Can sperm donors sign their rights away to being fathers?

California legislators are hoping to make resolving the tricky issue of parental rights as easy as filling out a form. Want to make sure a sperm donor can’t claim to be a father? Check here. And vice versa. Or at least that’s the hope of the “Modern Family Act.” But can you really check a box to sign away your rights to a child? Perhaps, but it’s probably not going to be that easy. These days, the increasing prevalence of sperm donors, egg donors and even surrogate mothers often result in thorny legal battles over who is really the parent. The bill, introduced by San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D), was inspired in part by the high-profile legal battle involving “Lost Boys” actor Jason Patric, who helped a former girlfriend have a child through artificial insemination, using his sperm. The problems is: Patric claims to have developed a father-like relationship with the boy, and he wants parental rights to the child. Last week, a California appeals court upheld his ability to claim those rights. The bad news for people like Patric’s former girlfriend, Danielle Schreiber, is that California’s new proposed law might not actually have changed the outcome of this case, according to Georgetown Law Professor Jeffrey Shulman. “The bottom line is that a written agreement still may not work if the sperm donor is encouraged to form a parent-like relationship with the child,” Shulman said. “There are constitutional law issues, federal constitutional law issues and a line of cases that grant biological fathers right to their children if they have acted like fathers.” Carlos Alcala, a spokesman for Ammiano, says that the bill isn’t intended to resolve all parental rights questions, but it might prevent some painful legal battles in many cases. Article: 20th May 2014 www.washingtonpost.com Read more about being a known sperm donor at www.prideangel.com

Lesbian parents and sperm donors - Article in Family Law

Family Law (a leading monthly journal for UK family lawyers) has published an article by Natalie which discusses the landmark decision in same sex parenting case Re G and Re Z (2013) from earlier this year. You can read the article in full here. The case involved a lesbian couple (represented by the NGA team) who had conceived a son through an arrangement with a known donor. As civil partners, the two mothers benefited from the legal protection given by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 – they were the legal parents of the little boy, and named on his birth certificate. The genetic father applied to the court for ‘leave’ to make an application for contact rights, and the court had to decide whether – as a legal sperm donor – he should be allowed to apply against the wishes of the legal parents. The decision, published back in February, caused a storm at the time, covered by the main front page headline of the Daily Mail, as well as press statements from the HFEA and the British Fertility Society. Natalie’s article reflects on the significance of the decision and looks at why fertility law cases are causing such a challenge for the family courts. You can read more about known donor disputes on NatalieGambleAssociates website, or find out more about their family disputes services. Article: 13th December www.nataliegambleassociates.com Read more about Fertility Law at www.prideangel.com

Sperm Donor fights for right to be a Dad in California

The actor Jason Patric wants to be a Dad. The mother of his biological child, 3-year-old Gus, wants him to just be a sperm donor. Who wins? If I taught family law, I’d make this case my last class of the semester, because it’s right at the edge of a frontier of parenthood that courts and states haven’t settled yet. It also scrambles the usual assumptions. Traditionally, it is fathers who have run from parental responsibilities and mothers who have tried to hold them accountable, often to win child support. I’m not talking about most fathers, of course, just the ones who essentially say they got tricked—they just gave sperm, or they just had sex, and didn’t intend to become fathers at all. In this case, Patric wants a relationship with his biological son, and it’s Gus’ mother, Danielle Schreiber, who is asking the courts to turn him away. It’s a different entry point into an old fight. But Schreiber’s stance shouldn’t change the underlying rule: Unless both biological parents agree before birth that the father has no rights at all, courts should presume that he is indeed the father, not just some guy who ejaculated into a cup. Patric and his ex-girlfriend, Schreiber, conceived Gus via in vitro fertilization. Patric says he spent time with Gus after the boy was born, until Schreiber cut him out. He has pictures to prove it. “I want my son back,” he told Katie Couric. He says he was there from the start and signed a document stating that he was Gus’ “intended parent.” Schreiber say that Gus was conceived after she and Patric broke up, and that neither of them intended him to be the boy’s father. “It's not about him having a relationship or contact with Gus. This is just about rights,” she said, also on TV. “Me preserving my right to be a sole legal parent, not having to share that with someone who has never intended to and never raised Gus.” So far, Patric is losing. A California court ruled that he has no parental rights. The judge interpreted state law to provide that if a man isn’t married to the mother of his biological child, and gives her his sperm, then the general rule is that he has no paternity rights. It doesn’t matter whether he spent time with the baby afterward—or what might be best for the child. If you think about it, that’s pretty shocking. Usually, family law presumes that two parents are better than one, University of Florida law professor Lee-Ford Tritt pointed out when I called him to talk about this case. That way, a child has two sources of love and income. The two-parent rule doesn’t apply to anonymous sperm donors—no one would donate if it did. Also, if the sperm donor is someone the mother knows, the parents should be able to contract away his parental rights if that’s what they want. Otherwise, it will be harder for women to go to men they know for sperm, and that’s not a good outcome. Sometimes children are better off knowing who their fathers are, even if the fathers aren’t legally responsible for them. The law should allow for different kinds of donors and family constellations. But if there’s no clear agreement between the parents, then the law should go back to presuming that the genetic father should be treated as the real father. The judge who ruled against Patric did the opposite. He’s saying, in effect, that Schreiber gets to decide to bar Patric from any kind of parental involvement. We’re not talking about whether Patric gets to raise Gus—that’s a separate custody issue—just about whether he has any leg to stand on in court proceedings about Gus at all. Why should this decision about Gus’ parenthood be up to his mother alone, without any consideration of how Patric behaved toward Gus, and whether Gus would be better off with Patric in his life? Courts should, and often do, ask a different question: Has the father “held out” a child as his own? That’s the legal term of art for a test that looks at the father’s relationship to the child. Did Patric spend time with Gus or pay for any of his care? Did he acknowledge him as his son? “Holding out a child as one’s own is huge in the courts for determining parental rights,” Tritt says. That’s not how current California law works, however. It provides that a sperm donor, to a bank or for IVF involving a woman other than his wife, “is treated in law as if he were not the natural father of a child thereby conceived, unless otherwise agreed to in a writing signed by the donor and the woman prior to the conception of the child.” Article: 14th August 2013 www.slate.com

