nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Man fcuked over by his Ex

Roger Hassenforder

Interesting case:

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/06/man-loses-damages-claim-against-ivf-clinic-over-forged-consent

Wealthy man's xgirlfriend, forged his signature, and uses a frozen embryo to get pregnant after they broke up. He sues the clinic for negligence but loses despite the judge remarking;

"Although [the father] has lost this case, my judgment must be seen as a complete personal and moral vindication. The same, of course, cannot be said for the mother" ...accusing her of " mendacious embellishment”...and making up evidence "as she went along.”

He seems well healed, so can probably afford to provide "private education, nannies, her wedding, university education, skiing trips, refurbishing her bedroom and a Land Rover Discovery used to transport the girl and his eight-year-old son."

What a bitch though, looks like she has totally gotten away with it.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

beefburrito wrote: »

She obtained the semen through corruption, forgery, dishonesty and without out the consent of the owner.

But she did not steal the semen.

Surly if I used your MasterCard to buy diesel without your consent it wouldn't be stealing.

Come on now Conor stop hanging out with the lefties.

She didn't.

Read the article and stop making stuff up.

Omackeral wrote: »

Did she not obtain the sample by forging his signature without his consent? That's fraudulently acquiring it without the owner's permission. More or less stealing you could say.

Nope.

He provided the semen sample willingly, a point completely lost on beefburrito. In fact, they'd had a child. He didn't give the consent to thaw a second embryo. Although he did attend a consultation about it.

Nothing to do with theft of semen. He had willingly provided it. He had not formally consented to thawing an embryo.

pwurple

beefburrito wrote: »

She obtained the semen through corruption, forgery, dishonesty and without out the consent of the owner.

But she did not steal the semen.

Surly if I used your MasterCard to buy diesel without your consent it wouldn't be stealing.

Come on now Conor stop hanging out with the lefties.

You don’t actually know the difference between semen and an embryo?

[Deleted User]

pwurple wrote: »

You don’t actually know the difference between semen and an embryo?

You can only laugh.

Let's rave about feminists first...and then we'll go read up on biology!

He should be blushing, but bet he'll try to dig out!

beefburrito

[Deleted User] wrote: »

She didn't.

Read the article and stop making stuff up.

Nope.

He provided the semen sample willingly, a point completely lost on beefburrito. In fact, they'd had a child. He didn't give the consent to thaw a second embryo.

Nothing to do with theft of semen. He had willingly provided it. He had not consented to thawing an embryo.

Quite the barrister you'd make ol' boy.

Your evidence is complete rubbish.

Read the op again, slowly this time ol'chaps.

bee06

Did anyone actually read the article? The forged signature was used to give permission to implant an embryo which had been frozen following IVF treatment they both agreed to when they had their earlier child. Obviously completely wrong still but all this talk of stolen sperm is inaccurate.

Sofia Vergara (Modern Family actress) was actually involved in a court case (which she won) this year where her ex partner wanted to use embryos they had frozen during their relationship to implant a surrogate. He then would have been able to claim child support off her.

The whole thing is very sad for the little girl though. The fathers description of her an not part of the family and like an alien was hard to read. None of what happened was any of her fault. With the increase in fertility treatment it sounds like more laws need to be put in place to deal with the "custody" of frozen embryos etc.

[Deleted User]

Sorry I missed that it was an embryo rather than the semen. Forging signatures is not right though. Going against consent is most certainly wrong. Just because you've given consent at an earlier date, you have the right to revoke it further along if situations change and once you do, that's all that should matter.

bee06

beefburrito wrote: »

Quite the barrister you'd make ol' boy.

Your evidence is complete rubbish.

Read the op again, slowly this time ol'chaps.

I think you missed this bit in the article

"The couple then returned to the clinic in 2010 to discuss thawing a frozen embryo. The man later said the relationship was already broken beyond repair at this point and he had only attended to “avoid another shouting match”. The judge found he “persuaded himself that the purpose of the consultation with [the consultant] was not to discuss the use of the frozen embryos in the context of R having another baby”."

beefburrito

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You can only laugh.

Let's rave about feminists first...and then we'll go read up on biology!

He should be blushing, but bet he'll try to dig out!

I'm quite capable of digging myself out Connor.

Where did I quote I don't know the difference between sperm and an embryo ?

I'll make it more clear.

The guy was fcked over and I've no sympathy for the woman.

The guy was fcked over and I've no sympathy for the woman.

It's quite clear you're trying to do my thinking for me which is insanely silly.

Samaris

Hard to know what the next step is - should frozen embryos be destroyed if the parents separate?

Hyperbole aside, what she did was absolutely wrong and she should have gotten some sort of punishment for it (unless the fraudulent action is being dealt with in a separate case). Poor kid though. Imagine reading that article when she's old enough to understand her father is talking about her.

December2012

That woman did a horrible thing.

Manipulative and deceptive.

