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

MargaretTwatyer @15:43

My thoughts too.

What criminal offence do you think he might have been convicted of?

It's a criminal offence to knowingly use an embryo without the written consent of both parents according to this:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC259171/#!po=40.3846

Presumably she forged his signature because she strongly wanted a sibling and clearly knew he wouldn't give his consent .
Clinics if they're not already doing it before this case was decided will now be looking for photographic ID at the same time as personal presence to sign all relevant forms both before the initial IVF process and for any procedures thereafter which require consent . It also needs to be crystal clear that either party can withdraw consent to use embryos frozen at a later date .

I don't understand why the mother's not in jail for fraud right now, though fraud doesn't even begin to cover how vile what she did is.

I suspect a large part of that is probably that the Dad didn't pursue it for the children's sake.

So the mother committed an offence. The mother misled the man. Surely if the mother claims for any costs of the child the father counterclaims back for the whole of those (none of which helps the child). Perhaps the father could force the mother to work 6 days a week ful time so she is the one forking out for the child (writing as a mother who paid 5 sets of school fees from my own earnings..... yes women can actually earn money rather than just live off male earnings).

I think what the woman did is despicable. And she should be charged and possibly jailed appropriately for it.

I don't think the IVF place has any real responsibility here, they had a signature. Though maybe they need better protocol in place around verifying signatures.

As for the man. He's basically had body parts stolen and forced to be a parent. its a major assault and violation with lifelong consequences.

Flyingflipflop What I mean is, from what details have been made public, I feel desperately sorry for the man. There's alleged fraud here but no criminal charges yet. There could be more to come out.

The law always used to take the view that getting a child was a gift, no matter what the cost and financial obligation, that the law would regard a pregnancy and birth and child as a benefit, from a moral stand point. I rather liked that view. I remember reading cases on it. It's not an economic stand point but it feels right to me.

If that was the line of cases followed here (I have not read this judgment) then it probably flows from that that the clinic does not have to pay. However if I were the clinics from now on I would make both parents turn up in person with ID before resuming IVF (where there are two parents ).

i cannot see much point in jailing the mother. There may be a case for moving both children's residence to the father however with the mother working full time to pay for them and with limited visiting rights.

Evil woman.

I think the man willingly paid maintenance (he already had one child with the mother in 2008 and then she forged the signature to get access to another embryo in 2010) but the mother did not require it.

The clinic has some fault IMO as their consent protocols are too lax - surely the father should have been there in person to sign a consent form even though they had used the clinic before. However, you could equally argue that the father should have contacted the clinic when the relationship ended about access to the embryos.

This recent celeb case was thrown out due to the state it was filed in. The ex BF wanted access to the embryos so he could use a surrogate to have a child.
globalnews.ca/news/3700787/sofia-vergaras-frozen-embryo-case-dismissed-by-judge/

My first feeling is that both children should be removed from her.

She is not fit to be a parent.

Its disgusting just because she has children she gets away with a serious crime without punishment the law needs to be changef to were if the man can prove he didnt consent to sperm being used he shouldnt have to pay maintaince.

There was a case in USA were a woman drugged a bloke then "MILKED" the sperm from the unconious man and he still had to pay child maintenance when i get back home i will link it (she went to prison though as it was a federal crime to posion/drug someone but custody was awarded to her parents).

So currently there is no legal way not to pay for children even if harvested against there will (and yes men can enjackilate without consenting there is a glad in the wrectium which forces enjaculation btw) so the man doesnt even need to be concious to "donate" his bit

The law always used to take the view that getting a child was a gift, no matter what the cost and financial obligation, that the law would regard a pregnancy and birth and child as a benefit

His right not to have another baby trumps her right to have one. She did something terrrible.

"you could equally argue that the father should have contacted the clinic when the relationship ended about access to the embryos."

So he's to blame?

It probably didn't occur to hi that the embryos could be used without his permission.

Or that she would forge his signature, let alone "get away with it" if she did!

What makes a woman want a child with soeone who no longer loves them/wants to be with them?

Apols. Missed my comment on the above post. Only really if you're going to apply that to women too. E.g. Tell pregnant women a child is a 'gift' so they can't abort.

What the wife did was beyond the pale, TBH.but what’s the remedy? Mandatory abortion? Clearly not. Freedom from parental responsibilities for the father? I’m not sure that he’d particularly want that given that we’re talking about his flesh & blood.

Damages against the clinic mightn’t have been a terrible idea imo. Signatures are very much an 'old world' thing and totally inappropriate imo for such huge decisions.

FWIW I have personal experience with frozen embryos, the amounts that clinics charge are beyond the pale [£hundreds per year], and the admin burden of donation/finality of destruction is such that it’s much easier just to keep the payments rolling on indefinitely.

What a desperately sad case, and that woman is some witch to do it. She is completely in the wrong.

I can't see a good way out of this that doesn't punish someone, though. My instinct would be to give the father the majority of custody and have the mother pay child support - he seems interested in the little girl and it feels more just to me.

I would like to see the clinic pay some damages too, but the fault rests primarily with the mother and I feel she shouldn't escape scot free in this.

Yes, the mother seems to get away scot free-although who knows what her relationship with her kids might be like in the future?

There doesn't really seem to be a way of punishing the mum & not the kids though.

There are often articles about how much it costs to raise kids, so I don't see how it would be so difficult to award £x000 to the dad.

For a start the clinic could be paying maintenance instead of him!

That is a difficult question, I don't know.

Can you think of any possible reason why it would make a difference? Wouldn't you agree that the details of who actually gives birth are incidental, whereas the fraud and the lack of consent are what decides the case.

Can you think of any possible reason why it would make a difference?
Apart from the ones I've already given?

Wouldn't you agree that the details of who actually gives birth are incidental, whereas the fraud and the lack of consent are what decides the case

Of course it is not incidental. If the mother implants the embryo into herself, the biological parents are the legal parents. If either one of them implants it into a surrogate then the surrogate is the legal parent along with the father.
The biological mother is not the legal parent. She is no relation, and has no liability to the child.

I'm not sure how many ways I can tell you these simple facts.

Both of them hardly cover themselves in glory.

She’s forged his signature

He’s pressured her to abort a child conceived with his full consent via ivf not bothered to read legal stuff he signs and attends a appointment at a fertility clinic and apparently has no idea why he’s there.

There appears to be far more concern for his wife’s feelings than his child’s and he has pretty much told the world he didn’t want her to exist.

This legal article looks at some of the history of these cases and says

"'At the heart of their reasoning was the feeling that to compensate for the financial costs of bringing up a healthy child is a step too far'.30 The problem with this is that no matter how one puts it, it seems disingenuous to the parents to assert that the unsought child is a 'blessing' which justifies the departure from the well-established tortious principles."
www.westminsterlawreview.org/Volume2/Issue1/wlr7.php

He’s pressured her to abort a child conceived with his full consent via ivf not bothered to read legal stuff he signs and attends a appointment at a fertility clinic and apparently has no idea why he’s there.

He attended one gynae appointment before they split. He didn't give full consent to conception because he didn't give full consent to replacing the embryos.

There appears to be far more concern for his wife’s feelings than his child’s and he has pretty much told the world he didn’t want her to exist.

And whose fault is that? It's the mothers. She's the one who created that situation (knowingly) so I don't see how it's his fault because he's not just hidden it to spare his wife.

so I don't see how it's his fault because he's not just hidden it to spare his wife

It's not his ex that matters, it's his child. She is the one who will have to hear how unwanted she was. Shouldn't he want to spare her?

At the end of the day, my view is that however that child came about, she exists now, and her parents need to put her first.