Hollywood sperm donor fights for parental rights to see his son

An unusual battle is developing in the state capital as a Hollywood father fights for parental rights. That dad says he was more than just a sperm donor, but hasn't seen the child in months. Men who sell their sperm to a sperm bank lose all parental rights, but what if he gives it to someone he knows? Is he a donor or a dad? Jason Patric is an actor from the 1987 teen vampire film "Lost Boys". On Wednesday Patric told us, "My son was stolen, was taken away." Now he has a starring role in what could be a reality show. The 47-year-old is in Sacramento lobbying politicians for a proposal that allows the law to define him as a dad. A court has already ruled he's just a sperm donor. "Because you're a donor, you are not allowed to prove in any other statute or any other way, you're a parent, even though I'm the biological father," said Patric. Patric's drama started when he and his former girlfriend, Danielle Schreiber, agreed to have a child through artificial insemination. He was even a part of his son's life for more than two years. The actor could have been considered the legal father if a signed agreement granting him that status was in place prior to conception. After a split and no legally binding contract in place, he lost custody and hasn't seen the now 3-year-old for months. St. Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, doesn't like what he calls "the Hollywood circus" his bill has created. He just wants to help men and same-sex couples who have been in that situation. "Because of the PR hype, it has lost its focus. To me the focus is parenting. What's in the best interest of the child?" said Hill. Calls to Schreiber's Sacramento representative were not returned, but the California Cryobank is also opposed to changing the 25-year-old law that protects birth mothers from custody battles. Alice Crisci, who is eight months pregnant through an anonymous donor, says we shouldn't get in the middle of a court battle. "The reality is he's seeking to impact a few number of men that then disrupts tens of thousands of families. That seems like an irresponsible use of creating new laws," said Crisci. Patric insists Hill's proposal just gives him and others a fighting chance to be part of their child's life. "This doesn't give you your son back, your daughter back. It gives you the opportunity to go to court and present your evidence," said Patric. Schreiber attorney recently told ABC7 News they hope lawmakers do not interfere with the rights they were promised. Article: 7th August 2013 www.abclocal.go.com Read more about sperm donor law in the UK at www.prideangel.com

Sperm donor to pay child support after donating by natural insemination

A UK man who donated sperm to a married woman he met via a sperm donor website has been ordered to pay child support. The pair met via a website advertising sperm donors and started trying to conceive artificially, before they began an affair. The High Court heard evidence from both sides and rejected the man’s evidence that the couple only started having sex after the child was conceived, finding that the child was conceived through ‘natural insemination’ – in other words sexual intercourse – rather than through artificial insemination. This meant that the donor was not legally a sperm donor, and so like any other biological father was liable to pay child support. In a rare move for a children case, he was also ordered to pay all the legal costs of the woman’s husband and three quarter’s of the woman’s legal costs, since the court decided he had not told the truth. What makes a legal sperm donor? Men who agree to donate their sperm are not protected from financial responsibilities just because they agree this with the birth mother or describe themselves as a donor. They are only sheltered from financial claims if they: 1) donate via a UK licensed clinic, or 2) donate by artificial insemination to a married or civilly partnered couple, with the consent of both partners. In this case, the birth mother was married. Had the court decided that conception took place by artificial insemination, it would next have had to determine whether the birth mother’s husband consented (and if so he, rather than the sperm donor, would have been the child’s legal father). However, given that conception occurred through intercourse, there was no need to go to the next step, and the sperm donor was financially responsible. Lessons for other sperm donors The case shows the risks of conceiving through donation outside the framework of regulated treatment at clinics. It’s been an expensive lesson for the donor in this case. Other men considering donating via websites should be clear about how the law works, and whether their plans might put them on the hook financially. If they donate via ‘NI’ they can forget any legal protection whatsoever. There is more information about known sperm donation on our website. You can read the judgment in this case in full here. Article: 1st August 2013 www.nataliegambleassociates.co.uk

Sperm donation in the US - not a DIY project!

Several months ago I consulted with a woman and her same-sex partner. I'll refer to them as "Sue" and "Sally." They had a 3-year-old son who was conceived using sperm donated directly to the couple by a close friend named "Stan." Donation and conception took place under friendly circumstances at the women's home. Stan did his part in the privacy of their bathroom, and they promptly used his sperm to create a baby. Voilà, the conception of "Baby X" was confirmed in a matter of weeks. I asked Sue and Sally why they never hired lawyers, and why they asked Stan to donate his sperm in their home. The answer was the same I hear every time I ask this question: They had wanted to keep the relationship and the process "natural" and "informal" so as not to scare Stan. Fast-forwarding three years to the reason Sue and Sally were in my office, it turns out they were not enjoying the friendship they once had with Stan. Instead, they were exchanging heated emails and text messages with him. Stan had fallen in love with Baby X, and Sue and Sally had become uncomfortable with Stan's expectations regarding his role and time spent with the child. Stan had mentioned possible legal action to obtain parental rights. Sue and Sally wanted to know if Stan could file for legal rights and, heaven forbid, obtain a formal custody order. Sue was angry with Sally for refusing to hire an attorney or use a physician for the sperm donation in the first place. Sally's mind was blown that Stan could potentially have legal rights to her child. The thought had never crossed her mind. We had a mess on our hands. Our nation presents a very complicated state-by-state legal quilt on donor insemination. But one thing is consistent throughout the country: No matter where you live, the informal, friendly, at-home donation method is a bad idea. The casual use of a friend's sperm almost always leads to unwanted legal consequences. New parents often tell me they want to avoid formality because it feels wrong -- somehow it defeats the entire purpose of becoming parents. Why hire physicians and attorneys for something that should be natural and organic? The answer is simple: Becoming a parent is one of the most important things you will do in this lifetime, and it needs to be done right. Choosing to use a friend as your sperm donor is a big decision. Do not shy away from formality and transparency! You likely chose your donor for more than his pretty face -- you probably share a deep emotional connection with him. This makes transparency and formality that much more important. A contract ensures that you, your partner, and your sperm donor have a complete meeting of the minds regarding expectations, roles, legal rights, etc. The same holds true for involving a physician; it not only ensures medical safety but protects your donor legally. If you are using a known donor whom you do not want to have parental rights, the safe approach is to formalize -- anything less is asking for trouble. This is a two-step process: First, hire an attorney to explain the process and draft the necessary contracts for you. Second, have the donor provide his sperm through a licensed physician. The clarity and transparency that comes with the formal approach is not only shrewd planning; it's respectful to the donor. Article: 10th June 2013 www.huffingtonpost.com Read more about known sperm donation and home insemination at www.prideangel.com

