Irish sperm donor gets access to lesbian couple's son

Otacon

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8406203.stm

An Irish sperm donor has won a court battle to get access to his son, who is being raised by a lesbian couple.

The Irish Republic's Supreme Court ruled that while he was not entitled to guardianship, the man has natural rights over the three-year-old child.

Five judges unanimously found it was in the best interest of the boy's welfare to remain in contact with his father.

The man donated his sperm to the lesbian couple, who were his friends, so one of them could have a baby.

They wanted the child to have knowledge of his biological father - a 41-year-old gay man - who would be like a "favourite uncle".

But their friendship deteriorated, and he started court action two years ago when the couple revealed they planned to move to Australia for a year with the boy.

The Supreme Court overturned an earlier High Court decision that the man was not entitled to access to the child.

In her judgement, Ms Justice Susan Denham found that the sperm donor has rights as a natural father and added that he had formed a bond with the child when he was born.

"There is benefit to a child, in general, to have the society of his father," she said.

"I am satisfied that the learned High Court judge gave insufficient weight to this factor.

"The basic issue is the welfare of the child," she added.

The judge urged the parties to agree to terms of access before the case is dealt with back in the High Court.

Has anyone read this? How do you feel about it?

Personally, I do not understand how the donor has any rights in this case. If the boy had been born to a straight couple, would he still have had rights?

Nevyn

If it was an offical and legal donation via a clinic with contracts in place then it would be a different story imho.

Kooli

When I read the thread title my first thought was 'wtf?' How does he have any rights?

But he's slightly more than a 'sperm donor' in the sense of an anonymous joe who puts his deposit in a cup and walks away.

He was already part of the child's life, and is the child's biological father, so I can see why he would be granted some sort of rights. Seems a bit strange though seeing as they are only going away for a year.

metrovelvet

So basically his rights consist of access rights?

Would he have been granted this if he hadnt already had a relationship with the child?

I wonder if this includes the burdens of raising a kid with regards maintenance etc.

Tabnabs

He hasn't "won" the case as he wanted guardianship. The district court could have granted access, never mind having to bring it to the supreme court. Anyone see John Waters on PT last night? Thought he was going to explode with joy :rolleyes:

seamus

Yeah, it's not really a straightforward case of "all donors have rights to their kids".

In essence it's a breach of contract - the couple agreed that the man would play an integral part in the child's life, but now want to renege on that agreeement because they've fallen out.

From his part, looking for guardianship is an extension of the powers under their original agreement, so I don't think it would be fair to grant it to him.

I think the key here really is the welfare of the child and the effect on the child of removing the father from his life.

Although they claim they were only going away for a year, once they're gone there's little the man can do about it. So he was probably concerned that they would stay there once gone. If he has some rights over the child here, then he can impose conditions on their emigration.

tommy_boy

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, it's not really a straightforward case of "all donors have rights to their kids".

In essence it's a breach of contract - the couple agreed that the man would play an integral part in the child's life, but now want to renege on that agreeement because they've fallen out.

From his part, looking for guardianship is an extension of the powers under their original agreement, so I don't think it would be fair to grant it to him.

I think the key here really is the welfare of the child and the effect on the child of removing the father from his life.

Although they claim they were only going away for a year, once they're gone there's little the man can do about it. So he was probably concerned that they would stay there once gone. If he has some rights over the child here, then he can impose conditions on their emigration.

Just to be very clear on this: The agreement originally WAS that the man would have agreed access to the child. He was to be KNOWN to the child as his father but would occupy the role of a "favourite uncle". The lesbian couple and donor were in agreement on this. Then the donor changed his mind and decided he wanted guardianship. As you say, the couple did agree the man would play an integral role in the child's upbringing, but it was NOT they who "changed their minds" - he did, by deciding he wanted guardianship. The father would not have been removed from the child's life had the father been true to his word.

This also raises a serious issue that the Supreme COurt is not at all in touch with reality in Ireland today. The SC overturned a High COurt decision that the lesbian couple and the child were a de facto family, saying that no such thing exists in Ireland. I find it odd that the judge in that case, Judge John Hedigan, who served on the European COurt of Human Rights for TEN YEARS was told he was wrong by the supreme court.

seamus

tommy_boy wrote: »

Just to be very clear on this: The agreement originally WAS that the man would have agreed access to the child. He was to be KNOWN to the child as his father but would occupy the role of a "favourite uncle". The lesbian couple and donor were in agreement on this. Then the donor changed his mind and decided he wanted guardianship. As you say, the couple did agree the man would play an integral role in the child's upbringing, but it was NOT they who "changed their minds" - he did, by deciding he wanted guardianship. The father would not have been removed from the child's life had the father been true to his word.

