Sperm Donor Told To Pay Child Support

Remove all ads!

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

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.)

 

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 bitch.

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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

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.

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.

 

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.

 

From the link:

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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

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.

 

I agree 100%.