Considering co-parenting or using a known donor? How counsellors may hep

There are many issues to consider for parents considering conceiving with a known donor or co-parent. With a minefield of information to navigate, parents can be left asking: what do we need to know? How do we set things up? How do we avoid problems in the future? Where conception takes place at a fertility clinic, counsellors can play a key role in answering these questions. In the light of the recent landmark decision on known sperm donation, BICA – the association for UK fertility counsellors – asked NatalieGambleAssociates (NGA) to give some guidance on what fertility counsellors need to know about the law on known donation, to help them do their job effectively. Nicola Scott's recent article in the BICA journal gives an overview of UK law and the implications of the case, and explains how early intervention by fertility counsellors can shape known donor arrangements positively by encouraging parents and donors to iron out potential issues and mismatched expectations at an early stage. You can read the full article here NatalieGambleAssociates advise parents on a wide spectrum of arrangements by clarifying not only the legal issues but also the practical aspects which are all too often overshadowed. Please see our donor conception pages for more information, or contact us to discuss your arrangement and options here Article: www.nataliegambleassiciates.co.uk

Ontario sperm donor and lesbian couple in dispute, settle out of court

A sperm donor and lesbian couple from Ontario Canada who have been fighting over custody of their two year old son, have suddenly settled their case, after months of litigation and shortly before a scheduled trial. The man had signed an agreement that he would have nothing to do with his genetic offspring. But he had second thoughts after the baby was born, felt the biological mother had reneged on her part of their deal and asked the courts to recognize him as the father, providing liberal access. The suit, whose parties cannot be named under the terms of a publication ban, has now been effectively withdrawn. ‘It is always better for litigants to come to a resolution on their own’ “This is certainly the right outcome for this loving, bonded and stable family,” Michelle Flowerday, the couple’s lawyer, said in an emailed statement. “It is always better for litigants to come to a resolution on their own, as opposed to having one imposed upon them by the court.” The fact that the courts will not rule on the dispute, however, leaves a gap in the law in Ontario and other provinces, she said. There is a growing national movement to make clear that donating sperm does not equate to being a parent, but only B.C., Alberta and Quebec have enshrined the idea in their legislation, said Ms. Flowerday. The donor and his lawyer could not be reached for comment. Growing numbers of children are being born in Canada as a result of in-vitro fertilization and other forms of “assisted” reproduction. When donations are obtained anonymously from sperm banks, and in the few provinces with laws that directly address the issue, parenthood is generally uncontested. Where couples and single people make arrangements with sperm donors they know, however, the rights of the various parties remain largely unresolved. The northern Ontario dispute boasted the most clear-cut set of facts of any to reach the courts, making it an ideal legal testing ground. A trial was scheduled for this summer. The donor was a high-school acquaintance of the biological mother, and initially agreed to bear a child for him, as well, if he agreed to provide his sperm. The actual agreement he signed, though, did not mention that part of their arrangement. He went to court after the boy was born, saying that he had felt pressured by the mother and that she now appeared unwilling to have a baby for him. But then, at a meeting last week, the parties agreed to a declaration that the two women are the child’s parents and the donor is not his father, according to an order issued by Justice Gregory Ellies of the Ontario Superior Court. ‘I don’t think anybody wants to be a test case’ The document also includes a restraining order preventing him from having contact with the child or the two women. In exchange, though, he and his parents have the right to one meeting of at least an hour in a public place, with an agreed-upon third party observing. The donor and his parents “may not initiate physical contact” with the boy, and cannot take photographs or video. As well, the man and his parents are barred from identifying themselves as the child’s father or grandparents, said the order. “I don’t think anybody wants to be a test case,” noted Fiona Kelly, a University of British Columbia law professor who studies the field, about the settlement. The lack of a ruling, however, means continued ambiguity in the majority of provinces that lack laws like one recently enacted in B.C., she said. That legislation says being a sperm donor does not in itself make someone a father. Article: 13th April 2013 www.news.nationalpost.com Read more about using a known sperm donor in the UK at www.prideangel.com

