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

Equal gay marriage has been passed in law in England and Wales

Following our blog earlier in the year where we reported on the progress of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill we are delighted that the Bill has now received royal assent. After much debate and somewhat of a furore, this means that same sex marriage is now law, even though the first UK same sex marriages won’t take place until Spring 2014 once all the procedures and paperwork have been put in place. Perhaps unsurprisingly there is some confusion around what the changes in the law actually mean. The key points to note are as follows: 1.It will be legal for couples of the same sex to marry in England in Wales. 2.Same sex couples can have a civil or religious wedding, but can only have a religious wedding if the relevant religious group decides to ‘opt in’ (which every religious group except the Church of England can do). 3.Civil partnership will remain an option for same sex, but not heterosexual, couples. (The legal differences between marriage and civil partnership are minimal in practice). 4.Same sex couples already in a civil partnership can convert their civil partnership into a marriage if it was registered in England and Wales. This will not apply to couples who registered a civil partnership in Northern Ireland, Scotland or abroad (who will not be able to marry unless they dissolve their civil partnership first). 5.For those splitting up, adultery is not a ground for dissolving a civil partnership and is only a ground for dissolving a same sex marriage if the adultery takes place with a member of the opposite sex (although in practice unreasonable behaviour usually gives grounds for dissolving a relationship where there has been infidelity anyway). 6.There is no international harmonisation of how or if a same sex marriage will be recognised in other countries. However, it is likely that a same sex marriage will be recognised in countries where same sex marriage is legal (such as France which has recently undergone similar changes). The change in the law is certainly welcomed by us at NGA but the rules are undoubtedly complex. There has already been controversy over the decision to allow religious groups to opt in but this doesn’t apply to the Church of England. It seems an awkward concept that same sex couples are to be able to enter into a civil partnership but for there to be no option for heterosexual couples to do likewise. There will be complex questions from couples in England and Wales who have married or registered a civil partnership abroad as to how their relationship will be recognised in England and Wales. Similarly, relocating couples will need to know whether their marriage will be recognised abroad. This will impact on issues such as tax planning or the breakdown of the relationship. Much like with our campaigning work for a global harmonisation of surrogacy laws we feel that a more universal approach to same sex marriage is needed, but this is herculean task at a global level. In the meantime, UK same sex marriage is a huge step in the right direction. Here at NGA we specialise in helping alternative families and have a strong background in cases involving the breakdown of relationships. We help with civil partnership dissolution, divorce and disputes relating to children and financial matters. We also help with pre registration and pre nuptial agreements to give clarity and prevent disputes in the future. If you would like to discuss your circumstances with us please contact Richard Perrins for more information. Article: 13th August 2013 www.nataliegambleassociates.co.uk Read more about gay parenting at www.prideangel.com

Coming out of the infertility closet

Although one-in-six U.S. couples face problems conceiving, many still feel funny telling others that they are undergoing treatment. In fact, infertility is one of the last great cultural taboos. One survey of infertile couples conducted by the pharmaceutical companies Schering-Plough and Merck found that 61% hid their infertility from family and friends, and half didn’t share it with their mothers. Why the secrecy? The study also found that seven-in-10 women admitted that being infertile made them feel “flawed,” and half of men reported feeling “inadequate.” It’s no wonder then that talk show host Jimmy Fallon waited two weeks after the birth of his daughter Winnie Rose to reveal that she was carried by a surrogate. “My wife and I had been trying for a while to have a baby,” Fallon told Today’s Savannah Guthrie Friday morning. “We tried a bunch of things. So we had a surrogate.” Fallon’s openness came as a surprise, considering that most celebrities have been notoriously mum on the subject. Who can blame them? Remember all the rampant speculating about whether Kate Middleton had infertility problems? And—gasp!—was Baby George conceived via IVF? We should applaud Fallon—along with his wife and other high-profile women willing to share their stories—for going public with facts so many would prefer to keep hidden. Article: 11th August 2013 www.ideas.time.com Read more...