I wonder if he is suing her

beefburrito

bee06 wrote: »

I think you missed this bit in the article

"The couple then returned to the clinic in 2010 to discuss thawing a frozen embryo. The man later said the relationship was already broken beyond repair at this point and he had only attended to “avoid another shouting match”. The judge found he “persuaded himself that the purpose of the consultation with [the consultant] was not to discuss the use of the frozen embryos in the context of R having another baby”."

I understand that,but I'm really taking up the argument about the man being fcked over.

I should have read it more clearly.

Thanks for pointing it out.

myshirt

Samaris wrote: »

Hard to know what the next step is - should frozen embryos be destroyed if the parents separate?

Hyperbole aside, what she did was absolutely wrong and she should have gotten some sort of punishment for it (unless the fraudulent action is being dealt with in a separate case). Poor kid though. Imagine reading that article when she's old enough to understand her father is talking about her.

Look at it the other way around. He wanted a nice settlement that would have enhanced this girls life. Remember he didn't short change her or squirm about paying the maintenance. He paid.

If he had total disdain he would not have paid anything and fought tooth and nail to not pay anything unless the law compelled him, and at that he'd pay the minimum.

The scumbag who has no humanity is the female, and it's this dominant feminist agenda that facilitates her to chop down good men like this man.

Ulysses Gaze

beefburrito wrote: »

As a man I've no sympathy for her.

If a guy decided to rob a woman's egg's and it was possible to fertilize them and bring them through gestation artificially, would you be feeling sympathy for him,fck no...

But I'm sure a few feminist's will applaud your comment and maybe send you a pm looking for your phone number, because your such an amazing guy.

Militant Feminists generally don't go near internet White Knights. They are considered "useful idiots".

bee06

beefburrito wrote: »

I understand that,but I'm really taking up the argument about the man being fcked over.

I agree with you there.

I did find it strange that in his court case he wanted the clinic to pay for "private education, nannies, her wedding, university education, skiing trips, refurbishing her bedroom and a Land Rover Discovery used to transport the girl and his eight-year-old son."

Surely no court has obliged him to pay child support for those kinds of costs?

beefburrito

myshirt wrote: »

Look at it the other way around. He wanted a nice settlement that would have enhanced this girls life. Remember he didn't short change her or squirm about paying the maintenance. He paid.

If he had total disdain he would not have paid anything and fought tooth and nail to not pay anything unless the law compelled him, and at that he'd pay the minimum.

The scumbag who has no humanity is the female, and it's this dominant feminist agenda that facilitates her to chop down good men like this man.

Exactly my point.

You'll also get the snowflake men who'll join the dominant feminine movement.

Teyla Emmagan

I don't know. Maybe the woman was desperate for another baby. They already had one child together. It's not good, obviously, that she ploughed away without his permission but it doesn't sound like she did it for the child support. It wouldn't have been that much more above what he was already paying for one kid. As in, not worth the extra hassle. But he should have made sure any remaining embryos were destroyed when the relationship ended. He was right to take the case of course, the clinic sure fcked up.

Interesting times.

beefburrito

bee06 wrote: »

I agree with you there.

I did find it strange that in his court case he wanted the clinic to pay for "private education, nannies, her wedding, university education, skiing trips, refurbishing her bedroom and a Land Rover Discovery used to transport the girl and his eight-year-old son."

Surely no court has obliged him to pay child support for those kinds of costs?

I'd say those costs were fantasy really.

Roger Hassenforder

Although "unwanted", the child deserves to be supported by her father, even better if it can be done without the mother benifeting from her fraud. At least he says he loves her.

I wonder how all the pro choice (abortion) lobbyists feel if the father could seek an order for the termination of an (his) unwanted baby (although in this case he found out in the third trimester) , or indeed even apply for an order to stop a proposed termination?

Does a father have any "choice" in babies post-sperm deposition?

[Deleted User]

beefburrito wrote: »

I'm quite capable of digging myself out Connor.

Where did I quote I don't know the difference between sperm and an embryo ?

This bit...

beefburrito wrote: »

She obtained the semen through corruption, forgery, dishonesty and without out the consent of the owner...

She didn't.

He gave it voluntarily. He had a child with her. He attended a consultation about the second child, so he even participated in the talks about using the embryo.

It's not some legalistic point. Reaching for the ad hominem and going on about lefties and legalities doesn't change the simple biology.

The fraud was in signing a document. And a Court has held that the recipient of that document was not negligent in relying on it.

His child, he has to pay up. Not because of some duty to her, she doesn't deserve anything, she faked consent to the thawing and use of the embryo. But because the child is his, and obviously maintenance is based on the needs of his child.

[Deleted User]

But he didn't want a child did he? Didn't consent to the use of both of their "ingredients" at the time in question. He may have at one point in time but not at the relevant time. Her forgery was his implied consent. That's not on.

Same principle as if you agree to have sex one weekend it doesn't mean you're obliged to the next just because you did last week. Situations change.

Sonics2k

Deleted User wrote: »

There is no suggestion the semen was robbed.