Fertility organisations trying to clarify new sperm donor court ruling

Natalie gamble Associates (NGA) has been contacted by UK patient organisations trying to clarify the implications of the High Court’s ruling, which has allowed two sperm donors to argue in court that they should have rights of contact with their biological children. NGA has been representing the lesbian mothers in this case. The ruling received a lot of press attention yesterday (including on the front page of the Daily Mail, and in the Guardian, Telegraph, Independent and BBC). Natalie spoke to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the British Fertility Society, the National Gamete Donation Trust and the Donor Conception Network – all seeking further information about what to say to patients, donors and donor conceived families who were contacting them. The HFEA and the BFS have issued press statements in response to the ruling. We thought it would be helpful to provide a clear summary of what the ruling means for these organisations and others concerned about this: - The ruling only gave the two donors the right to argue their case in court. It is not yet know whether they will be given any rights of contact with the children. - The reason for the decision was very fact specific, a result of the fact that the donors were known to the lesbian mothers and had contact with the children in their early months before relationships broke down. The court was satisfied, on the facts, that the donors had sufficient connection with the children to at least justify their cases being heard in court. - The ruling is therefore exceptionally unlikely to apply to donors who have had no contact with the child – for example unknown donors through licensed clinics. - However, the ruling could apply to other types of known donors, including known sperm or egg donors who have donated through a licensed clinic, if they can demonstrate sufficient connection with the child in practice. Although in this case conception took place outside a licensed clinic, the law which provided that these men were ‘not to be treated as the father for any purpose’ is the same law which excludes the status of other types of egg and sperm donors. - The ruling does not in any way affect donors’ responsibilities – it does not make it possible to hold a donor legally or financially responsible for a child they help conceive. Article: 3rd February 2013 www.nataliegambleassociates.co.uk

US Lesbian couple to testify on behalf of sperm donor

A Separated lesbian couple have both been summoned to testify on behalf of a sperm donor, with whom they had made a written agreement, but who was ordered to pay child support after they split up. A Kansas judge recently ordered William Marotta, a sperm donor to a lesbian couple, to pay child support after they split up, raising questions of how the law protects sperm donors. Mr Marotta and the couple he donated to did not use official channels, and instead met up using a website, and wrote up their own agreement. Because the US state of Kansas did not have a legal way for same-sex couples to marry, when the couple split up, the Kansas Department of Children and Families sought out the biological father of the child, Mr Marotta, for child support. The court clerk’s office at Shawnee County District Court issued subpoenas on Wednesday for Angela Bauer and Jennifer L Schreiner. Reports suggest that the women have been ordered to appear on 15 February, in order to give depositions to an attorney for William Marotta, HutchNews reports. Laws in other states, such as New Jersey are similar to those in Kansas, said Bari Weinberger, a leading family law attorney, and managing partner of Weinberger Law Group. He said that the judge could legitimately rule that the contract written up by Mr Marotta, and the former couple was void, because they did not use official channels to complete the agreement. Mr Weinberger said that these definitions, and the liability of people in relationships with children in their care to pay child support, needed to be updated and clearly laid out. Article: 25th January 2013 www.pinknews.co.uk Read more about lesbian parenting and finding a sperm donor at www.prideangel.com

Tricky legal situation for sperm donors in Kansas

Kansas sperm donor being sued by the state for child support put himself in a precarious legal position by donating to a lesbian couple using artificial insemination at home. Kansas law states that a sperm donor is not the father of a child if a doctor handles the artificial insemination. But the law does not specifically address the donor's rights and obligations when no doctor was involved. That was the case in 2009, when William Marotta answered an online ad for a sperm donation for Angela Bauer and her then-partner, Jennifer Schreiner. The three signed an agreement they believed severed Marotta's parental rights, and Schreiner became pregnant. But because they didn't go through a doctor, the state argues, Marotta is the legal father and should be responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance Schreiner received to help care for the child. The state also wants him to pay child support, though neither woman is asking for money. Marotta's attorney said Thursday that the law is outdated. But legal experts agreed that Marotta and the women put themselves in the predicament. "I don't fault the state for this," said Corey Whelan, who runs workshops for lesbian couples interested in having children through the New York-based American Fertility Association. "I don't think this is a homophobic issue. I think this is a financially driven issue." Whelan said her group has a long-standing practice of advising single women who want a child to work with doctors and attorneys. She said avoiding professionals is "a buyer-beware proposition." But money can be a factor. Artificial insemination generally isn't covered by health insurance and usually costs between $2,000 and $3,000, said Steve Snyder, a Minnesota-based attorney and chairman of the American Bar Association's group on assisted reproduction technology. "It is happening a lot," Snyder said. " A lot of LGBT couples use home insemination kits. I have a lot of cases involving those types of kits or people who intend to use them." That sets up a tricky legal situation, said Dr. Ajay Nangia, the former ethics chairman of the American Society of Andrology, a national medical group for male reproductive health. "The problem is the guy exposed himself to a situation that made him potentially liable because he had no legal protection," said Nangia, an associate professor of urology at the University of Kansas Hospital. Still, Ben Swinnen, one of Marotta's attorneys, said his 46-year-old client cannot be declared the father of Schreiner's now 3-year-old daughter because of the written agreement with the two women. He pointed to laws in nine states that say a sperm or egg donor is not the parent of a child conceived through artificial reproduction. "The state of Kansas is lagging behind in following the trend," he said. "It is a freeze, in my opinion, on artificial insemination and alternative family settings." He also believes state officials' pursuit of Marotta's case in Kansas, where voters approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in 2005, is designed to reinforce the definition of a family as a married man and woman, and their children. He said the state is trying to send a message that, "anything else is no good." But the Kansas Department for Children and Families, which started pursuing Marotta in October, argued in a court filing Wednesday that at least 10 other states require a doctor's involvement in artificial insemination for a sperm donor to be protected from having to pay child support. "It's a commonsense law," said Washington state-based attorney Mark Demaray, a past president of an organization for attorneys who handle assisted reproduction legal issues. "It's very common for them to have to go through a doctor's office and get a sworn statement from the doctor that he or she performed this procedure." Marotta is trying to get the case dismissed. A hearing is scheduled in April in Shawnee County District Court. Article: 4th January 2013 www.news.yahoo.com Erika from Pride Angel stated 'The law regarding sperm donation varies from country to country and within different states.' 'It's really important to seek legal advice when choosing a known donor and to consider taking the donor to a licensed fertility clinic for treatment.' 'In the UK married couples and lesbian couples in civil partnerships are considered the legal parents, regardless of whether the insemination is carried out within a clinic or at home using an artificial insemination kit'. Erika continues.... 'However it is more tricky for single women choosing to have a child with a known donor. The sperm donor would be seen as the legal parent in the eyes of the law, unless they conceived through a clinic'

