Medical Questions > Debate Forums > General Debate Forum

Should This Man Be Made to Pay? (Page 1)

User Profile
The Guardian Newspaper wrote:

Sperm donor to lesbian couple forced to pay child support


A firefighter who donated sperm to a lesbian couple said yesterday that he was being made to pay child support for their son and daughter, in a case believed to be the first of its kind in Britain.
Andy Bathie, 37, said the women, who approached him five years ago after other male friends declined to become donors, assured him he would have no personal or financial involvement in the children's upbringing. But he said the Child Support Agency contacted him last November and made him take a £400 paternity test, then demanded support payments because the couple had split up.

Legally, only men who donate sperm through licensed fertility clinics do not become the father of any children conceived using their donation.
Proposed legislation, at committee stage in the House of Lords before passing to the Commons, would give equal parenting rights, including financial responsibilities, to both members of same sex couples, but the change will come too late for Bathie, who is lobbying for the laws to be made retrospective and for him not to be seen as the legal parent of the children, now aged two and four.

"These women wanted to be parents and take on the responsibilities that brings. I would never have agreed to this unless they had been a committed family. And now I can't afford to have children with my own wife - it's crippling me financially," he told the Evening Standard.

At the time of his donation, Bathie was in a relationship with a woman who was not planning to have children, but he has since married someone else.

"I did look into the legal side and understood that as a couple they would be the parents, not me. I was never daddy. They wanted children as a couple, which means they should take responsibility. The CSA admit that mine is an unusual case - this is double standards."

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

Natalie Gamble, a fertility law expert at Lester Aldridge, who has advised Bathie, said the case was the first of its kind she had come across. "Currently a non-birth mother in this situation is not automatically recognised as the parent in law, so she is not financially responsible. If the law being proposed was to apply in Andy's case, his responsibility for the child would be passed to the non-birth mother."

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority warned that "DIY" donors using methods such as unlicensed websites or home insemination were financially liable for their offspring.

Phil Willis MP, chairman of the innovation, universities and skills select committee, which deals with human fertilisation and research, said: "The CSA has to look very carefully at the issue. I suspect he won't get his money back, as there would be a flood of similar applications."

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/ 0,,2221460,00.html

Do you think he should pay Child Support?
Did you find this post helpful?
|

replied December 28th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
Well, given that he was not and never has been in a sexual relationship with either of the women involved, I'm gonna say no. However, I can see where the CSA is coming from, because they can't legally ask the non-birth mother to pay for her kids, and he is their biological parent. I guess we'll just have to get that legislation passed as quickly as possible.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied December 28th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
I'd say is there a signed agreement relieving him of financial obligations? Obviously he should not pay support since parents were already in place. It is cases like this that change laws. laws do not change themselves they require a motivator. This should be taken to court; at the least the lady who has custody should return his money every month.
This was a preset agreements opting him out of any financial obligations agreed upon by the three legal adults present.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied December 28th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
Yeah, they really should have put it in writing.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied December 28th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
He should have got something in writing stating he wouldn't have to pay support or be responsible for the child at all. Since he is currently paying support he should have every right to the child that the mother has.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied December 28th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Absolutely NOT. He shouldn't have to pay a dime, and that woman OWES him back any money he paid to her. In fact, she owes him money for the strain she is causing to his own marriage and the unhappiness he and his wife are experiencing due to not being able to have children of their own. This is another case of a woman being a life-sucking leech - it's sickening and I am ashamed of my own gender.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied December 28th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Another Good Reason to Support Gay Marriage.
Are the two kids going to be very poorly off if he doesn't pay anything? Isn't that the foremost important detail here?

Sure, he should've...they should've...whatever. But they didn't, and now there are two kids to take care of. That's too bad that he can't financially have kids of his own with his wife, but here are two kids in the flesh that need his help now.

(They should be going after "wife" #2.)
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied December 28th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Ppft, no. In my opinion, it's the current legal mother's responsibility to care for those children and if they are wearing rags and starving because SHE can't care for them then they need to go into foster care. It is NONE of the man's business and he shouldn't have been dragged into it like this. It's despicable. There is NO excuse for this kind of behavior this woman is doing.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied December 28th, 2007
Most Diplomatic Poster
He should have been careful enough to make himself familiar with the laws regarding his rights and responsibilities. You're talking about creating a human life with someone and that should be taken seriously. Obviously his intentions were good but he should have thought ahead. It is pretty sick that the woman is trying to get support from him. It just goes to show that not everyone deserves to have kids and just the desire to have a child of your own doesn't automatically mean you will be a responsible or conscientious parent.

