Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

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

54 replies

GetAllTheThings · 31/10/2012 08:55

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 ?

OP posts:

Bramshott · 31/10/2012 11:19

As I understand it from the article, the bio mother is now on benefits and the job centre have insisted she goes through the CSA. All sounds very unfair to me.

RedGreenRouge · 31/10/2012 11:23

But you could argue that the NRP was equally responsible in getting the parent pregnant through her actions. And should therefore take responsibility for the child that was born through her actions.

I may be reading this wrong, but the article seems to suggest that the NRP didn't know that a sperm donor was used: he was told by the mother that he was not named on the child's birth certificate, and that the mother's story would be that she'd had a fling and that the father had gone back to the US.

Of course, if the partner was part of the decision to use the donor sperm then she should definitely contribute. If she was tricked, then she shouldn't be any more liable than the poor man.

Kendodd · 31/10/2012 11:23

So if he did get some sort of written agreement he (or any man) could just walk away?

As I said earlier, I think these rights belong to the child and shouldn't be signed away by either parent.

As for the point earlier about the doctor having some financially responsibility, well that's just madness, although I know it wasn't a serious suggestion.

I don't think you can't just ignore the biology.

Dahlen · 31/10/2012 11:24

I don't think he should have to pay. Although it wasn't an anonymous sperm donation done through a clinic, he basically donated sperm to a same-sex couple in the same manner - to allow them to have a child. They are the parents, he is merely the provider of the genetic material.

Legally speaking he has to pay as the law is the law, but it would be nice to see common sense prevail and a precedent be set over this. Regardless of whether the parents were in a CP or not, they made that decision to have a child and the NRP should be made to pay, not the 'father'. It's no different to cohabiting heterosexual parents being held to account on separation IMO.

WofflingOn · 31/10/2012 11:24

I do think that the law needs completely redesigning with regards to the current diversity of relationships possible. But if he's liable, then he should have PR, and the right to fight for custody too.

TodaysAGhoulDay · 31/10/2012 11:25

I think he and the NRP should be paying half each.

WofflingOn · 31/10/2012 11:26

And that all men should be very wary of any sort of favour involving their sperm!

OneMoreChap · 31/10/2012 11:30

I think he should pay.

Those were the rules.

I also think he should have access to the child, and fulfill his parental role; if PWC wants the CSA payments, she can cope with explaining to the child why this man is now his daddy.

meditrina · 31/10/2012 11:32

I think the Guardian article is misleading.

It says "if he did it in similar circumstances today he wouldn't be liable" - WRONG. If he inseminated someone (directly or indirectly) in a private arrangement, then he is liable, then and now.

If you donate through a regulated sperm bank, you are never liable.

Back then, sperm banks could (and in case did) refuse unmarried couples (not all did so, though). As there was no CP then, that effectively meant some would not take on homosexual couples. That is no longer the case. Further review is not required. Those who wish to donate should do so in a HEFA regulated system. And those who do not want the biological father later turning up to claim access based on consanguinity (something which has also happened) should avail themselves of HEFA protection too.

Madelinethepumpkin · 31/10/2012 11:33

If a proper agreement and the NRP (the other woman) is listed as the parent of the child then he shouldn't pay, she should. But if its not official then he should pay - plenty of men "donate sperm" in one way or another, they should be responsible for the life they have created IMO.

spamm · 31/10/2012 11:35

But surely, if this is fair, then the CSA should gets its act together and go after egg donors and surrogates as well, especially if there is no biding legal agreement. They have a part in the biological process too.

L1zLem0n · 31/10/2012 11:38

I don't know about this one. My x tried to argue that he was exempt from paying maintenance because we'd entered into an agreement where he agreed not to press charges against me in return for my not pursuing maintenance. He's a delusional narcissist. But you should have seen the file of 'evidence' he gave his solicitor. Emails he'd dug up and so on, he thought they PROVED he shouldn't have to pay. Haven't seen a penny yet!

L1zLem0n · 31/10/2012 11:39

My point there was that it could set a precendent for fathers to come up with all these reasons why they shouldn't have to pay and the point is that it's about the CHILD.

TheCunningStunt · 31/10/2012 11:40

I think the other mother should be legally responsible. And this is now the case, as far as I am aware.

I had my son when I met my now partner and we used the same spam donor to conceive our daughter. We had our civil partnership and my partner adopted both the children (as we concieved before the law was changed that would have made her a parent automatically). My ex (who I was with when I conceived my son) left me when I was pregnant and I had no legal rights to chase her for money. I had to go onto benefits briefly (36 wks pregnant so no chance of a job) and the benefits agency threatened to cut my money quite a lot if I didn't reveal who my donor was for the csa. But I promised my donor anonymity, and didn't have any actual details other than an email.