Known sperm donors discussed on Woman's hour

Natalie was interviewed on BBC Radio 4 Woman’s Hour on Thursday on the topic of private sperm donation. The programme feature NGA client Mark Langridge (the donor who has been pursued for child support by the CSA twelve years after donating his sperm to a lesbian couple) and Laura Witjens, Chief Executive of the National Gamete Donation Trust, with Jenni Murray asking ‘what makes a father’? You can listen to Natalie on Woman’s Hour here. At NGA, we advise many prospective parents (and donors) considering a known donation arrangement, helping them to set things up with the strongest foundations. We sadly also help people whose known donation arrangements have broken down, both representing donors pursued for child support and lesbian and solo parents whose donors seek more involvement than they want. You can find out more about known donation and about known donor disputes.

Should a wife have to consent for a man to be able to donate sperm?

A British woman is campaigning for the legal right to veto her husband's choice to donate sperm, it has emerged. The unidentified complainant says her partner volunteered samples of his semen to a registered clinic after becoming stressed by the birth of their child, reported MailOnline. Disgruntled, the mother-of-one from Surrey has contacted the Human Fertilisation And Embryology Authority, arguing that women across the UK should be able to deny their spouse's free will on the matter - because sperm is a 'marital asset'. She's wrong. As a men's rights activist and someone whose mother was a counsellor in Liverpool's British Pregnancy Advisory Service, where I spent considerable time as a boy, I value the importance of choice massively. But it cuts both ways. The old maxim of 'my body, my choice' is one that applies to both genders, not just women. Whatever a man chooses to do with his sperm - his lineage, DNA and personification of reproductive liberty - is his decision and his alone, regardless of marital status. And given that a man's permission isn't needed for the termination of a pregnancy, I find this woman's plea particularly offensive. 'What a terrible reason to deny somebody the chance of legitimately fathering children: inconvenience' Yes, he probably had a moral obligation to inform his wife, but he certainly didn't have a legal one - and never should he. After all, a woman should never need a man's approval to donate her eggs, whether she is married to him or not. This man clearly made his decision freely and within the medical world's rigid guidelines. He also never retracted his consent, which is precisely what this issue boils down to. Well, that and spousal control. This woman claims she's concerned about the psychological effect any children fathered by her husband will have on her. She's equally worried that they might 'disrupt' her family life. But what a terrible reason to deny somebody the chance of legitimately fathering children: inconvenience. Personally, I suspect this woman is angry because she cannot trap her partner. Forever, getting pregnant has been a trump card used by some women in the so-called gender war. But suddenly there's a loophole. I'm sorry, this is not a reason to change the law; to compromise a patient's right to confidentiality or to deny infertile couples the opportunity to have a family. Not least because men already suffer from insufficient rights when it comes to paternity. Men are regularly denied access to their children (but forced to financially support them), yet - even when they obtain visitation orders via the courts - they rarely get them enforced. Likewise, look at the scores of men who are victims of paternity fraud. The same men who request DNA testing for a newborn, only to be denied it unless the mother consents. Where is there fairness in that? Last year, in Australia, a man's name was taken off the birth certificate of his daughter - simply because the mother and her female partner wanted to erase any trace of his (crucial) involvement. Stripping men of any more paternal rights would be inhumane. Yes, women face issues over parenthood too - but nobody is trying to marginalise their rights. Personally, I suspect this woman wants to limit her husband's choice for the sake of control, when - really - she should be asking why he suffered post-traumatic stress in the first place. If this woman is successful in changing the law, where would it end? What other body parts could a partner claim to co-own? Could a man stop a woman from becoming a surrogate mother? Could a woman stop a man from having a vasectomy? Either marriage is about ownership or it isn't. Personally, I believe it's about partnership. But I'm not sure she does. She has been quoted several times explaining how this situation affected her, but never her husband. That's a bad sign. Yes, it may have repercussions on her - but she chose to marry him, for better and for worse. I sympathise that his decision may emotionally affect her, but that's life. It doesn't mean we should go changing the law. More importantly, the truth remains the same: a man's body is a man's choice. And I'll throw myself in front of the (future) king's horse if that ever changes. Article: by Peter Lloyd 28th August 2012 www.dailymail.co.uk Comment by Erika - Pride Angel: It is understandable that this lady has her own concerns and fears regarding the unknown possible implications of her husband’s donations. Her fears may reflect her own feeling regarding her husband not wanting more children with his wife, but being prepared to help others. It is also her concern that the donor children may threaten her own family life if they were to make contact in the future. However in reality this may not affect her family’s life or her children’s, if her husband’s donations are explained to her children in a positive and open manner. The HFEA have stated that counseling was offered but cannot always be enforced. The key issue here is that men choosing to donate do need to consider the implications and feelings of their family and that good communication in of paramount importance. However we cannot surely enforce a situation whereby consent from a partner, wife or husband needs to be achieved before donations can be given. It is after all an individual’s choice to give the gift of life.