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

Yotam Ottolenghi on becoming a gay dad through surrogacy

Hoorah for NGA client Yotam Ottolenghi and his wonderfully heartfelt piece in Saturday’s Guardian: 'Why I’m coming out as a gay father'. In a brave and personal editorial, the renowned TV chef and restarauter has spoken out about his long journey to fatherhood as a gay man, and how becoming a father has enabled him to reconcile himself to a new openness about his sexuality. He says: “At the end of a five-year process, I know we can’t be shy about telling our story, that privacy just isn’t an option. That’s because we could only have had Max, and hopefully also a future sibling, thanks to other people who have shared their stories. Max has already brought us immense joy. He has also forced our second coming out, this time as gay parents.” We salute his bravery in coming out to the world about such incredibly personal issues. We have been privileged to share his journey (as his legal advisors), which has taken him through the option of co-parenting to international surrogacy and the birth of his son Max earlier this year. We know it takes brave men like Yotam willing to talk about their experience to inspire others that it can be done, and to enable them to feel comfortable about their choices. The good news, from a legal perspective, is that the options for gay men to become fathers have never been better than they are now. Since 2010, gay men who conceive with a surrogate mother have been able to apply to the family court for a parental order. This ultimately gives them a UK birth certificate naming them both as parents. It is a legal solution for gay dads who conceive through surrogacy in the UK and abroad, and it fully resolves all the UK legal issues. Surrogacy in the UK is often more achievable than people realise, but many gay dads, like Yotam, are also going to the US where a more professional and managed surrogacy service is available. There has developed a significant track record over the past five years of the UK High Court authorising such arrangements (even though they involve commercial surrogacy arrangements), case law which we have been proud to have helped shape. Since 2005, gay men have been able to adopt as couples, with just the same rights as heterosexual couples. They have full and equal parental status and an adoption certificate to confirm it. And there is the option of co-parenting. Here the law is more complex, and in particular gay couples who donate sperm to lesbian couples may have no legal status as parents if the birth mother is in a civil partnership. But these arrangements work too, and there are legal solutions available. The climate has never been better for gay dads to start a family than it is now, and we hope that other gay men will draw courage from Yotam’s story.

Reality show winner meets children he fathered 24 years ago as a donor

He is best known for as the villainous winner of the reality series Survivor, and subsequently going to prison for tax evasion. But before he rose to fame bagging the $1million prize on the show, Richard Hatch was a young college student who needed to make ends meet. On a recent episode of Oprah: Where Are They Now? Hatch talked about his younger days as a sperm donor, and meets up with two of his biological children who had got in contact with him. Emily and Devin, both 24, found their biological dad through the Donor Sibling Registry and their meeting was filmed for the show broadcast on Oprah Winfrey's OWN Network. However, it had already been revealed back in 2011 before he served jail time for tax evasion that his two children had come forward. But Hatch, 52, has now revealed that he was paid approximately $40 per donation around three times a week for two years, admitting: 'there are probably more.' 'I'm open to, interested in, would be excited about meeting any of them who were interested in meeting me,' he says. Considering the possibility of how many more children that are his, he said: 'I don't spend a lot of time thinking about how many children I may have fathered.' Hatch added: 'I have no way of knowing. I will never have any way of knowing. It seems kind of fruitless to me.' The former reality star also talks about adopting a son named Chris in 1998 and later serving jail time for tax evasion, which he claims he did not do. Hatch was freed from prison in December 2011 on a tax evasion sentence tied to his $1 million Survivor winnings. The star was released from prison for violating the terms of his supervised release in the long-running case. He first brought up the subject of his sperm donation shortly before entering prison, admitting that he had met a 22-year-old biological son who is living in New Jersey. 'It was additionally challenging to be wrongfully imprisoned knowing that these children were coming forward,' Hatch said at the time. 'I told the court that beforehand. I explained this is a fascinating time in my life when I was at a place where I wanted to get to know these people who are my children who have come forward and want to get to know me.' Oprah: Where Are They Now? airs Sundays at 10 p.m. ET on OWN. Article: 30th July 2013 www.dailymail.co.uk

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