Andy Bathie was asked by two lesbians if he would donate his sperm so that they could have children. That would be, they assured him, the end of his parental duties. Now they have split up and he finds himself in the position of having to pay over 5,000 pounds a year towards their upbringing. One of the lesbians, who is not the children's biological mother, has no legal responsibility towards them. Yet Mr Bathie, who did this as a favour, does have. Is this not yet another flaw in the law?
2007-12-04 03:15:32 · 33 answers · asked by Anonymous in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Parenting
I think that comment by Angel was rather harsh, the man is innocent. He did no wrong, just tried to help out the wrong people, people that in the end are taking even more advantage of him.
2007-12-04 03:32:24 · update #1
Well pointed out there, Louie.
2007-12-04 04:09:19 · update #2
I would like to know, in reply to a couple of the answers that pointed out their views, what would have happened if this had been a normal man/woman relationship and the man walked out. Who would then have been made to pay? I'm of the opinion that the man with the relationship with the woman would have been liable. I could be wrong, but I do think this would have been the case. Even if they weren't married, they would have been classed by law as man and wife. And whoever suggested that this question was in the wrong section, take note; It's about pregnancy and parenting, there is no section just for this type of question.
2007-12-04 04:42:48 · update #3
If there are going to be same sex "marriages" then there should be a set of rules set up for them as with ours.
A legally binding document should be drawn up if children are to be involved, to basically say that if the sperm donor wants nothing to do with the baby once the donorship has been completed, then he has the choice to be involved or not. Once he signs on the dotted line either way, there should be no going back and that way there can be NO disputes such as this one.
The other lesbian parent (who is not the biological mother) should also sign on the dotted line to state that no matter what happens she will have involvement or sorts in the childs life, given that she agreed to having a baby.
After all, you can't just wash your hands of a human life that is dependent on you! It's not like a possession. You can't give back a baby!!
2007-12-04 05:44:52 · answer #1 · answered by Loulla 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This really has nothing to do with same sex marriage.
What if Mr. Bathie had provided sperm to a hetero couple who's relationship ended during pregnancy ( a fact you omitted in the statement.)?
I contend that the ruling would be the same. Particularly, if as in this case the natural father was actually involved with the child. If you act like a parent, the courts will often make you pay support.
What the problem is is that the legal system hasn't yet caught up to the realities of reproductive technology. There are seemingly unfair rulings of this sort all the time, that have nothing to do with the genders of the married people.
There may be some valid arguments against same sex marriage, but this isn't one of them. This is an argument to strike a committee to study the issues of modern reproductive technology and family law.
2007-12-04 03:23:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Actually I beg to differ, I think the above dilemma is why they SHOULD be allowed. Let me explain:
If the women were able to LEGALLY be married, and LEGALLY adopt the child together, than both women would have had legal responsibility to the child, and thus one of them would have had to pay child support.
I believe there is a flaw in the law, but in the fact that homosexuals, cannot share the same legal and financial rights as heterosexuals. *I'm speaking PURELY legally and financially, without trying to bring in the religious argument, IE is it a marriage in God's eyes, as that is not in question for this particular instance*.
Also the man should have had a legal document written up before hand that absolved him of any and all parental rights, as I assume is done in situations where a man donates sperm to a sperm bank.
Good Question.
2007-12-04 03:22:07 · answer #3 · answered by moonshadow418 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I feel he shouldn't pay, however, he assumed responsibility the moment he signed the birth certificate. Once you sign that you're the father and have to pay support according to the law. The laws are not up to speed with our technology so this is a big flaw we have. But just because of this story that shouldn't make same sex marriages not allowed. This is a case of ONE person not knowing their rights and failing to consult a lawyer before donating his sperm. So this bad case should not have a repercussion on the rest of society.
2007-12-04 04:36:35 · answer #4 · answered by xliz711x 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I feel sorry for the guy, as he was truly coerced. It's not the same as a guy who had sex with a woman and got her pregnant; he was assured that he was just going to be the donor. I guess they should have gone to court before they went through with it to get a contract saying he is not responsible. I hope it will at least be a lesson to other men not to get involved in sperm donation if they don't want to pay child support. And to others who don't want to pay, keep it in your pants!
2007-12-04 03:46:43 · answer #5 · answered by SoBox 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
People donate sperm, and eggs, to hetero couples as well as lesbians, so that doesn't really have anything to do with the situation.
If he's required to pay child support of some sort, he should pay the person who has primary custody of the child.
And no, that doesn't seem reasonable - if the law allows this, it should be changed and protections should be in the contract for the sperm or egg donation.
2007-12-04 03:20:51 · answer #6 · answered by Judy 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Huge flaw my friend, there should be a law were if asked from a couple of the same sex to donate sperm, the biological father will be free from any economical obligation.
2007-12-04 03:20:03 · answer #7 · answered by ?cgc2006 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It appears to be more of a flaw in his judgement.
Ideally he should have had some legal document drawn up releasing him from all responsibility if that is possible.
He didn't do that and is paying the price now. As the saying goes, "verbal contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on."
2007-12-04 03:21:22 · answer #8 · answered by Nexus6 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
That absolutely stinks. I would have recommended they did the donation with an attorny involved and have everything documented. People just take advantage of trusting and giving friends and family. This is a very unfortunate situation
2007-12-04 03:42:23 · answer #9 · answered by desiwallace24 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He should have got a contract first of all then i don't know. there is a case of tv right now in the us that a man is having to pay child support and back child support so think twice before you or any man gives a part of hisself up.
2007-12-04 03:23:58 · answer #10 · answered by sam22254 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