A man who donated sperm to a friend and her female partner is now being forced by the CSA to pay some money towards the child. The CSA say that only those who anonynmously donate at licences centres do not have to pay towards the child.

Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7125895.stm)

I think this is pretty shocking, personally. Why should he have to pay for a child that isn't his? He should be praised for helping out a friend rather than punished. He donated as a favour to a lesbian couple who wanted a child, rather than make them go through all the red tape of the sanctioned system, and then suddenly when one of the two lasses does a runner he, as the biological father has to pick up the cost of a child that, apart from sharing his DNA, has nothing to do with him.

Surely the cost of child support should be on the female partner who bolted, as it was the couple's choice to have a child?

He's being punished for not using the system, and trying to do someone a favour.

The lesson here; don't do anyone a favour, you could live to regret it.

This is also opening up another can of worms of course, women desperate for a baby who don't want to spend time going through the system could just have unprotected sex with a complete stranger.

Opinions?

In my opinion, that's another argument against sperm donating and artificial insemination.

Well, this proves one thing - you can never trust a lesbian.

(Insert tongue-in-cheek smilie here.)

This is also opening up another can of worms of course, women desperate for a baby who don't want to spend time going through the system could just have unprotected sex with a complete stranger.

IMHO if you're stupid enough to have unprotected sex let alone with a complete stranger you deserve what's coming at you.

Don't really know what to make of this. On one side he sort of deserves it for being naive enough not to think this completely through. Such decision shouldn't be taken lightly and he should seriously have considered the legal consequences of his actions prior to doing such a thing. On the other side, man what a *****.

Aldazar really needs to read that article. Although it might be too late.

How is this an argument against sperm donation and artificial insemination? The system works when going through existing channels and the man would not have been liable in any way.

This is not shocking at all. Consenting to conceive a child should imply some responsibility in the raising of the child (and does according to this article). Child support would be the bare minimum. I have little respect for a man would is willing to father a child and then abandon it. What a piece of **** of a man.

Barmy, that 'another can of worms' has always existed. Any woman who gets pregnant can come after the father for child support. All she has to do is prove the man is the father -- which is quite easy to do. If you are not protecting yourself, you are opening yourself up for 18 years of support.

Edit: IMO this case is about a man who agreed to have a child with another couple -- this is very different than donating sperm to an agency where all rights of parenthood are transferred.

I'm sorry, a woman who specifically asks a man for sperm for the intention of raising a child with another woman should not be able to come back on the man for child support. Something like that, the woman who was supposed to be there should be on the hook for...

I'm sorry, a woman who specifically asks a man for sperm for the intention of raising a child with another woman should not be able to come back on the man for child support. Something like that, the woman who was supposed to be there should be on the hook for...Morally and ethically I agree with you, but how can you prove that that's what happened, though? What if the guy just had an affair and is using this as a story to cover it up. Without some sort of written documentation, it's a "he said, she said" case where the only evidence is a human life. For being stupid enough not to get protection in writing, this guy had it coming, sadly.

I'm with Gnarff on this one. He's given them something very important, they can't ask for money... It's ridiculous.

I would say the man consented for the child to be conceived, partly by him, without actual intercourse involving his penetration of the woman, but still using his seed that came out. He is the father and that obligation cannot be removed. You can't disclaim paternal duties before fathering a child on a woman. Whether this happens through penetration or through giving away your sperm is not as important as it might seem at first glance.

Chev, ironically the situation is complicated by the fact that he wasn't an official donor. As the article said, had he donated to one of the sperm banks he would have no responsibility whatsoever. I also think he should not have to pay for it - if, as he says, he was asked to provide the sperm for the couple.

In my opinion, that's another argument against sperm donating and artificial insemination.

Why? IMO that's a reason IN FAVOR of donating sperm at an official sperm bank rather than just doing someone a favor. If the guy had donated to a sperm bank, he would not have to take on this responsibility.

I completely agree with Drew's opinion. While I don't think the man should have to support the child on an ethical level, I don't think there's any way around it on a legal level. If he didn't get any documentation done beforehand, there's no way that he can prove there was any pre-existing understanding that he wouldn't have to support the child. Without that proof, it doesn't matter that he simply donated the sperm to them and didn't actually have sex with either of them.

