to ask opinions on this IVF court case?

[iogo]

I've had a quick look but can't see another thread, apologies if there is one.

I've just read this story on the BBC about a man losing his court case for damages against an IVF clinic where his ex wife forged his signature to undergo a second round of IVF after they'd split, resulting in a daughter.

I feel so desperately sorry for that child and the man involved. I can't quite wrap my head around what his ex wife did. I can understand the court not forcing the clinic to pay damages such as school fees, future wedding etc. I can understand the father not wanting to pay for the upkeep of the child and I'm not sure it's fair to make him. But then how unfair would it be to pay maintenance and school fees for one child but not the full sibling (I mention school fees as it's mentioned in the article so I'm presuming the older sibling goes to private school and the ex wife was in a position to be able to afford priveate IVF as the NHS is not mentioned)

BBC link www.bbc.com/news/health-41525215

Desperation is not the reasonable excuse that some people on this thread seem to think that it is. I would consider breaking the law to save the life of a child I already had, e.g. in the hypothetical situation that the first child needed a matching donor, but what this woman did was simply selfishness. She wanted something, and she didn't care about ethics or other people's feelings.

We don't know that the father is a 'bad' father just because he's brought this case against the clinic. I think that he's absolutely right to want them to have a robust and rigorous procedure against illegal use of genetic material, and the best way of focusing any profit-making organisation's mind is to make their actions to have a financial consequence. I feel sorry for the father, it must be a terrible thing to feel powerless over something as personal as your own fertility and reproduction.

This is why I think it's kind of relevant that they weren't married (I didn't realise originally) - if you're married and you get divorced or legally separated, then there is an end point where I can imagine a clinic or judge says, you are divorced, your marriage is legally ended, the embryos must be destroyed.
If they weren't married... how did the relationship end? Did he move out for a little while? Come back again for a trial? Leave again, sell his part of the house to her? If they even had bought a house together -
how financially meshed were they? Maybe not very?
I can totally imagine why he would not have thought about the embryos, and even if he did, didn't want to potentially poke a hornets nest by raising it out of the blue. For all we know he moved out and a week later she decided to pull this stunt ASAP. And to be fair we don't even know who ended the relationship... maybe she wanted out but still wanted her son to have a full sibling?
It certainly is a one sided thing where the mother can fake a signature and get pregnant but the dad obviously can't :-)

Women get to make choices that men don't have.

They can choose whether to progress the pregnancy, or not. They can choose to keep the baby, or not.

Men get lumbered. They cant terminate their responsibilities or put their father hood up for adoption.

Specifically referring to the OP, some women do trick men, and the man should not be financially screwed over through a womans deceit.

The woman who did this is very much in the wrong.

But the guy is fucking pathetic. They had an interview with him on the TV where he said he couldn't bear to touch his child because she represented so much pain to him. Whatever the wrongs of the mother, to inflict them on a child is beyond despicable. Sometimes things happen that aren't fair, but your job as a grown adult is bloody well to make sure that a 6 year old doesn't carry the burden.

ArcheryAnnie Fri 06-Oct-17 13:55:45
Has he said why he didn't ask for the embryos to be destroyed?

He did but he was too late. From the judgement:

27. On 29th October 2010 R attended the clinic for her pre-transfer appointment. On 2nd November 2010 one embryo was thawed and transferred, the clinic’s internal “Embryo Thawing Form” recording “Consents Checked”. In the summer of 2011 E was born.

28. On 25th November 2012 ARB signed a form withdrawing his consent to the use and storage of any embryos fertilised by his sperm.

@guilty100 - that’s very sad. And I’m pretty horrified by the people on this thread who think once a child is here, however they came about, it should be possible for a parent to end their responsibilities towards them. Whatever the mother has done it’s not the child’s fault.

Some of the comments on here are misinformed.

The father in this case was never married to the mother. He is playing a part in his daughter's upbringing. He has contact with his daughter although the evidence in this case suggests he had to go to court to get it - one of the problems for the mother, who maintained that she had not forged the father's signature despite evidence from a handwriting expert demonstrating clearly that she had, is that her evidence in this case was contradicted by evidence she had given in the contact case. He says that he loves his daughter and he appears to be paying maintenance despite the mother initially saying that she did not want anything additional to the maintenance he was already paying for his son.

His case is that the clinic is in breach of contract by implanting the embryo without his consent and that they should therefore pay damages. The clinic argue that they are not liable and that, if they are, the mother should pay as she forged the father's signature.