Canadian sperm donor refused access to 18 month toddler until trial

The potential risk of introducing a Northern Ontario toddler to his genetic father at this point in his life is too major to be ignored, a judge has ruled in turning down a sperm donor’s bid for interim access to the boy, now being raised by his biological mother and her lesbian partner. The decision marks the first round in a key test case of the uncertain law around exchanges of human sperm and egg, as increasing numbers of Canadian children are born by “assisted” reproduction. A full trial is scheduled for this October to consider the man’s demand for paternity rights – and add some clarity to the tangled issue – but Rene deBlois had requested access to the boy pending the final wrap-up of the case. The two women had argued that Tyler Lavigne, who has never met Mr. deBlois, might become confused and insecure if the 22-month-old encountered the donor now, noted Justice Norman Karam of the Ontario Superior Court in Cochrane, Ont. “Despite the child’s young age, it is impossible to know what disclosure of [Mr. deBlois’s] status as his parent might mean,” said the judge. “All circumstances considered, the risk of there being an adverse effect to the child is too great to ignore.” Justice Karam said he considered imposing limitations on the access to deal with those concerns, but decided the restrictions would be virtually impossible to enforce. He said he also found “very convincing” the couple’s argument that by allowing access to the child now, he could inadvertently affect the outcome of the trial, expected to be closely watched by legal analysts, parent groups and others. Selena Kazimierski and Nicole Lavigne say the donor – a former high-school acquaintance of Ms. Lavigne – signed an agreement that he would never contact the baby born in October, 2010, with the help of his artificially inseminated sperm. They fear the family life they have built for their son would be unduly disrupted if he that changed. The donor says he no longer honours the deal, partly because Ms. Lavigne failed to follow through on her verbal commitment to have a baby for him, too. It is common sense to delay creating a relationship between a child and a stranger unless there is a guarantee that the relationship will continue Legal experts say the case offers up a relatively straightforward set of facts, allowing the court to directly tackle a question overhanging many such arrangements. Growing numbers of children are being born in Canada as a result of in-vitro fertilization and other forms of assisted reproduction, often to same-sex couples. When donations are obtained anonymously from sperm banks, and in the few provinces with relevant laws, parenthood is generally uncontested. In situations where couples and single people make arrangements with sperm donors they know, however – especially in provinces that lack such legislation – the rights of the various parties remain largely unresolved. A smattering of mostly lower-court rulings have addressed the question, but most of the cases have had complicating factors, such as a past relationship between the donor and recipient. Lucia Mendonca, Mr. deBlois’s lawyer, could not be reached for comment Wednesday. Ms. Lavigne voiced relief at the ruling on interim access, saying it would have been too disruptive for everyone to allow the genetic father and son to meet, when the trial might rule Mr. deBlois has no paternity rights. “It would …. just cause pain on all sides,” she said. “It would be hard on him, if he got attached, and now ‘You’re never going to see him again.’ ” The decision correctly analyzed the law – and applied pure common sense to the situation, said Michelle Flowerday, the Toronto-based fertility and family-law lawyer representing the couple. “It is common sense to delay creating a relationship between a child and a stranger unless there is a guarantee that the relationship will continue,” she said. “There is no guarantee here. We may well succeed at trial.” The judge also said that he would not consider a legal motion by the couple to reverse an earlier decision, made when the women were represented by a different lawyer, to essentially void the sperm-donation contract. It is expected that issue will be considered at the trial, due to start Oct. 21. Justice Karam also rejected a request by Mr. deBlois for an investigation by Ontario’s Office of the Children’s Lawyer – which represents the interests of children in custody disputes – saying such a probe would be “of little value.” Article: 8th August 2012 www.nationalpost.com

Canadian sperm donor and lesbian couple fight for rights over child

Lesbian parents in Canada say they had an agreement: Rene deBlois would donate his sperm for artificial insemination and play no role in the life of any child that resulted. Mr. deBlois says he signed that deal “under duress,” had second thoughts when Tyler Lavigne was born and is now demanding that the courts recognize him as a father with liberal access rights. The resulting dispute in the Northern Ontario town of Cochrane is headed for a potentially precedent-setting trial, tackling head on the legal murkiness that often surrounds the increasingly common exchange of donated eggs and semen. “We’re doing what we think is best for our child. He’s being raised in a happy and healthy environment,” Nicole Lavigne, one of Tyler’s mothers, said in an interview Tuesday. “His family is complete…. I think it’s very important that people be secure that the family they’ve created won’t be disrupted.” The donor, on the other hand, said in his Ontario Superior Court application that Ms. Lavigne, an acquaintance from elementary school days, has failed to respond with her part of their original bargain, by carrying a child for him. “[Ms. Lavigne] threatens and intimidates [Mr. deBlois] with the existence of the contract,” the document said. “He is no longer comfortable with the arrangement, and would like the contract voided.” Growing numbers of children are being born in Canada as a result of in-vitro fertilization and other forms of “assisted” reproduction, often to same-sex couples. When donations are obtained anonymously from sperm banks, and in the few provinces with laws that directly address the issue, parenthood is generally uncontested. In situations where couples and single people make arrangements with sperm donors they know, however — especially in provinces that lack such legislation — the rights of the various parties remain largely unresolved. A smattering of mostly lower-court rulings have addressed the question, but most of the cases have had complicating factors, such as a past relationship between the donor and recipient. The Cochrane dispute, however, boasts the most clear-cut set of facts of any to reach the courts, making it an ideal legal testing ground, said Fiona Kelly, a University of British Columbia law professor who studies the issue. Same-sex and other advocacy groups are planning to request intervenor status in the trial, expected to begin this fall, though the issue is important to single people and heterosexual couples, as well, said Michelle Flowerday, a Toronto lawyer representing Ms. Lavigne and her partner of 15 years, Selena Kazimierski. “It raises so many important issues,” she said. “The issues are really close to the heart of parenting.” According to Mr. deBlois’s application, filed a few months after Tyler’s birth in October, 2010, he remembers Ms. Lavigne as a “bully” from their time at Commando Senior Public School with whom he had not been in contact since 1992 when she approached him in 2008 about donating sperm. She initially offered to carry a second child for him, but the agreement that he eventually signed did not touch on that part of their discussion, saying only that he would relinquish rights to the first child, the donor’s application says. As Mr. deBlois supplied sperm on a sometimes daily basis, Ms. Lavigne performed artificial insemination at home, conceiving in 2010. Feeling he had been coerced into the deal, he asked the court after Tyler was born to require that he be officially recognized as the father and given “general and liberal” access to the boy, the application says. Mr. deBlois was not available to comment, but Ms. Lavigne said the court action came out of the blue and left the couple “shocked,” the tension exacerbated by a small-town culture that is not always tolerant of same-sex parenting. “It’s been very stressful,” she said. Prof. Kelly said judges in similar cases have tended to side with the sperm donor, but argued the Cochrane case, involving a stable couple and a child they have raised from birth, should offer the court a clear choice. “To decide in favour of the donor in this case, with these facts, would suggest that a lesbian couple in Canada can never be the sole legal parents of a child conceived with a known donor,” said Prof Kelly. “This would be an extremely troubling outcome.” Article: 5th June 2012 www.news.nationalpost.com Read more about fertility and parenting law in the UK.