Here's some more relevant information: http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2009/1210/ireland/sperm-donor-wins-landmark-case-over-access-to-son-437712.html.

We're not in disagreement about the agreement that was between the father and the couple.

However, after falling out with the father, the couple had decided they were going to emigrate (for a year, allegedly). At this point, the father felt he had no other option but to apply for guardianship in order to safeguard his access to the child.

It was the couple who intially decided to (implicitly) change the terms of the agreement by emigrating without consulting the father.

This also raises a serious issue that the Supreme COurt is not at all in touch with reality in Ireland today. The SC overturned a High COurt decision that the lesbian couple and the child were a de facto family, saying that no such thing exists in Ireland. I find it odd that the judge in that case, Judge John Hedigan, who served on the European COurt of Human Rights for TEN YEARS was told he was wrong by the supreme court.

It's a point of law though. Whether or not the ECHR believes in a "de facto" family has no bearing on whether or not such a thing exists in Ireland. The supreme court has ruled that there is no such thing in Ireland.

This is probably one of those cases where the government should do something (and the civil partnership bill would be an ideal place to do this) to legislate for family units where one or both parents are not biologically related to the child, and the parents aren't married. But they'll probably just hope it goes away instead.

sherdydan

the whole thing is a bit sick and messed up tbh. the child should be just put in care, its obvously not in a stable enviroment.

metrovelvet

seamus wrote: »

Here's some more relevant information: http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2009/1210/ireland/sperm-donor-wins-landmark-case-over-access-to-son-437712.html.

We're not in disagreement about the agreement that was between the father and the couple.

However, after falling out with the father, the couple had decided they were going to emigrate (for a year, allegedly). At this point, the father felt he had no other option but to apply for guardianship in order to safeguard his access to the child.

It was the couple who intially decided to (implicitly) change the terms of the agreement by emigrating without consulting the father.

It's a point of law though. Whether or not the ECHR believes in a "de facto" family has no bearing on whether or not such a thing exists in Ireland. The supreme court has ruled that there is no such thing in Ireland.

This is probably one of those cases where the government should do something (and the civil partnership bill would be an ideal place to do this) to legislate for family units where one or both parents are not biologically related to the child, and the parents aren't married. But they'll probably just hope it goes away instead.

But he wasnt a father, he was a doner. If he was a father he would have been granted full rights.

seamus

metrovelvet wrote: »

But he wasnt a father, he was a doner. If he was a father he would have been granted full rights.

Nitpicking, I don't mean father in the familial sense, but in the biological sense.

Kooli

sherdydan wrote: »

the whole thing is a bit sick and messed up tbh. the child should be just put in care, its obvously not in a stable enviroment.

What are you talking about?
You think a kid who has essentially got three parents who all want a part in his life would be better off in the care system? Really?

philologos

This is only proper, as the sperm donor is the childs father. I'm pleased with this decision. One of the best political decisions in a long time infact. Sperm donors should be entitled to visitation rights. Irrespective of how families are structured, the biological family still counts.

jimmycrackcorm

the father has a deep interest in the child's life and the court was correct to allow him access as it is in the child's best interest.

miec

This is only proper, as the sperm donor is the childs father. I'm pleased with this decision. One of the best political decisions in a long time infact. Sperm donors should be entitled to visitation rights. Irrespective of how families are structured, the biological family still counts.

+ 1

It is time we stopped treating our reproductive parts as pieces of machinery, we are not machines, we are human.

metrovelvet

Jakkass wrote: »

This is only proper, as the sperm donor is the childs father. I'm pleased with this decision. One of the best political decisions in a long time infact. Sperm donors should be entitled to visitation rights. Irrespective of how families are structured, the biological family still counts.

Should they have to pay maintenance too?

Is this the beginning of separating access from "rights?" [good idea imo]

philologos

metrovelvet wrote: »

Should they have to pay maintenance too?

