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

That's not the same thing at all and you know it, but could you stop with the bad analogies and stick to the issue at hand?

"Mother should have to pay damages to father for forging his signature to the tune of half the costs of raising a child. (Ie a maintenance amount, not paying for fancy optional extras like private school)."

What if the older child is already going to private school, agreed to and planned for by both parents, but the father can't afford to pay school fees for the second child? What happens then?

It's the exact same thing. One parent wanting a baby, the other not.
Using the exact same embryo, for the same result, except it is born to the father and not the mother. That is the only difference.

If the embryos were put in a surrogate it would count as egg donation. The woman would have to have counselling & screening tests, so couldn’t really be snuck through.

I don't get how a man can be held responsible for the actions of a woman who used his genetic material in a way he didnt want. Conception after sex is always a possibility regardless of contraception. But consent to sex was given.

IVF involves more than one stage of consent. And people here are arguing that consent doesnt matter. Which is a very dangerous path to go down.

Basically people here are arguing that a woman should be held financially liable if a man used an embryo to implant into a surrogate mother.

"Because they had no way of knowing he did not sign the form"

How is that a defence though?

It does seem ridiculous that both parties don't have to sign in person though.

It's the exact same thing. One parent wanting a baby, the other not.
Using the exact same embryo, for the same result, except it is born to the father and not the mother. That is the only difference

You cannot be serious. It is NOT the same thing. Your scenario involves a third person, unrelated to the embryo, fraudulently stealing the embryo from the clinic. In your scenario this criminal stranger would be the legal mother and the man would be the legal mother. The biological mother would not be liable for anything because legally she would be no relation of the child, and the criminal surrogate would be legally the parent, and also criminally liable for theft.

IT could not be less the same thing. How many more completely wrong posts do I have to correct you on?

Shelby I meant that the father fraudulently claimed a surrogate was the mother. It would never happen of course, but as a principle I'm just shocked that some people think he has a duty of financial obligation when he clearly isn't at fault.

*man would be the legal FATHER.

but as a principle I'm just shocked that some people think he has a duty of financial obligation when he clearly isn't at fault

of course he does. He created the embryo and he is the child's father. Of course he has a duty, no matter that he did not consent to the second stage.

I think what it boils down to, is that men lose all rights to their genetic material the moment it leaves their body. I'm so glad I'm not one to be honest!

fraudulently stealing the embryo from the clinic.

Just like this mother did.

I heard am interview with the dad saying he loves his daughter but he never wanted her and he find it hard to reconcile.

It an absolute mess and the judge whilst he couldn't find that the clinic were negligent effectively said to the dad that he is in the right.

The mother is an absolute fool, and a wicked one at that. She basically wanted a baby and committed fraud to get one.

The poor children involved in this utter mess.

No, not just like. Because it is actually her embryo. It's not the same.

If you don't understand the basics of the law in this area, give up now.

How was the clinic found to be not negligent

They were found to be in breach of contract but, under current legal policy, not liable to pay any damages as a result of that breach.

Of course he has a duty

Yes, he has a duty. He is not denying that. He is, however, arguing that the clinic is in breach of contract and should pay damages for that breach.

Of course it's the same thing, anyone who says it isn't is being deliberately obtuse. if a man forged a woman's signature in order to obtain the embrio so he could have a child it is exactly the same. The fact that he might use a surrogate is just a detail in the puzzle but if you want to be so specific about it, if the woman had originally used a surrogate to carry the first child due to say being unable to carry a pregnancy and then went ahead and forged the man's signature to use the other embrio to do the same again would people still think he was financially liable because once a man has given his genetic material he has no control over it? Because if you do, then you have to admit that if a man did the same she would be equally liable.

I think that it is a question of how rigorous the checks at the clinic were. I think that failing to have a face to face confirmation of consent is unacceptable. It's perfectly possible, as we can see here, to forge a signature and once the deed is done it is too late. Unfortunately he can't just ignore the child's existence and there is little point in suing his exwife unless she is able to pay for the child without his support I suppose. Even then the clinic has still failed.

There's no way he should be paying for a child which at no point did he consent to have (they didn't even have sex). Nor should he be expected to love the child. That's bloody absurd and I don't know why pps are mentioning that. I wouldn't automatically love something because it was genetically mine. If my eggs were stolen like his sperm was and a child came along in the future you're damn right I'd be suing the clinic.

No, not just like. Because it is actually her embryo. It's not the same.

It's only half hers. She fraudently obtained it by forging the father's signature.

Whether the father or the mother obtained the embryo by fraud, it is the same thing.

@CycleHire apologies that came out wrong. What I actually meant was that perhaps remaining embrio's should be destroyed after the cycle i.e. Once the embrio's to be used are implanted and a positive result achieved. But actually on reflection that wouldn't be necessary if the clinic had the correct checks and balances in place to avoid fraudulent use of materials in the first place e.g. Both parties having to sign consent in person with ID etc.

It all sounds very odd to me as all through our ivf treatment as far as I was aware the man has to be present at the embryo transfer and they do numerous checks to make sure they have the correct people and embryo. I didn't think they could proceed with a transfer without the male partner being there. So something sounds very odd about the process they went through.

It's only half hers. She fraudently obtained it by forging the father's signature

Yes, it is half hers and half his. It is not at all some random surrogates though, which is why it is not and never could be the same thing.
Do I have to explain basic biology as well as the law?

And the clinic is negligent because although they were defrauded as well, they didn't have adequate checks and balances in place to prevent that happening.