Now they are making an example of him. Hopefully people will benefit from his mistake by preparing themselves better and avoiding a similar situation.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied December 28th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
HOPEFULLY laws will go in place so people like him don't have to be careful of sneaky, leech-like women who want to suck their wallets dry.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied December 29th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Eiri wrote:
Ppft, no. In my opinion, it's the current legal mother's responsibility to care for those children and if they are wearing rags and starving because SHE can't care for them then they need to go into foster care. It is NONE of the man's business and he shouldn't have been dragged into it like this. It's despicable. There is NO excuse for this kind of behavior this woman is doing.


Shocked I would rip kids away from the only family they have ever known and place them in the mess of a foster care system as an absolute last resort, and it sounds like legally and ethically there are other options.

Maybe the woman's excuse is that the kids will suffer, and until we know more details I'd like to lean towards that. Why assume firstly that the woman is a blood sucking leech? I'd rather give her the benefit of the doubt.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied December 29th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
I'd rip kids away from an incompetent mother period. The "father" is not a father in this story. He is just a sperm donor. He shouldn't even be involved; but that sick woman went "Waaah I'm single and can't be bothered to go to the government for help; let me take the sneaky route and betray the trust of the man who gave the sperm to make my children!! According to the law I can suck money out of him for the rest of my children's lives!"

Men get their money stolen from them every day because the government always gives the woman the "benefit of the doubt" because of course, the Maternal Instinct must be making the right decisions!!! FAH!!!
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied December 29th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
Eiri, nothing in the article says she's incompetent. A case can be made for her being greedy, but I don't think greedy = bad mother who deserves to have her kids taken away.
Quote:
Men get their money stolen from them every day because the government always gives the woman the "benefit of the doubt" because of course, the Maternal Instinct must be making the right decisions!!! FAH!!!
Also... what? This is a very unusual case, the guy even says so. What does the 'maternal instinct' have to do with it?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied December 29th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
I try very hard not to generalize and make assumptions about people before knowing all the details lest it happen to me one day.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied December 29th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Rodge wrote:
Eiri, nothing in the article says she's incompetent. A case can be made for her being greedy, but I don't think greedy = bad mother who deserves to have her kids taken away.
Quote:
Men get their money stolen from them every day because the government always gives the woman the "benefit of the doubt" because of course, the Maternal Instinct must be making the right decisions!!! FAH!!!
Also... what? This is a very unusual case, the guy even says so. What does the 'maternal instinct' have to do with it?

I do, but that's just me.

The maternal instinct is a reference to the fact that courts always seem to favor the mother in custody and other battles involving children. It's the "mommy" so she must be right, obviously! Thank god this is changing as Brittany Spears and K-fed show - The dad actually got the kids in this case. But especially in cases involving sucking money from the low-life male, the woman almost always wins because she "trots out the toddler", aka she plays the "think about the children!" card and she gets all the pity.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied December 31st, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Ya thank your god men can kidnap your children for two years; hide out with them and you don't have a single freaking idea where they are; employing P.I's don't work either; then all of a sudden you have a custody order; divorce; and two years of back support .... ya I know the woman this happened to.
Don't play the "women always win" card because THEY DON"T.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied December 31st, 2007
Especially eHealthy
If we looked up cases just from this century, I'd bet way more than half of them rule in favor of the mother. It wouldn't be a stereotype or an issue if there wasn't truth to it.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied December 31st, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
Women can be conniving b*tches, especially when it comes to having kids. Even women who conceive through sperm banks can use dishonest means to obtain information about the donor they chose and try to solicit money from them.

I don't think the guy should have to pay a red cent to this idiot woman, and personally I think the woman ought to be taken out behind the nearest building and shot for being so greedy and stupid. The woman probably just talked sweet to the guy and had every intention of burying her claws into his wallet from the start - hell, for all I know, she just wanted to get knocked up so she'd have some free money coming in from the father.

The guy is a little dense for giving in to this woman's request, but the fault lies more on the woman. If I were the guy, I'd be suing her for emotional distress at the very least.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied December 31st, 2007
Especially eHealthy
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way, Cambion! I was feeling outnumbered!
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied January 1st, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
Eiri wrote:
If we looked up cases just from this century, I'd bet way more than half of them rule in favor of the mother. It wouldn't be a stereotype or an issue if there wasn't truth to it.


OK.. I'll bite.. PROVE that being a woman is why they were given custody.

I'll even give you a few days.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
12