If they get guardianship, yes. Equal rights means equal responsibility, not a lot of people get that.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Is this the beginning of separating access from "rights?" [good idea imo]

I disagree. The sperm donor, whether or not people like it should be regarded as the defacto father of the child. In some ways this didn't go far enough, but it went further than usual. The law is clearly biased against fathers, and I think we should do more to change this irrespective of whether it involves a lesbian couple or not.

The same should also be true of surrogate mothers to gay couples. They should be regarded as the defacto mothers irrespective of whether it is a gay couple or not.

Childrens rights, are their rights irrespective of what structure of family they have. These rights have primacy over what family structures that people choose.

metrovelvet

what about egg donors?

metrovelvet

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree. The sperm donor, whether or not people like it should be regarded as the defacto father of the child. In some ways this didn't go far enough, but it went further than usual. The law is clearly biased against fathers, and I think we should do more to change this irrespective of whether it involves a lesbian couple or not.

.

I agree sort of. But the rights around the defacto biological father should also be changed so that access and rights are separated - inso far as absentee dads are concerned - so that the child can know the father- but the father cant obstruct or make decisions from afar or after having had nothing to do with the child for most of his or her life.

I think this kind of ruling will make this possible.

ChocolateSauce

The builder of a house doesn't get to visit the house he built, and a sperm donor, under normal circumstances, must be forever excluded from the life of his biological offspring. He shouldn't even know its name or who the parents are.

I accept that these aren't quite normal circumstance, but I still am vehemently opposed to this decision. If they were a married straight couple he wouldn't be welcome, so I think this reeks of anti-homosexual discrimination.

He's been given leave to apply for guardianship....something very worrying indeed. He donated his genetic material so that a couple could have a child and he should have accepted that it wasn't going to be his child. If he applies for it and gets it, they should high-tail it out of this country and into one that recognises gay marriage.

Finally, all this factually incorrect nonsense about the child benefiting from a father should be addressed. It has been universally accepted by experts in the field that having a mother and a father isn't what is important to the development of a child, it is having two parents. And this child has two parents, loving and stable. The fact the the entire supreme court seemed not to know this is very disturbing, as people of such importance and stature should.

philologos

Totally in disagreement. Anonymous sperm donation shouldn't be permitted, and if a sperm donor does give sperm there should be room for them to be regarded as father of the child. This is the case biologically and it is impossible to deny. The child will reason to this conclusion in time. This should go all the way down to legal guardian status. If you wish to use someone elses sperm, there are terms and conditions involved or at least there should be.

There's nothing anti-homosexual about it, it applies to all unmarried couples, and all couples that use this treatment whether straight or gay. The State has decided for once, that the biological father in a sperm donation situation has rights. That's only fair and proper.

The same applies to egg donation, or surrogate motherhood.

Phil D

What happens if a man in a couple is infertile? Does that mean a couple are denied the facilities of a sperm clinic? What about cases where the donor wishes to remain anonymous?

metrovelvet

Phil D wrote: »

What happens if a man in a couple is infertile? Does that mean a couple are denied the facilities of a sperm clinic? What about cases where the donor wishes to remain anonymous?

It would appear to me that what is happenning is that a donor can remain anonymous if he wants to and get access if he wants to.

There seems to be nothing in this which guarantees the child knows the identity of his or her father.

This is once again adult centered and not child centred law. I think there is a vacuum in Irish law for these kinds of things and no one has the guts to tackle it.

Exon

What is the world coming too? Homosexual couples aloud to raise children? Our fathers sterilised them!

We must learn from our fathers... The world wasn't so decedant in their time for a reason!

metrovelvet

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The builder of a house doesn't get to visit the house he built, and a sperm donor, under normal circumstances, must be forever excluded from the life of his biological offspring. He shouldn't even know its name or who the parents are.

I accept that these aren't quite normal circumstance, but I still am vehemently opposed to this decision. If they were a married straight couple he wouldn't be welcome, so I think this reeks of anti-homosexual discrimination.

He's been given leave to apply for guardianship....something very worrying indeed. He donated his genetic material so that a couple could have a child and he should have accepted that it wasn't going to be his child. If he applies for it and gets it, they should high-tail it out of this country and into one that recognises gay marriage.

