AIBU to think these men shouldn't be paying CM ?

[GetAllTheThings]

Story in the Guardian about a gay man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple in a civil partnership resulting in two dc.

The couple split up and despite assurances he is then ordered by the CSA to pay child maintenance whilst the NRP from the relationship is not liable.

Law is now changed to prevent this, but this case happened before the law changed.

AIBU to think he shouldn't have to pay CM if that was the agreement he had with the couple, or should he continue to be held responsible for payments ?

[FeckOffCup]

It's a tricky one but I tend to think that if the sperm donor willingly donated sperm knowing that a child would be created from it then why shouldn't he help to support the child financially. Not that I think the NRP should get away scot free either.

[aldiwhore]

I'm glad the law has changed. I think the outcome of this case should be adjusted to reflect this, but if that isn't legally viable I guess all one can hope is that the NRP steps up and contributes.

[mutny]

No he shouldn't. But could they have had some sort of contract or agreement or the nrp (assuming the nrp is the one that is not biologically related to the child) have adopted the baby before when it was born. Would either of these situations changed anything?
While he agreed to help create a child he didn't agree to 'bring the child up' which suited them as well.
Seems a bit selfish on the part of the parents especially the nrp.

[glamourousgranny42]

I don't think he should he be liable. I had a similar situation. I had a child through donor sperm but I chose not to put his name on the birth certificate because he wasn't a parent at all. When my girlfriend and I split up despite the fact that we had been to court and she had parental responsibilty she was not liable for maintenance. As far I'm concerned 2 people decide to have a baby and they should be jointly responsible. A donor shouldn't be held responsible.

[SHRIIIEEEKPoolingBearBlood]

Wow. No that is not fair at all imo

[lovebunny]

i don't think the sperm donor should pay. the commissioning parents, both of them, should support the child.

[OneHandFlapping]

So what happens when a child is born to a hetero couple from donor sperm? I thought sperm donors were exempt somehow from financial responsibility. Or is that only when it's done through a clinic?

[Softlysoftly]

No not fair, if he was unknown as pep pps donor he wouldn't be liable.

However he was shortsighted in not legally protecting himself, lesson learnt

[GetAllTheThings]

So what happens when a child is born to a hetero couple from donor sperm?

I think the article says that prior to 2009 you had to be a hetro couple to use a sperm bank, which protected the donor from claims of CM. Hence the men in the article felt they were doing lesbian couples a favour as they didn't have access to sperm banks.

[Alibabaandthe40nappies]

He shouldn't be liable.

[WofflingOn]

Sperm donation banks were already struggling a couple of years ago, because of the removal of anonymity. If a donor is also going to be held responsible for CM, then it is likely to become catastrophic. I know that at the moment it isn't the case, but laws change and can be retrospective.

[gordyslovesheep]

it's not fair BUT when he did it he knew the law - he only had their verbal reassurance that they wouldn;t expect money

Legally - even with an agreement, he is responsible

the law has changed now and married couples or those in CP's are legally the parents and responsible for their children.

[OneHandFlapping]

"prior to 2009 you had to be a hetro couple to use a sperm bank,"

I'm not sure that's true. Many years ago, (way before 2009) I was Treasurer for the Pregnancy Advisory Service, who offered a donor sperm service as well as abortions. I'm pretty sure that at least one lesbian woman used the service, and also one or more single women.

[MrsBungleScare]

The man in question was interviewed on radio 5 on Monday. I felt really sorry for him.

He said the mother could not use a sperm bank at that time and that, as they were friends, he wanted to help her. She had a long term partner who was the second parent.

Since the mum has now split with her partner and her circumstances have changed she's gone to the csa.

He also said they had a big falling out and she threatened for years to do this.

Seems he went into it trusting it was a friendly arrangement although he did speak to a friend who was a solicitor about it but didn't go into the legal possibilites properly.

As usual in any case involving kids, they are in the middle of it too :(

[Kendodd]

As I understand it these rights to maintenance and knowledge about the donor parent belong to the child and so can't be signed away my the mother? In an unofficial donation anyway.

Very difficult situation, my first reaction is, no donor shouldn't pay, thinking about it a bit more, I don't know.

[Nanny0gg]

Whether he should or not, the other person in the partnership definitely should.

[Kendodd]

"Whether he should or not, the other person in the partnership definitely should."

Not sure about that either, we don't know the extend of their relationship, how long the other mother lived with the children etc. Apart from that the couple were not in a CP. This is of course assuming the NRP is not the biological mother. If this is anything like a hetro relationship the chances are the other mother (assuming that's the non bio) will have no relationship whatsoever with the children within a couple of years.

I think this and other cases like it show how much the whole system needs complete rethinking trying to accommodate modern values and lifestyles. By the whole system I mean child support/marriage/CP ect.

[BegoniaBampot]

Think it's very complicated. I feel for him but I think when you take part in an action that creates a life, that child is still part of you, you are responsible for it being alive in the first place. I think people have to think very carefully about their actions and any future consequences.

[SolidGoldYESBROKEMYSPACEBAR]

I do think it's tricky, because it's simply unfair to break an agreement you made with someone (ie that if he donated sperm, he wouldn't be expected to provide financial support and nor would he have any access to any child that did come into being).

[Kendodd]

Yes that's true Kim.

But could that also be applied to a friend or relative who encouraged and supported the mother? If she lived with her sister for example, and the sister had offered to help out with childcare and even financially would she then be liable? Also the fact that the sister is a blood relation to the child they are perhaps more likely to have a lifelong relationship with the child.

I think that we are trying to shoe horn gay parenting relationships into a hetro model and they just don't fit and so throw up these complex problems.

[Zalen]

I think that we are trying to shoe horn gay parenting relationships into a hetro model and they just don't fit and so throw up these complex problems.

I don't see that it is a complex problem, a couple decided they wanted a baby and made that happen, if the relationship breaks down then they should both remain a part of the child's life and share financial responsibility for the child.

Anyone else who happened to be peripherally involved in bringing the child into the world shouldn't be held responsible, it's like a woman going after her doctor for child maintenance because he delivered the child, ridiculous.

[EldritchCleavage]

I think he should have to pay, hard as it is. My view is that no one should ever really be able to sign away or contract out of responsibility for their birth children except through a court-supervised adoption process, and that should apply to sperm donors, egg donors, anyone.

[Ithinkitsjustme]

Morally je shouldn't be responsible and if the two women had an honourable bone in their bodies he wouldn't be asked for a penny, HOWEVER, in law he needs to be responsible because he didn't get any agreement in writing, so in this case he is "just an absent father" legally. If we allow him to walk away we are setting a dangerous precedent, any man who gets a woman pregnant unintentionally will be able to walk away, is that what any of us want?