Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to ask opinions on this IVF court case?

279 replies

iogo · 06/10/2017 12:46

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

OP posts:
2014newme · 06/10/2017 19:02

@NeedsASockamnesty the child was not conceived with his full consent. His consent was forged. He consented to the creation of the embryo when he was in a relationship with the mother. He never consented fir the embryo to be implanted which us what nerds to happen fir a baby to be made. That's why there us a seperate consent process.
The judge agreed that he had not consented.

YellowMakesMeSmile · 06/10/2017 19:19

How awful, who on earth does that.

The child deserves to know the circumstances of his conception and the he should be able to terminate his parental rights if he so chooses.

Slarti · 06/10/2017 20:06

No need to be rude existential, I've only replied to you twice and I thought I was perfectly civil.

One of the reasons the analogy works is because it equalises the biological mother and father's positions. Both are biologically related to a child that neither of them give birth to. However, your opinion is that the biological mother is "no relation" to the child, whereas the father who is in exactly the same position, is.

Consider a third scenario where both the mother and father have had their genetic material stolen/fraudulently co-opted to produce a child. Wouldn't it seem wrong if the mother and father were treated or judged differently in that case? Yet if I understand you correctly you think it would be just to hold him responsible but not her.

Slarti · 06/10/2017 20:08

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.

Except if it was the mother who had her genetic material used without her consent, then she would be excused.

CycleHire · 06/10/2017 22:16

"the details of who actually gives birth are incidental"

They are absolutely not incidental or women who conceive with the help of egg donors would not legally be the parents of thief children.

CycleHire · 06/10/2017 22:16

Their children

existentialmoment · 06/10/2017 22:41

Except if it was the mother who had her genetic material used without her consent, then she would be excused

Legally she would be no relation to the resulting child. Legally the father in this case is the father, with all that entails.
If you don't like this discrepency, take it up with your own judicial system.

existentialmoment · 06/10/2017 22:42

One of the reasons the analogy works is because it equalises the biological mother and father's positions

The very reason it does not work is because their positions are not and never can be equal.

However, your opinion is that the biological mother is "no relation" to the child, whereas the father who is in exactly the same position, is

That is not my opinion, that is the legal fact of the matter. There is no argument to be had, it just is.

CottonEyedJoe · 06/10/2017 23:07

I agree that the father is absolutely not to blame, or a bad dad. But I do feel desperately sorry for the child, especially as they have a sibling who is loved by their dad.

Would people's feelings be different if he had forged his wife's signature, used the embryos with a surrogate and made the biological mother pay maintenance?

In the above situation, even if I didn't want another child, I'd absolutely step up and be a parent (and pay accordingly) to the child. I could never let them be treated differently to their sibling or let them be splashed all over the media knowing I didn't want them. Wouldn't you all do the same? Not goading, genuinely interested.

stopfuckingshoutingatme · 06/10/2017 23:16

Can't the mum support the kid herself cheeky mare ?? Honestly if you do that ... that's immoral but to then scrounge money for private school

Anyway like everyone here I feel sorry for the child and her sibling

This will fuck them up shame on both parents frankly

existentialmoment · 06/10/2017 23:18

I would feel more sorry for the father if he hadn't sued the clinic for a nanny and ski holidays. And said in court that his daughter was "a financial burden which is not offset by any benefits"

He is the wronged party but he sounds like a monumental twat as well.

AtHomeDadGlos · 06/10/2017 23:24

The mother should be locked up. It’s shocking behaviour from her and the ‘father’ should have no financial liability to the child.

If this were a case about a woman having to keep a pregnancy after being raped this message board would be up in arms. I know it’s not the same situation, but it’s probably as close as a bloke can get to it.

I feel sorry for the children that they have such a devious and deceptive mother.

existentialmoment · 06/10/2017 23:25

How would the children be served by locking her up? Where would the unwanted child go? To the father who calls her a burden with no benefit?

SD1978 · 07/10/2017 01:27

I feel she was incredibly manipulative. Every year they had to sign a continuing consent form- one would assume at the end of the year he wouldn’t have signed it and the embryos would have been destroyed. I can understand that she had a desire for another child. And the means to do it, and that she went ahead with it. Financially she should therefore be solely responsible for the child, but I would assume he feels that he has to support the child, as he did mention the word love. It’s a bloody tough one.

Blankscreen · 07/10/2017 06:51

Personally I think the mother should be jailed for fraud.

U
just because she has children it shouldn' t absolve her from punishment.

Her fraud has resulted in huge financial loss and usually the guilty party be jailed. It's not a great message either -do what you want and you'll.get away with it if you have children.

