planet...

This is sad story. Given that the donor is also a gay man, and in a long term relationship, things seems sort of balanced out. If the man had of donated anonymously through a sperm bank, would the state go after the other mom? No.

In my opinion, it just shows that gay marriage needs to be legalized. Then both women could have claimed parenthood. The children could have been adopted and the state could collect their pound of flesh from the person who claimed responsibility for raising the children in the first place.

Perhaps with good legal representation he can mediate an agreement or make some kind of civil case with the other mom. If she refuses to take financial responsibility for HER two children, then she's just another "dead beat dad/mom.

reply to post by ollncasino


I'm sure if this case went to trial he will not have to pay. At least in America, of which USA and British common law are paralleled, it comes down to equity. So, like in the above case in which a man had to pay for his non-biological child, if you hold yourself out to be a parent and therefore by doing so prevent the child from their right to receive benefits from their biological parent, you're considered the parent and must pay up. At the end of the day, it makes sense, bc it's all about the kids. The OP case is nothing of the sorts.

Originally posted by ollncasino
Mark Langridge donated his sperm to a lesbian couple in 1997 and 2000.

In the intervening years the lesbian couple separated, leaving the biological mother with both children.

Sounds like the lesbian couple were the deadbeats here.

If you want to experiment with an alternative lifestyle, go for it. Just don't bring a kid into your experiment like that. that's pretty f'ed up if you ask me.

But on the man's side, you don't donate sperm like that without signing a waiver of responsibility.

Just goes to show that no good deed goes unpunished.

reply to post by Taupin Desciple

If you want to experiment with an alternative lifestyle, go for it. Just don't bring a kid into your experiment like that. that's pretty f'ed up if you ask me.

Heterosexual couples break up all the time.

writ.news.findlaw.com...

Within twenty-four hours of Mother's Day this year, a California appeals court held that E.G., a woman who gave birth to twins conceived with her lesbian lover's eggs, was the sole legal parent of those twins. The ruling came as a terrible disappointment to K.M., whose eggs had been used to conceive the twins. K.M. had petitioned to establish her parental relationship with the children, but the trial court, affirmed by the appellate court, dismissed K.M.'s petition. The court based its conclusion largely on a consent form that K.M. signed, waiving parental rights prior to the retrieval of her eggs. The decision in this case exposes the complexity of defining the term "mother" as well as the discriminatory impact that traditional default rules can have on a nontraditional family. (In the law, "default" rules are those that apply if the parties do not otherwise stipulate.)

so i answered my own question so on the egg donation issue the woman giving birth as opposed to the one donating the egg is the one that is the sole responsible party......so women donating eggs free from child support where as sperm donors if they dont get the right paperwork can be held liable....not really sure how i feel about that

There certainly should have been documentation. This is definitely a great cautionary tale, though.No doubt. Seems like I'm hearing similar stories more and more often.

It kind of takes me back to a previous job. I had a coworker whose boyfriend had fathered seven children with seven different mothers. Apparently, some of the women had lied to him about not being on birth control.

Ultimately he was ordered to pay child support for all seven kids. I mean, really...common sense, anybody? Fool me once...

Originally posted by hauster
So, like in the above case in which a man had to pay for his non-biological child, if you hold yourself out to be a parent and therefore by doing so prevent the child from their right to receive benefits from their biological parent, you're considered the parent and must pay up.

No.
In the case of the non-biological father, it was the lying Mother who held him to be the parent.

The couple never married and split up shortly after Travon was born.

Because they split up, the father had no role in raising the child and also did not prevent the mother from seeking assistance from the real father.

So we have a situation where the Mother is either...
- A lying cheat and fraud
- Slept with so many men she honestly had no idea who the father was, even after it was found in 2000 that Hatley was not it.

Either way, you wish the man to be at fault here.

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas


Lets try this, the guy chose to participate in the creation of a child, to be a sperm donor. Should he feel no responsibility if a child is born by him from his dna? It isn't about rape, it isn't about an accidental birth, he gave his child to others, he was paid to make a child and he knew it, he just didn't care.

reply to post by AQuestion


no he donated sperm and did them a favor as two women at this time cant make a baby,hell if i was him id argue as a homosexual he could potentially be unable to get it up at the sight of female parts and thus claim he could not have biologically created the baby wouldn't work but hey,

he was a sperm donor not banging transient hookers or knocking up a girl and leaving her on her own(where is her own partner and why is she not being asked for support if SHE agreed to raise the child.....sounds like a dead beat girl friend not a dead beat dad)

from looking into it if you are going to donate sperm do it anonymously that way on the off chance you are outed you at least have some one to sue for hippa violations and breach of contract.

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

reply to post by AQuestion


The lesbian couple could not have children. They wanted one and he agreed to give them one. The child belongs to the lesbian couple, not the sperm donor.

The sperm donor would not have had the child if the lesbian couple would have never have asked for it.
It's not as if he got drunk one night, knocked this chick up and then wouldn't man up.

It was a deal between friends. Not an accidental birth.

When one of the women revealed she was desperate to have children Mr Langridge agreed to help, as long as there were no strings attached.

Do you hate men or something?

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.