Finally, all this factually incorrect nonsense about the child benefiting from a father should be addressed. It has been universally accepted by experts in the field that having a mother and a father isn't what is important to the development of a child, it is having two parents. And this child has two parents, loving and stable. The fact the the entire supreme court seemed not to know this is very disturbing, as people of such importance and stature should.

A house doesnt need to know its medical history. A house doesnt ask questions like where do I come from? Whose eyes do I have?

A child benefitting from a father is not incorrect nonsense. Ask anyone raising a child without one. Thats not to say a lack of one will do them harm, but a father does benefit the child, that is the CHILD's father benefits the child.

If they were a married straight couple its a whole different legal ballgame. The fathers name is automatically on the birthcert, the child has a legal father. A child of two lesbians, no there is no father on the birthcert. If the couple here decided to name him on it, well then they asked for this sort of trouble. You have a right to know where you come from. All this meddling with ejacualting into beakers and having the sperm federal expressed to your home, jesus christ where does it end?

fatmammycat

Exon wrote: »

What is the world coming too? Homosexual couples aloud to raise children? Our fathers sterilised them!

We must learn from our fathers... The world wasn't so decedant in their time for a reason!

What in marmalade's name are you talking about? What planet did you beam down from this morning? Here's a little clue, homosexual people are people. Some people want children, some people do not, some people make good parents, some people do not, and some people are idiots and some people are not.

philologos

Phil D wrote: »

What happens if a man in a couple is infertile? Does that mean a couple are denied the facilities of a sperm clinic? What about cases where the donor wishes to remain anonymous?

Anonymous donation should be firmly illegal, a child has a right to know who their father is irrespective of whether they have two mums, or a mother and a stepfather, or if they are adopted.

ChocolateSauce

Jakkass wrote: »

Anonymous sperm donation shouldn't be permitted,

Why? What if that's what they want?

If you wish to use someone elses sperm, there are terms and conditions involved or at least there should be.

I'd argue that if you wish to donate sperm, there should be the condition that you are nothing more than a factory which doesn't get to decide where the product goes or what is done with it.

There's nothing anti-homosexual about it, it applies to all unmarried couples, and all couples that use this treatment whether straight or gay. The State has decided for once, that the biological father in a sperm donation situation has rights. That's only fair and proper.

If they had the choice of being married and chose not to, I'd agree, but they are actually in a legal civil union which isn't recognised here. It isn't their choice, the Irish state is discriminating against them.

As someone who is adopted, I can say very much that it is an incredible danger both to the child and to the family of the child if the biological parent is permitted access when it isn't welcome. When I was 4 my biological father learned of my existence and actually tried to take me back. My scary Texan father, who I'm sure uses a bible to masturbate into his gun, wanted to ensure that I was brought up a Christian and an American. At the time, a string of US courts had recently ruled that biological parents did have these rights, so there was a very real danger that this creep was going to try to force his way into my life.

Thankfully he didn't care enough to fight a trans-atlantic battle and gave up, but you get my point. What makes a parent a parent to a child isn't DNA, it's all the things a parent does to take care of it.

metrovelvet wrote:

Ask anyone raising a child without one.

Ask any person raised by two gay parents and they'll say the absence of one sex didn't matter. The evidence collected over the last 40 years seems to agree.

philologos

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Why? What if that's what they want?

It's not only about what they want. This child has a right to know it's biological father and / or mother irrespective of whether this guy wants to put himself as anonymous. If you don't want to accept the consequences don't donate.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I'd argue that if you wish to donate sperm, there should be the condition that you are nothing more than a factory which doesn't get to decide where the product goes or what is done with it.

That depends on how much or how little we regard biological parents. Irrespective of family structure, I cannot help but think that it is immoral to deny a biological mother or father access to the child unless they are prone to harming. I personally have huge respect for biological parents and as such I wish to defend their rights and the rights of all children. I think the State has taken a positive step, but it needs to do far more.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

If they had the choice of being married and chose not to, I'd agree, but they are actually in a legal civil union which isn't recognised here. It isn't their choice, the Irish state is discriminating against them.

Even if they were married, biological fathers should have the right to legal guardianship, as should biological mothers. It shouldn't matter at all whether or not this child is brought up with two mums, or a mum and a stepdad, or adopted.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

As someone who is adopted, I can say very much that it is an incredible danger both to the child and to the family of the child if the biological parent is permitted access when it isn't welcome. When I was 4 my biological father learned of my existence and actually tried to take me back. My scary Texan father, who I'm sure uses a bible to masturbate into his gun, wanted to ensure that I was brought up a Christian and an American. At the time, a string of US courts had recently ruled that biological parents did have these rights, so there was a very real danger that this creep was going to try to force his way into my life.