Texas sperm donor wins appeal to not pay child support

Texas sperm donor — Former Arlington police officer Ronnie Coleman is an eight-time Mr. Olympia winner. But he believes it was a moment of weakness when he agreed to donate sperm so a friend could have a baby.
"Wasn't nothing written down," Coleman said. "We'd been friends 14 years at the time. I never thought it would come to what it came to." Coleman said he used a California sperm bank in 2006, and made it clear he wanted only to be a donor — not a parent.

But he said he soon received demands for child support for the two surviving triplets after the sperm recipient gave birth. "I feel betrayed in a way," Coleman said.

Coleman, who has two young children with his girlfriend, said he's paid many thousands of dollars in child support payments to the other woman, along with about $400,000 in legal fees to free himself from those payments.

A California court of appeals recently ruled in his favor. We were unable to reach the woman's attorney. "I think what's happened is, medicine has advanced much faster than the law has advanced," said Arlington attorney Lauren Duffer.

She handles complicated paternity cases. Duffer said the contracts for donors should be extensive, with clear intent at every step in the process. "The main thing is medical professionals and legal professionals communicating," Duffer said.

As for Ronnie Coleman, he said the financial strain has nearly broken him. And he said he would never even consider being a sperm donor in the future.

Article: 14th April 2012 www.kens5.com

Gay sperm donor granted greater access to see his son by court of appeal

The Court of Appeal in London has ruled unanimously that a gay man who fathered a child for a lesbian couple is not a secondary parent, allowing him greater access to his two-year-old son. As the judge who granted permission to appeal wrote, the case raises 'important issues relating to the courts' approach to children born into "alternative families" and the relationship of such children with their fathers'.
In giving the lead judgment at the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Thorpe ruled that although the lesbian couple desired to bring up the child as a two-parent nuclear family, the father's commitment to the child since birth suggested he was seeking a 'relationship of considerable value'.

The father, known as A, married the biological mother, B, in 2007 in order to appease her family who had difficulties accepting her sexual orientation. There was no intention of cohabitation between A and B.

A had agreed prior to the pregnancy that he would not assert his paternal rights and that the lesbian couple would be the primary carers for the child. They agreed the child would reside with B and her partner, C, and A's role as the biological father would remain secondary. The women were reportedly concerned about the impact any greater role of the father would have on their relationship and that with the child.

The parties' dispute over contact arrangements was heard by the Family Division last July, where the judge upheld the women's case, albeit extending A's contact hours to one meeting per week of five hours. Judge Jenkins expressed reluctance to fracture what is described in the judgment as a nuclear family’.

Lord Justice Thorpe took a different view, saying 'it is generally accepted that a child gains by having two parents'. He added that 'it does not follow from that that the addition of a third is necessarily disadvantageous'.

The court said the arrangements made before the birth of the child did not necessarily hold sway in the life of the child. 'Human emotions are powerful and inconstant', said Lord Justice Thorpe. 'What the adults look forward to before undertaking the hazards of conception, birth and the first experience of parenting may prove to be illusion or fantasy'.

He added that although it had been suggested by the courts that contact should reflect the role agreed by the parties, the primary purpose remains to promote the welfare of the child. He cautioned against B and C's wish to form a 'two parent lesbian nuclear family' without any contact with A. 'Such desires may be essentially selfish and may later insufficiently weigh the welfare and developing rights of the child that they have created', he said.

Lady Justice Black, also hearing the appeal, highlighted the difficulties faced by the courts in this area. She said the courts 'continue to struggle to evolve a principled approach to cases such as this one'. However, she concluded, although guidance would be helpful, all cases were fact specific. 'This is an area of family law in which generalised guidance is not possible', she said.

Sperm donors who donate through an licensed clinic are not regarded as being legally responsible for any children born as a result of their donation under UK law. However, this law does not apply to arrangements made outside licensed clinics.

Lord Justice Thorpe refused to endorse the concept of principal and secondary parents being developed by the family courts, saying, 'it has the danger of demeaning the known donor and in some cases they may have an important role'.

A's case will now go to the High Court Family Division for a judge to reassess the level of contact with his son.

Article: 20th March 2012 www.bionews.co.uk

Sperm donors paying child support in the US is a mess

The child support system in the United States is a mess. Too many states follow formulas that don't serve the needs of individual families and leave many non-custodial parents feeling stripped of their rights while many custodial parents feel they are forced to wait and wait through bureaucratic processes before receiving their money. There are some single parents who are happy with the way child support works, but they are hard to come by.
Chukwudera B. Okoli is a man in Massachusetts (I hesitate to even call him a "father") who has every right to hate the system right now. Currently, he's being forced to pay child support to the children born via IVF to Blessing Okoli, his former wife.

The story is so unfair, it will make you want to scream. But the issues it raises are even more troubling. Are sperm donors fathers now?