The judge found for the father but found that, as a matter of current legal policy, damages could not be awarded due to the difficulty of measuring the loss, the unwillingness of the courts to regard the child as a financial liability, the refusal to offset the benefits of parenthood from any additional financial liabilities, the feeling that it is morally unacceptable to attempt this exercise and the notion that it is not fair, just and reasonable to allow this sort of claim. These are the arguments that have been used to deny compensation to men who have fathered a child following a vasectomy and women who have born children following sterilisation.

From the judgement the judge clearly expects this to go to appeal and appears to think there is a chance the higher courts could disagree with his judgement.

Thanks, logo.

guilty100 I think you have this absolutely right: Sometimes things happen that aren't fair, but your job as a grown adult is bloody well to make sure that a 6 year old doesn't carry the burden

And I’m pretty horrified by the people on this thread who think once a child is here, however they came about, it should be possible for a parent to end their responsibilities towards them

He doesn't appear to want to end his responsibilities towards his daughter. Having apparently fought for contact he appears to want to fulfil his responsibilities. However, he entered into a contract with the clinic. The judge agreed that the clinic is in breach of that contract. He therefore thinks that the clinic should pay some damages rather than being able to breach the contract without penalty.

It’s definitely not the child’s fault. But what the mother did is so wrong I’m not surprised he’s struggling to get past that. If she had forged the signature for something else such as to take out a joint loan then she would be facing much tougher consequences.
I understand desperation for a child but she had no right to do what she did. Morally absolutely wrong.

I think the clinic were remiss in the consent. I am glad if it has made clinics review their consent procedures, I personally think the clinic should have paid him compensation , he obviously wants to do his best by the child and make sure it is not disadvantaged compared to the sibling, but I can understand that he is peed off at feeling obliged to do this because of something that he was not party to at the time.

your job as a grown adult is bloody well to make sure that a 6 year old doesn't carry the burden

He loves her. He has contact with her. He is providing for her. On the evidence in the judgement, I think he is making sure that his daughter is not carrying the burden.

I don't think you can even mark divorce as the point where there would be an assumption that embryos would be destroyed. It's conceivable that if the frozen embryos represented one or other spouse's only chance at having another child, the other partner might consent to another go at implantation. I mean I don't think there's many people who would be willing to do that, but I don't think you can take that right off them. The current process, where they need consent from both parties, is fine - only maybe that clinic should change its processes so that the pre-implantation signoff is done in person.

I would imagine (hope) that the child in question remains completely unaware that any of this is happening. And as for why he's suing the clinic: they're the ones with the money.

I feel awful for this poor kid who had no say in this.

So he should be able to dissolve his parental rights and she should go to jail.

And what exactly would happen to these innocent children who didn't ask for any of this? Honestly some of you are being silly.

The clinic was negligent. The mother having done something clearly wrong doesn't change that. They ought to have more robust procedures.

The judge basically says as much but can't do anything, because it's not currently possible to grant people damages for anything contraception and fertility related when the outcome is a healthy baby.

I think he's pathetic, from what I've read he DOES have a relationship with her, so he can't then turn around and try to ask someone else to pay for her

Viviennemary:
I don't think he has the right to destroy the embryo.

Does she?

Anyway, he actually would have to consent to continued storage - the default is destruction.

I don't think he owes her a penny.

She acted fraudulently to make him a parent, as sure as a man would if he'd put holes in a condom during 'protected' sex.
She's a deceitful scumbag, and while I understand the desire to have children, it was she who wanted one. Let her support it alone.

If he had won (or wins at appeal) surely the clinic would then sue the woman for damages - she'd have one huge bill to pay.

She acted fraudulently to make him a parent, as sure as a man would if he'd put holes in a condom during 'protected' sex

Yes,and in that case he would still be liable to support the child.

No matter how this child came about, she is still his. He is her father and he needs to act like one.

If it was a natural pregnancy he woudn;t have had any say about it.

He would have had a say in having sex. So yes a lot of say.

If he had won (or wins at appeal) surely the clinic would then sue the woman for damages - she'd have one huge bill to pay

No she wouldn't. She is not liable for the failings in their system.

He would have had a say in having sex. So yes a lot of say

Yes, in the same way he had a lot of say in creating the embryos. But none after that point.

The mother should have had the child taken from her and she should be behind bars.
She put her own selfish self-interest before the well-being of a child and is a greedy, grabby cow.....

Perhaps if women weren't 'let off' in cases like this and were not allowed to pursue for maintenance - it might work as a deterrent.