I'm not sure if this is fair. Replace Christian with Jewish and see how your response sounds.

Whether or not this man is Christian, or American isn't an effective reason to deny anyone guardianship of ones biological child.

Isolated cases do not make for good laws.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Thankfully he didn't care enough to fight a trans-atlantic battle and gave up, but you get my point. What makes a parent a parent to a child isn't DNA, it's all the things a parent does to take care of it.

Natural rights should also mean rights to guardianship. Irrespective of whether people are good parents doesn't mean that access should be denied on either part unless there is a seriously good reason to do so.

994

Presumably all of you believe that a woman who gives her baby up for adoption should be forbidden from ever seeing the child?

ToniTuddle

Otacon wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8406203.stm
The man donated his sperm to the lesbian couple, who were his friends, so one of them could have a baby.

They wanted the child to have knowledge of his biological father - a 41-year-old gay man - who would be like a "favourite uncle".

But their friendship deteriorated, and he started court action two years ago when the couple revealed they planned to move to Australia for a year with the boy.

He helped them have this child.
They shouldn't forget that. Without him they wouldn't have this lovely little kid.
They were all friends. The lesbian couple wished for him to be a part of the childs life which he was happy about too.
Their friendship deteriorated like many relationships do. Mothers stop fathers from seeing their children a hell of alot just because they are no longer together. This is no different.

What ever these people fell out over the lebians decided "hey screw him".
Move to Oz for only a year? My ARSE. It would have been longer than a year.
They were thinking only of themselves not of the child.
Just because they didn't like this man anymore is no reason for them to stop him being a part of the kids life. Which is all he wanted AND what they wanted at the start!

Look at Cornation Street when the gay fella Sean gave Violet his sperm and they were going to help each other raise the baby.
The she gets back with her ex and leaves without telling Sean anything and intends on never letting him near the baby!:mad:

Greyfox

994 wrote: »

Presumably all of you believe that a woman who gives her baby up for adoption should be forbidden from ever seeing the child?

I certainly do, the whole point of adoption is because you don't want to be the parent(s), to change your mind a few years later is not fair on the parents that adopted the child!

Terodil

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not only about what they want. This child has a right to know it's biological father and / or mother irrespective of whether this guy wants to put himself as anonymous. If you don't want to accept the consequences don't donate.

You've repeated this like a mantra several times in this thread.

Simple question: Why do you think so?

I strongly disagree with this keystone of your argument. Except maybe for medical reasons (which I'm not qualified enough to assess in importance), the significance of the blood seems grossly overstated. You are a parent primarily if you feel attached to the child in question and if you are prepared to fulfill that role.

If you are adopted as a baby, then your loving foster parents are your parents.

If you are raised by a loving step mother because the mother died at birth, then that step mother is your mother.

If you were conceived via IVF as a product of your mother's egg and a donor's sperm, then your mother and her loving partner are your parents.

I do not see how 'biology' is in any way conducive to the well-being of the child in any of these cases. Sure, if a couple split/divorced, then a kid may end up with two fathers or mothers.

Now if you want to donate sperm (despite the risk of going blind from masturbation, ofc :rolleyes:) or eggs and want to remain anonymous, you should be able to and not feel obliged to fulfill a parental function you never intended or envisaged. The parents that use your donation to conceive are prepared to fill that role, there is no value in you being known to the kid.

philologos

Terodil wrote: »

You've repeated this like a mantra several times in this thread.

Simple question: Why do you think so?

This information is fundamental to a childs life, particularly if they want answers to who they really are biologically. It's inherently unfair and wrong to deny a child this opportunity even if they do have two parents already.

This isn't a right that is dispensible rather it should be upheld. Rather simple I would have thought. The biological family still counts.

Terodil wrote: »

I strongly disagree with this keystone of your argument. Except maybe for medical reasons (which I'm not qualified enough to assess in importance), the significance of the blood seems grossly overstated. You are a parent primarily if you feel attached to the child in question and if you are prepared to fulfill that role.