I think this mother has behaved very badly. He was a sperm donor, her partner is the parent and they should have sorted it out between them. I am very glad the law changed in April 2009. www.stonewall.org.uk/at_home/parenting/2626.asp just in case anyone is interested in the law...

TheCunningStunt · 31/10/2012 11:41

Spam donor??? Jesus.......Sperm!!!! Spam donor...must preview before I post!!!!

TheCunningStunt · 31/10/2012 11:45

Meditrina that's not strictly true. You can donate by private arrangement to a lesbian couple in a civil partnership and not be liable. The other mother will be the parent
"Lesbian couples who are civil partners at the time of conception and conceive a child through artificial insemination will both automatically be treated as their child?s legal parents.

This applies both where civil partners conceive through fertility treatment at a licensed clinic and where civil partners conceive through artificial insemination by private arrangement at home (for example using sperm donated by a friend acting as a known donor)."

L1zLem0n · 31/10/2012 11:46

PS, so when is a man a sperm donor and when is he a father? That is so grey.

There's a thread here from a lone parent considering having a child with her x (they have a good relationship and co-parent). Lots of posters have said she's using him as a sperm donor. From her perspective, he seems to enjoy being a father to the child they already have, they work well together as co-parnts although it's 'traditional' in that she does more of the care and he funds more of it £££

L1zLem0n · 31/10/2012 11:47

spam! lol. the only thing that tastes worse. 0_o right time for another name change

BegoniaBampot · 31/10/2012 11:55

Torn with this, but can't help feel that if you play a part in creating a life, not sure if you should be able to have absolutely no responsability for that child. Also what if the child wants to know about the father as they get older, many adopted children really struggle with wanting to know their biological parents.

Madelinethepumpkin · 31/10/2012 11:55

thecunningstunt my autocorrect changed "sperm" to "soreen" initially!!! The legal obligations of a Soreen donor... That would be interesting.

meditrina · 31/10/2012 11:58

Cunningstunt: is that definitely the same thing? I agree a CP partner has automatic PR. But it is possible for a child to have more then two people with PR, so the biological third party gamete donor could still, in a private arrangement, be help liable later. That is why using a HEFA approved centre would give additional protection for both donor and recipient as the consanguinity route to PR is clearly removed.

TheCunningStunt · 31/10/2012 12:18

Med you would have to look into it further, but as far as I aware it is the case. If my partner and I conceived now, via donor at home, she would be named on the birth cert and be financially responsible as well as everything else. The donor would not...see here...
"A donor who donates sperm outside the context of a licensed fertility clinic (for example, a friend or a donor found through a website online) does not acquire this automatic protection and may be treated as the legal father of the child. However, where a child has a mother and a second female parent he or she does not also have a father. This means that, where a donor donates informally in circumstances where both lesbian partners will be treated as legal parents (including civil partners conceiving at home), the donor will no longer have any legal or financial responsibility for any resulting child."

BoneyBackJefferson · 31/10/2012 14:09

Out of curiousity

Would those saying that he should pay be happy if

He went for PR?
Visitation?
or full custody?

5madthings · 31/10/2012 14:19

well if he has to pay then he should get pr and be allowed access etc if that is what he wants.

its very tricky i dont think he should be paying tbh, i donated my eggs but did so through a reputable fertility clinic and its all covered by HEFA and i had numerous documents to sign and counselling and tho at 18 the children created by my eggs (the couple are preg with twins!) will be allowed to apply for my details etc i am in no way responsible for them financially or otherwise and that is how i want it! i am happy to be in contact with them if they choose to get in touch with me, but they are not my children and never will be. they have parents who are responsible for them.

thecunningstunt has that been tested in court yet the new rules i knew if you did it through a reputable agency then you were fine but donations like these via friends etc are a bit more tricky and ultimately the father may not be named on the birth certificate (or the mother if its donor eggs) but they are biologically related. this is why i went through a proper clinic with hefa etc. why leave yourself open to the risk.

CSIJanner · 31/10/2012 16:49

The ex- partner, who still sees the children in the weekend and lives around the corner, should lay maintaince IMHO. as PP's have said, the couple in the civil relationship decided to have the child and therefore should have the responsibility.

The problem here is that the gay man only got verbal agreements, not written about financial liability. The sad thing is,it's affecting his business, his 16year relationship and he made sure that the couple were stale and had adequate finances at the time. It's the children who I feel sorry for, for being put in this position.

Flip

1 2 3