Chev, ironically the situation is complicated by the fact that he wasn't an official donor. As the article said, had he donated to one of the sperm banks he would have no responsibility whatsoever. I also think he should not have to pay for it - if, as he says, he was asked to provide the sperm for the couple.

The problem with sperm banks is that normally the donors are anonymous, so finding a particular donor will be impossible or at least severely difficult. Apart from these reasons, there might be an abstract ban - i.e. removed from any cause. That kind of ban would serve to make people donate without fear because that's what the state wants. Personally, I think fathers should always pay for the children. Also, as I said before, I'm against anonymous sperm donation, in vitro fertilisation and other aspects of artificial insemination.

While I don't think the man should have to support the child on an ethical level, I don't think there's any way around it on a legal level.

Sooner or later there'll be some lawyering around it. Ethically it stays the same.

If he didn't get any documentation done beforehand, there's no way that he can prove there was any pre-existing understanding that he wouldn't have to support the child.

You're missing one thing. While the child is not an adult with a legal say, it matters. What concerns the child cannot be settled by a contract (in this case more of an informal pact rather) between the parents.

Without that proof, it doesn't matter that he simply donated the sperm to them and didn't actually have sex with either of them.

Why would having sex be so important here? Why should a man be able to donate sperm and exclude parental responsibility but not have sex with a lesbian for the purpose of inseminating her, disclaiming the same responsibility? She could come to him for sperm in a vial, but she might as well come to him for sex for that purpose, doing it the old way. Why should the exclusion of reponsibility work in the first case but not the latter?

That and the child, of course.

Why would having sex be so important here? Why should a man be able to donate sperm and exclude parental responsibility but not have sex with a lesbian for the purpose of inseminating her, disclaiming the same responsibility?

:confused: I'm saying it does NOT matter in this case. Without any proof, it doesn't matter HOW she got pregnant, just that it was his sperm that got her pregnant.

I also agree that the child's needs cannot be completely disregarded here. I was just speaking to what the law says; i.e., that if you donate sperm to a sperm bank you aren't held legally responsible for any children that are produced from you sperm. If, on the other hand, you don't go through a sperm bank, then it doesn't matter HOW the woman get pregnant with your sperm - it only matters that she did get pregnant.

For all of the outrage people are having that this poor shmuck is going to have pay money, I am disappointed that nobody is upset about the "other" lesbian. Were they a "married" couple, did they have a civil union, or some other ceremony? To me they should be leaving this guy alone and going after the kid's "other mommy" for the support.

For all of the outrage people are having that this poor shmuck is going to have pay money, I am disappointed that nobody is upset about the "other" lesbian. Were they a "married" couple, did they have a civil union, or some other ceremony? To me they should be leaving this guy alone and going after the kid's "other mommy" for the support.

From the link:

The lesbian couple, who approached the couple five years ago after they married in a civil ceremony, have a boy and a girl.

The reason people aren't upset about your points are that the two women would seem to still be together. And yes, they are (not "were") clearly "married".

Well, in that case this isn't that bad of a deal for the kid. Most kids only get the financial support of two parents. This kid will have three. :doh:

Does this mean if lesbian #2 adopts the kid he is off the hook? If so, I would have thought this would have been mentioned.

A spokeswoman for CSA said: "Unless the child is legally adopted, both biological parents are financially responsible for their child - the Child Support Agency legislation is not gender or partnership based."

So even if the partner hadn't left, the man could have been forced to pay child support?

This is why there is sometimes a huge gap between what it morally right and what is legally right.

Why would having sex be so important here? Why should a man be able to donate sperm and exclude parental responsibility but not have sex with a lesbian for the purpose of inseminating her, disclaiming the same responsibility?

Because this was done specifically to exclude him from the raising of the child. It was her and her "wife" that wanted the kid...

And yes, they are (not "were") clearly "married".

Therefore, there should be no dice on that one. She didn't get left alone to care for a child...

I am in favor of anonymous sperm donation through a legally established sperm bank. There are medical reasons why some men cannot produce the necessary sperm to impregnate a woman. If the couple desire a child which has at least the mother's DNA/genetics this is as far as I know the only way. to do it. Proper records are kept regarding the donor so if a couple wished a certain type of father the match could be made. I have no idea what various laws are regarding the 'father' of the child. In olden times all a man had to do was raise the child in his hands and say, "This is my child." and so was it recorded.