One can serve as a parent in that case yes, but ultimately the child still does have a biological father, and a biological mother and still has rights to know who these people are at any stage.

There's nothing overstated about this. The biological family is still crucially important.

Terodil wrote: »

If you are adopted as a baby, then your loving foster parents are your parents.

This might be well for you to say, but if a child wants to find out who their biological parents are, that's their right and that right should be upheld absolutely.

Terodil wrote: »

If you were conceived via IVF as a product of your mother's egg and a donor's sperm, then your mother and her loving partner are your parents.

Biologically, this isn't the case. It appears that you wish to snub out the biological family entirely even if peoples rights are undermined, both those of the biological parents, and of the children. People need to realise that if you are to adopt or to use a donor, there are caveats involved.

Terodil wrote: »

I do not see how 'biology' is in any way conducive to the well-being of the child in any of these cases. Sure, if a couple split/divorced, then a kid may end up with two fathers or mothers.

I've explained exactly why.

Terodil wrote: »

Now if you want to donate sperm (despite the risk of going blind from masturbation, ofc :rolleyes:) or eggs and want to remain anonymous, you should be able to and not feel obliged to fulfill a parental function you never intended or envisaged. The parents that use your donation to conceive are prepared to fill that role, there is no value in you being known to the kid.

I disagree entirely. This child has a right to know who their biological parents are.

Again, it's very easy for you saying that there is no value, but if you are the child born into this situation you would probably be thinking a lot differently. I find that it isn't best to choose what peoples rights concerning knowledge are, but rather giving them the freedom to find out and get into contact if they wish to do so.

I personally believe that what you are saying is more deserving of being substantiated given the implications of your suggestion on both children and biological parents.

Terodil

Jakkass wrote: »

This information is fundamental to a childs life, particularly if they want answers to who they really are biologically. It's inherently unfair and wrong to deny a child this opportunity even if they do have two parents already.

Please explain what 'being biologically' means. I do not get the concept or its significance.

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't a right that is dispensible rather it should be upheld. Rather simple I would have thought. The biological family still counts.

No, it's not simple and I don't get it. Why? For what?

There have been long debates, esp. in the fields of psychology and neurology, about the degree to which inheritance or socialisation impacts character. We know socialisation is an important aspect, to say the least. And if you behave differently from the rest of the family, that could be due to either personal variation or inheritance. But the point is, why would it matter?

Jakkass wrote: »

There's nothing overstated about this. The biological family is still crucially important.

Again, you state this without giving reasons. Please explain.

I guess we differ in two main points:

1. You seem to assume it's to the child's benefit to know their biological roots, even if we're just talking about sperm/egg donation. I doubt that because if the will is not there on the donor's side, the child would be better off without him/her. The child has loving parents anyway, forcing a stranger into that close relationship for the sole reason that s/he shares some of the kid's genome is not beneficial to the kid. Blood does not automatically mean intimacy, affection or care.

2. You seem to assume that the biological roots have prime importance (but you fail to explain why so I cannot reply to this). I, however, believe that the upbringing is key, not some specific genes. This is supported by the more recent neurological findings that show that while predispositions to specific (re)actions may be genetical, the decision to execute on them is will-based and as such subject to the entire perception and value systems, which are undoubtedly (bar a few basic ones) created through socialisation, not genes.

ChocolateSauce

ToniTuddle wrote: »

They shouldn't forget that. Without him they wouldn't have this lovely little kid.

They'd have had another kid with another donor and this one wouldn't have existed. This "what if" is a pointless argument.

Jakkass wrote:

The biological family still counts.

Tell that to me. Trust me, it doesn't. The only way it might is if someone adopted was raised by someone like you, and you made them feel that you didn't matter as much as some stranger who didn't want you.

ChocolateSauce

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally have huge respect for biological parents

So you have more respect for someone who a) Couldn't keep it in his pants/a rapist/was too immature/dumb/shortsighted to use protection/unable or unwilling to look after their accident or wanked into a jar so that someone who wanted a child but couldn't concieve could have one and then signed a legally binding declaration stating that he was only providing a service for money, than you have for someone who chooses to look after an unwanted child or needs a donor? ie. You respect a class of people who don't deserve it for nothing more than the structure of the molecules in their DNA, while sidelining the people who actually do deserve respect.