Whether the. CPS have any interest in pursuing a
Criminal case.is another matter.

allthingsred · 07/10/2017 07:07

The mother sounds like so manipulative. It's disgusting what she did. & how the father feels about his child is all her doing.
I feel desperately sad for the child who may be protected now, but will one day learn how they were conceived & the court case & lead to agonising questions for the father (you didn't want me?) The poor kids head is gonna be so messed up & there no one to blame except the mother

As for doing what she did then wanting financial support. Legally she should not be entitled to a penny. This was not a accidental pregnancy. She willingly made the choice to get pregnant as a single mother without knowledge or consent of the dad.
Morally I hope the father is doing the right thing by the child

Slarti · 07/10/2017 07:45

The very reason it does not work is because their positions are not and never can be equal.

If person A (male) and person B (female) each have their genetic material taken to create a child that another person gives birth to, then their positions are equal.

Andrewofgg · 07/10/2017 07:48

Why the hell is anyone ever allowed to sign the forms concerned without producing photo ID?

Slarti · 07/10/2017 07:49

How would the children be served by locking her up?

Having children, the literal "get out of jail card" eh? Hmm

prh47bridge · 07/10/2017 09:13

If person A (male) and person B (female) each have their genetic material taken to create a child that another person gives birth to, then their positions are equal

Legally they are not.

To set it out clearly, person A (male) and person B (female) give their genetic material and Person C gives birth.

Person B is definitely not legally the mother of the child. She has to adopt the child if she wants to be its mother. Person C is legally the mother regardless of the source of the genetic material - Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 S33.

Person A may be the father of the child. The position is complex and depends on a range of factors (HEFA Sections 35-41).

existentialmoment · 07/10/2017 10:44

If person A (male) and person B (female) each have their genetic material taken to create a child that another person gives birth to, then their positions are equal

They are not. And never can be. Both biologically and legally you are completely wrong. If you are speaking morally, then your opinion is your own affair.

existentialmoment · 07/10/2017 10:46

Having children, the literal "get out of jail card" eh?

There is also the fact that the offences you might charge her for would not attract a custodial sentence.

differentnameforthis · 07/10/2017 11:19

This is what happens when unwanted children are forced upon the people who didn't want them. I don't care about the mother, she has to live with the consequences of her actions.

I feel for the father, he was forced into a situation not of his own making.

But my heart is with the little girl who will live with the fact that her father doesn't want her, and her mother used forgery to have her. She has to live with the pain of being unwanted for her whole life, if her father can't get over what his wife did, and it will be painful for the child.

I speak from experience of not being wanted.

If he was a decent man he wouldnt drag it all around the courts to potentilly humiliate his daughter. If she was a decent mother she wouldn't have created this situation in the first place.

And let's face it, many mothers become intentionally pregnant without consulting their partner, and those fathers don't get to take anyone to court! because many of them will never know that deceit is involved.

he consented to her creation in the first instance
I have sympathy for him but tbh at the time you created those embryos and agreed to their freezing you basically agreed to this. He didn't. That is why the mother forged his signature. If he agreed to the whole thing, they wouldn't have required a signature to go ahead with implantation!

Say the shoe was on the other foot. She didn't want another baby, he did. Does he have the right to forcefully implant her with embryos? Or have a surrogate implanted?

She is not liable for the failings in their system. She is when she forges paperwork...

Yes, in the same way he had a lot of say in creating the embryos. But none after that point Wrong. That is why the clinic needed consent to implant.

This is an instance where technology has overtaken biology No, this is an instance where lies have overtaken biology. The technology didn't just "happen" to implant the mother.

Of course he has a duty, no matter that he did not consent to the second stage. OF COURSE it matters!

No, it seems to be that biology has certain realities that cannot be changed. This isn't about biology though. These realities COULD be changed, because it was an embryo that was created outside of her body, and was waiting to be implanted. She didn't lie & not take birth control to prevent implantation (which, while I do not agree with does mean that the father has responsibility to protect his own fertility) so this wasn't about biology.

prh47bridge · 07/10/2017 11:26

But my heart is with the little girl who will live with the fact that her father doesn't want her

Just to say again, her father didn't want her but now that she is here he loves her. So no, she will not have to live with the fact that he doesn't want her. He does.

Agree with the rest of the post.

existentialmoment · 07/10/2017 11:29

Just to say again, her father didn't want her but now that she is here he loves her

she's six years old and he said in court, recently, that she was a burden with no benefit to offset that burden. Is that love?