In this particular case this procedure was not followed. The father is known. I'm sure laws vary from country to country just as laws here in the USA vary from state to state. I am aware of certain incidents where a child has legal rights and a suit can be brought for the child against the father requesting support even if the mother has chosen to forgo financial support.

In this particular case my gut reaction is the man was a fool. He did not think things through properly before agreeing.

And yes, they are (not "were") clearly "married". Therefore, there should be no dice on that one. She didn't get left alone to care for a child...
I agree 100%.

I've just read it and it's not yet too late...

Very scary thought for me at the moment, I've not had any more children of my own for the exact same reason this man said he and his wife haven't, I just can't afford it now. Anyway, it's definitely something I'm gonna have to ring my local CSA office about and mention to the couple who have approached me...

That aside, I guess legally there is no way for this to be avoided unless, as the CSA spokeswoman says in the article, the child is legally adopted. I found this out myself because a few years ago, when I was actually able to see my eldest son, his mother asked me to allow her husband to adopt my son so his name could legally be changed but I refused because I had been told this would end all rights and responsibilities I had to him

Scary thought this one... I'm glad I spotted it

I'm fighting with my ex-wife these days so forgive my slightly mysogynistic perspective, but it seems to me that these people made a deal. You know, as in a promise? The man agreed to donate some sperm to the lesbian couple. There does not seem to be any deceit on the part of the man (though there is evidence of first class stupidity) but the fact remains the woman asked him for something, told him that was ALL she wanted, and he did as he was asked. THEN. . . .

Like so many women, she broke her end of the promise. If anyone said to her "you made a deal knowing full well the ramifications and possibilities -- keep your end of the deal!" she'd just start crying and blame it all on those horrible, oppressive men. And once she's crying, the jig is up. God help the unfortunate man who wants to talk reason with one of these <edit -- wonderful females> when they play the gender card.

And our society often supports them in their lies and deceit, cheerfully telling them that nothing is ever their fault and never dreaming of actually placing consequences on them for their own decisions. The lesson to be learned here, gentlemen, is never trust a woman, even if you have legal documentation. The government will tear up any contract or deal to punish men if they forget this basic rule. Take it from someone who is currently being punished.

If a man were to break his end of a deal, the full force of society falls upon him, villifying him, labelling him with horrendous labels, and intruding into every aspect of his life. Is that fair? You bet it is! EVERYONE should be required to keep their promises and deals. What irks me is that women often aren't.

OK, that was a little harsh. I admit that. I'm a little frustrated right now is all, but my central idea that the entire playing field is TOTALLY slanted in favor of women is still a valid one, I believe.

i think the main thing to look at here is that the CSA are trying to enforce proper channels

That's all well and good but in a situation like this the input of the parents should definitely be taken into account, and due to personal experience the correct info is absolutely necessary, I recently had a phone call from CSA asking me if I was the father of an ex's new baby and would I be prepared to sign a Statutory Declaration to that end if so when they were clearly told that her current bloke was the father!

I'm confused here. Is there a law from the legislature explaining all this, or do the judges just make this stuff up. I suppose that, if there's no official document from the mother releasing the father from responability, things could get sticky, but I've heard on these boards of signed and legal contracts to that effect being thrown out by the judge. Is this a case of judicial discression going too far, or is it a case of established law superceding the intent of such a contract?

Is this a case of judicial discression going too far, or is it a case of established law superceding the intent of such a contract?From what I've seen, it was only a verbal contract. As we all know (or end up learning the hard way), a verbal contract isn't even worth the paper it wasn't written on.

This court decision in Pennsylvania (http://www.nbc10.com/family/14966129/detail.html?rss=phi&psp=news) caught my attention this morning. Apparently when there is an agreement between the parties that child support will not be provided, it can't be claimed later. Maybe Aldazar should move here...

if there's no official document from the mother releasing the father from responability

The CSA would never accept it, and the CSA always win.

My father had such an agreement in writing with my mother in return for the house, but in the end he was still forced to pay