Even if they were married, biological fathers should have the right to legal guardianship, as should biological mothers. It shouldn't matter at all whether or not this child is brought up with two mums, or a mum and a stepdad, or adopted.

Then what is the point of adoption if the biological parents can come back? Have you actually thought of how this would be for the child, if at age 5 a pair of strangers (probably uneducated and very young) come along into its loving household and say "hey, we're actually your parents, not those impostors"? You clearly haven't.

I'm not sure if this is fair. Replace Christian with Jewish and see how your response sounds.

My biological father is a Christian, which was the point. If he was another religion I'd cartoon it just the same.

Whether or not this man is Christian, or American isn't an effective reason to deny anyone guardianship of ones biological child.

The fact that he is a class A Americo-Christian fanatic who hasn't got a high school diploma means that his presence in my life at that age would have had a detrimental effect on my upbringing. Even if it hadn't, he didn't know I existed until I was 4 - my mother on the otherhand adopted me before I was born. What right does he have over her? What moral authority has he to come into my life when he is not wanted and not needed?

Isolated cases do not make for good laws.

They make regular precedents, which form a very large part of the basis of common law.

unless there is a seriously good reason to do so.

As far as I am concerned, and as far as the laws of most places are concerned, a seriously good reason is a signature on an adoption cert stating that by giving up the child, you give up all rights to it forever.



Natural rights should also mean rights to guardianship. Irrespective of whether people are good parents doesn't mean that access should be denied on either part unless there is a seriously good reason to do so.[/quote]

philologos

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

So you have more respect for someone who a) Couldn't keep it in his pants/a rapist/was too immature/dumb/shortsighted to use protection/unable or unwilling to look after their accident or wanked into a jar so that someone who wanted a child but couldn't concieve could have one and then signed a legally binding declaration stating that he was only providing a service for money, than you have for someone who chooses to look after an unwanted child or needs a donor? ie. You respect a class of people who don't deserve it for nothing more than the structure of the molecules in their DNA, while sidelining the people who actually do deserve respect.

Both should have access to their child if they can be shown to be safe. These people albeit imperfect have a right to see and to know their children. I believe that these people irrespective of what you think are worthy of respect as we all are. I don't feel the need to have a superiority complex.

I think it's gratuitous to dismiss these people based on preconceptions. The qualification for being involved in your own childs life is not perfection. This is something that I feel the State have been getting wrong. This judgement gives a little bit of hope for biological parents.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Then what is the point of adoption if the biological parents can come back? Have you actually thought of how this would be for the child, if at age 5 a pair of strangers (probably uneducated and very young) come along into its loving household and say "hey, we're actually your parents, not those impostors"? You clearly haven't.

1) People can make huge mistakes
2) I don't mean taking back, I mean having access. There's a difference.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

My biological father is a Christian, which was the point. If he was another religion I'd cartoon it just the same.

It's irrelevant as to what religion he was.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The fact that he is a class A Americo-Christian fanatic who hasn't got a high school diploma means that his presence in my life at that age would have had a detrimental effect on my upbringing. Even if it hadn't, he didn't know I existed until I was 4 - my mother on the otherhand adopted me before I was born. What right does he have over her? What moral authority has he to come into my life when he is not wanted and not needed?

The law shouldn't discriminate against religion, nationality or education. One doesn't need to be a Harvard graduate to be a father.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

As far as I am concerned, and as far as the laws of most places are concerned, a seriously good reason is a signature on an adoption cert stating that by giving up the child, you give up all rights to it forever.

In this case the man had agreed with the child's mother to have a parental role in this child's life. Therefore the State should recognise his rights.

seahorse

The way I see it, if this couple were serious about raising a child with no input from the father they would have gone to a sperm-bank instead of just asking an acquaintance! They don't seem to have handled the situation like adults themselves or given any thought to the monumental nature of what they were asking this man to do.

They were willing to give him some degree of involvement but didn't like the fundamental fact that he had 50% responsibility in having created that child. Personally I think their whole approach was foolish and short-sighted in the extreme. Also I think their behaviour smacks of selfishness; they're not considering this man OR the child. A few days in the life of a single mother might give them an appreciation of men who take seriously the responsibilities of having made a child.

ToniTuddle

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

They'd have had another kid with another donor and this one wouldn't have existed. This "what if" is a pointless argument.

They had this child with this gay man.
This very child would not be here if it wasn't for him.