Try to stick to the facts. And relax a little with the whole feminist fixation and the ravings about me being an amazing guy. She did not steal the semen.

Do you want to try a better analogy that works with the story in the OP and drop the angry stuff?

Ah come on Conor, I'm a total feminist myself. But she literally forged his signature to gain access to his semen and impregnated herself.

He may have previously attended a meeting and discussed it, but it's still theft.

It's quite literally the definition of stealing:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/steal

CalamariFritti

Nabber wrote: »

Feel sorry for the child. Created simply to be a pawn.

Yes and no. If you were that child you'd still have to realise only for that you would not be.

Roger Hassenforder

Sonics2k wrote: »

Ah come on Conor, I'm a total feminist myself. But she literally forged his signature to gain access to his semen and impregnated herself.

He may have previously attended a meeting and discussed it, but it's still theft.

It's quite literally the definition of stealing:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/steal

She didn't steal his sperm.
She forged his signature to get at one of their previously (with his consent at the time) fertilised embryos, thawed it out and had a baby.

He now (rightly) has to pay support for his child she obtained through fraud.
It seems no one, other than your wan, has done anything wrong. What a shambles.

[Deleted User]

Sonics2k wrote: »

Ah come on Conor, I'm a total feminist myself. But she literally forged his signature to gain access to his semen and impregnated herself.

He may have previously attended a meeting and discussed it, but it's still theft.

It's quite literally the definition of stealing:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/steal

I think Conor is referring to the fact that it was an embryo, not semen. The guy had willingly gone along with the frozen embryo thing, and had attended a session about another implantation (they had another kid) so the court thought, I assume, that the clinic reasonably had no reason to believe he wasn't on board, since he hadn't notified them to destroy them etc.

I agree with you though, she fraudulently got what she wanted and that guy is in a terrible position. He loves his kid, but they should never have existed at all. That alone is a headwrecker. I hope he takes a case against her too, but he may feel it's not in the childs best interest, especially in the future when they're fully versed in the situation.

Roger Hassenforder

Candie wrote: »

I think Conor is referring to the fact that it was an embryo, not semen. The guy had willingly gone along with the frozen embryo thing, and had attended a session about another implantation (they had another kid) so the court thought, I assume, that the clinic reasonably had no reason to believe he wasn't on board, since he hadn't notified them to destroy them etc.

I agree with you though, she fraudulently got what she wanted and that guy is in a terrible position. He loves his kid, but they should never have existed at all. That alone is a headwrecker. I hope he takes a case against her too, but he may feel it's not in the childs best interest, especially in the future when they're fully versed in the situation.

He wouldn't have been able to have them destroyed without her consent?

What's the point suing her?
She should have some criminal proceedings brought against her, but that might identify the child. Child doesn't deserve that.
She's totally gotten away with it IMO

[Deleted User]

Sonics2k wrote: »

Ah come on Conor, I'm a total feminist myself. But she literally forged his signature to gain access to his semen and impregnated herself.

He may have previously attended a meeting and discussed it, but it's still theft.

It's quite literally the definition of stealing:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/steal

No. It's not. Giving voluntarily is pretty much the textbook definition of what is not theft.

It's not a debate. He gave the semen voluntarily. It's not close to theft, or almost theft, or some very fine point. It's about as unlike it as one can get. It wasn't even one of those obtaining by deception offences.

Again, are we back to the difference between his semen and their embryo?

[Deleted User]

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

He wouldn't have been able to have them destroyed without her consent?

What's the point suing her?
She should have some criminal proceedings brought against her, but that might identify the child. Child doesn't deserve that.
She's totally gotten away with it IMO

Oh really? I guess that makes sense, that they're joint property in a way.

I agree, she seems to have gotten away with it. We've seen people we're pretty sure are murderers walk away on technicalities too, so it's not unique. Justice for him regarding his ex might cause distress to the child created against his back, it's not fair or right, but life is like that sometimes. Unfortunately.

PeterParker957

She is abhorrent and a disgrace to women.

And anyone who defends this kind of twisted behaviour needs to have a serious look at themselves.

[Deleted User]

PeterParker957 wrote: »

She is abhorrent and a disgrace to women.

And anyone who defends this kind of twisted behaviour needs to have a serious look at themselves.

Has anyone defended it on this thread?

PeterParker957

Deleted User wrote: »

Sonics2k wrote: »

Ah come on Conor, I'm a total feminist myself. But she literally forged his signature to gain access to his semen and impregnated herself.

He may have previously attended a meeting and discussed it, but it's still theft.

It's quite literally the definition of stealing:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/steal

No. It's not. Giving voluntarily is pretty much the textbook definition of what is not theft.

It's not a debate. He gave the semen voluntarily. It's not close to theft, or almost theft, or some very fine point. It's about as unlike it as one can get. It wasn't even one of those obtaining by deception offences.

Again, are we back to the difference between his semen and their embryo?

I'd argue without his semen she would not have a viable embryo.

Let her have the kid. But he pays zero.