Even in the case of an anonymous sperm donor, the child support may be in the best interest of the children. After all, children need the support of two parents. But morally it's wrong. Isn't a man a person, too? Don't they have rights? What kind of mother purposely creates and gives birth to a child (or children) she can't afford and then changes her mind about an agreement?

Our legal system shouldn't be supporting such irresponsible behavior.

Biology doesn't make a person a father. That is done through late nights and changing diapers and school plays and cuddles. But the court says otherwise. The court says regardless of whether you and the mother signed an agreement, a person is legally obligated to support their offspring with their money whether they're involved with the children or not.

No one is going to donate sperm anymore if this is the kind of thing that happens. Okoli's case may be unique in that he was once married to the mom, but in the end, he is a donor and just a donor. Just like the anonymous ones in a sperm bank. Here is a man thinking he is doing a good thing and he gets sued for child support. It's so wrong.

The bottom line is that a single woman shouldn't have children she can't afford on her own. Part of good parenting is making good decisions for your family. Why would you have kids you can't afford?

An anonymous sperm donor -- or any sperm donor -- is not a father and no amount of child support can make him one. In the family court, every decision is made in the best interest of a child, but parents are people, too. They have rights. This tramples on men's rights and it makes women look incompetent. If you can't afford a child, for God's sake, don't have one.

Child support may make sense legally, but morally it's an absolute mess.

Millionaire sperm donor in Australia fights for custody of child

A MILLIONAIRE businessman who secretly helped a single friend conceive through IVF has launched a legal fight over custody. In a case that could have ramifications for hundreds of donor conceptions, the man wants the Family Court to rule on whether he is the boy's parent.
Under Victorian law, a man who donates sperm is not considered the father of any resulting children. All donors must sign consent forms agreeing they do not have any legal rights or responsibilities towards offspring.

At a hearing, Family Court senior registrar John FitzGibbon noted the case centred on whether the relationship between the pair was "friend", or "friend but with other things agreed".

The woman's lawyer told the court she had always intended to bring up the child as a single mum. "We don't accept as a matter of law that he is a parent," her barrister Andrew Robinson said. "Just because he donated genetic material doesn't make him a parent."

The man had kept his part secret, the court heard. On the occasions he visited the child, it was usually at the mother's home. He is seeking regular access visits and, ultimately, joint custody and parental responsibility.

The man's lawyer told court his client had an "arrangement" with the woman before she began IVF. Barrister Tim North, SC, told the court the man attended the birth, and had covered the costs.

The court heard he'd seen his son as often as three times a week since birth, but contact had ceased about Christmas. Mr North claimed his client was concerned his developing relationship with the child would be adversely affected the longer he was prevented from seeing him.

The woman's lawyer described her relationship to the man as "like a family friend". But the lawyer described her relationship with the man's family as "acrimonious", and alleged the man's sister had made threats to kill in text messages.

Mr Robinson told the court other parties - including IVF providers and possibly the State Government - would potentially join the case, given possible ramifications of the apparent conflict between state and Commonwealth law. Senior Registrar FitzGibbon noted the case had the potential "to grow like Topsy". He referred to the parties as "mother" and "father" during the initial hearing, though he acknowledged there was dispute over whether those terms were correct.

Gay sperm donor in custody battle with lesbian couple

A gay man who donated his sperm to enable his lesbian ex-wife to become pregnant is demanding overnight and holiday access to their two-year-old son. The woman and her female partner have instructed their lawyers to fight the man's demands on the basis he has 'betrayed' a 'pact' the threesome made before the baby was conceived, in which they allegedly agreed he would have 'limited' parental rights. The parents are not being named in order to protect the little boy's identity, but are reportedly all highly-paid professionals living in central London.
The father is said to have attended the baby's birth and currently has five hours of contact a fortnight with him. He claims he was always more than just a sperm donor, and now wants the right to have a full parenting role in his son's life. The Appeal Court heard that the man had been 'utterly consistent' in his desire to parent the little boy, and gained 'pleasure and joy' from interacting with his son.

The child's mum, however, says they had a 'clearly agreed' pact with the man before the baby was even conceived, which stated she and her female partner would be the 'primary parents' within a 'two-parent, nuclear family'. The court heard that the man was previously in a marriage of convenience with the woman which ended in divorce.

The Appeal Court judges are now being asked to rule whether the toddler would the better off with 'three parents and two homes'. The lawyer for the mum and her partner said the couple had been left with 'bitterness and betrayal' and would have used an anonymous sperm donor if they had known the dad would take this stance.

Charles Howard QC, told the court: "Notwithstanding their sexuality and that they acknowledge to that extent that they are an alternative family, the mother and her partner hold very traditional views of family life and would not have chosen to bring a child into anything other than an intact, two-parent, family.

"The ideal upbringing for a child is a stable home in which the parents love each other and had together chosen to bring a child into the world. This is the upbringing which the mother and her partner always wanted to create for this little boy. They were always of the view that their son's best interests militated against him spending very much time away from them or from his home.

"The intention was always that the father, who was at one time their close friend, would generally see the boy in their company by sharing in activities and family events. The breakdown of the friendship has had the result that the boy is spending far more time away from his primary parents than they had anticipated."

"To this couple, the concept of 'three parents, two homes' repeated so often by the father, is very alien and has never been something they could consider. This is something which they have had to accept but it represents a significant departure from their initial plans for their son's upbringing. They cannot conceive of their child being shuttled, physically but more significantly emotionally, between two homes and it is something that they believe will harm their son and cause significant emotional damage."

The dad's lawyer said his client had no desire to undermine the role of the mum and her partner as the child's primary carers, but wants sufficient contact with the toddler to enable a 'developing relationship' with his only son. What a messy situation!

This article shows the importance of setting out clear intentitions between recipients and donors prior to conception and that legal sperm donor agreements must be put in place to help with any possible future disputes. Read more about sperm donor legal rights.
www.prideangel.com