Yeah they could have gotten another donor but it would have been a different child. If you can understand what I'm trying to say.

The whole point is they wanted a baby he helped and they wanted this man to be part of the childs life. Just because they are all no longer friends does not give these lesbians the right to cut him off.

It's like parents cutting off grandparents or partners or aunts/uncles just because they have fallen out. Which is completely unfair to the child involved. The kid has a right to be around people who love it.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I'm glad the guy's getting access. Fair play to the supreme court.

They couple handled it very badly. They could have gone to a donor clinic and none of this would have happened.

I can't understand how they'd be so silly as to think they could have the father in the child's life and then walk away when it suited them. Perhaps this notion that men abandon their kids easily is far to ingrained in society.

ChocolateSauce

Jakkass wrote: »

Both should have access to their child if they can be shown to be safe. These people albeit imperfect have a right to see and to know their children. I believe that these people irrespective of what you think are worthy of respect as we all are. I don't feel the need to have a superiority complex.

Again, not according to the law. That's what adoption is. And in some cases (like mine) it isn't a case of having a superiority complex regarding my adoptive and biological parent(s), it's a case of my adoptive parent simply being superior to my biological parents (particularly the father) by every objective measure I can think of.

The qualification for being involved in your own childs life is not perfection.

No, the qualification for it is not legally signing it away in an irreversible contract which states that you are not willing/able to look after it. If you're not willing or able when it is born, you shouldn't have had it.

It's irrelevant as to what religion he was.

True, what was relevent is that he is among the class of people who use religion to abuse children. Kids of people like him are the kind of people who fly planes into buildings and blow up abortion clinics. According to my biologic mother, who I've met twice and is a myspace friend, when he found out she had been pregnant but before he learned my fate, he swore he'd murder her if she had had an abortion.

(On a side note, I'd like to mention that I discovered all of this when I was 19, long after I had developed a distain for religion, so my views on religion don't stem from some horrible childhood or fear of a father.)

2) I don't mean taking back, I mean having access. There's a difference.

It's a slippery slope indeed, and I don't think there should be a distinction. If they couldn't be parents at birth, and they can't be parents during their access, what's the point? People do make mistakes, but we have to live with the mistakes we make. Bringing an unwanted child into the world is one of the biggest mistakes we can make, and so has some of the starkest concequences.

The law shouldn't discriminate against religion, nationality or education..

The law doesn't, and I was referring to my own personal distain for his ilk, not calling for there to some sort of criteria.

In this case the man had agreed with the child's mother to have a parental role in this child's life. Therefore the State should recognise his rights.

In this case, he agreed in writing that he wouldn't be a father figure, and if he were a donor for a man and a woman who were married you can bet that the non-biological father would be the one recognised.

seahorse wrote: »

their whole approach was foolish and short-sighted in the extreme..

I can agree with that for sure. They were foolish to leave open the possibility that something like this might happen.

994 wrote: »

Presumably all of you believe that a woman who gives her baby up for adoption should be forbidden from ever seeing the child?

If that is the will of the adoptive parents, yes. When the child turns 18, there might be some scope for the natural parents to be put into contact, but not before.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Jakkass wrote: »

Anonymous donation should be firmly illegal, a child has a right to know who their father is irrespective of whether they have two mums, or a mother and a stepfather, or if they are adopted.

The UK has gone this way. Sperm donors no longer have a right to anonnomity, but they are immune from child maintennance etc.

Kind of agree with it, but the problem is there's now a huge shortage of donors. Each man can only contribute to 5 pregnancies to reduce the likelihood of unknown siblings getting together in the future.

ToniTuddle

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

The UK has gone this way. Sperm donors no longer have a right to anonnomity, but they are immune from child maintennance etc.

Kind of agree with it, but the problem is there's now a huge shortage of donors. Each man can only contribute to 5 pregnancies to reduce the likelihood of unknown siblings getting together in the future.

That's another scary thing of how many kids out there are half brother/half sister and don't realise it.
They are doing studies into how these types of people feel serious attractions to each other(after never having met before when children).
There is some subconscious bond. I don't know, seen a TV programme or else magazine article on about it. Can't remember exactly now.

It would be nice if somehow the lesbian couple and the man could somehow come to an agreement for the sake of the child.

Mr. Presentable

All of this raises a good argument for traditional families with the exclusion of any others.