Sperm donor is the legal dad?
February 1, 2002 9:02 AM Subscribe
Sperm donor is the legal dad? Hmmm, because this guy donated his goods to a lesbian couple, he is the biological father of three children... but now that the couple broke up, the mother wants child support and took him to court.
He fought it, but she won...
That seems a bit tight. Unless there's other info we haven't been told...?
posted by cashmein at 9:16 AM on February 1, 2002
posted by cashmein at 9:16 AM on February 1, 2002
I shot the sherrif, but I did not shoot the deputy.
posted by thirteen at 9:16 AM on February 1, 2002
posted by thirteen at 9:16 AM on February 1, 2002
Unless there's other info we haven't been told...?
I'm really hoping that's the case. Otherwise, this is just all kinds of wrong.
posted by Ty Webb at 9:19 AM on February 1, 2002
I'm really hoping that's the case. Otherwise, this is just all kinds of wrong.
posted by Ty Webb at 9:19 AM on February 1, 2002
Lehnberg told the district court in Oerebro, 145 km west of Stockholm that his girlfriend at the time persuaded him to donate sperm to the lesbian couple in 1991.
If this was an anonymous donation, it would trouble me more. But he knew what he was doing and who was getting his spooge.
posted by piskycritters at 9:25 AM on February 1, 2002
If this was an anonymous donation, it would trouble me more. But he knew what he was doing and who was getting his spooge.
posted by piskycritters at 9:25 AM on February 1, 2002
Article also notes that sperm donation to lesbian couples is illegal in Sweden, so, of course, the court had to reject any effort by the donor to thrust support of his children onto the state on the basis of a claim of reliance of a sperm donor's non-parternity when he was not a lawful sperm donor in the first place and he knew it.
posted by MattD at 9:47 AM on February 1, 2002
posted by MattD at 9:47 AM on February 1, 2002
I suppose he could always file for custody, since they're officially his kids now....
posted by dwivian at 10:45 AM on February 1, 2002
posted by dwivian at 10:45 AM on February 1, 2002
Morally, the woman should have her children taken away from her for being morally bankrupt. The guy did her a favor, and this is how she repays him?
posted by hummus at 10:46 AM on February 1, 2002
posted by hummus at 10:46 AM on February 1, 2002
Aside from how revolting the subject matter is, I think it's pathetic that someone can't take responsibility for their own actions.
Listen lady, you had the kid—LIVE WITH IT!
People disgust me.
posted by Dark Messiah at 10:58 AM on February 1, 2002
Listen lady, you had the kid—LIVE WITH IT!
People disgust me.
posted by Dark Messiah at 10:58 AM on February 1, 2002
sperm donation to lesbian couples is illegal in Sweden
i wonder: would it have been legal if she got pregnant by FUCKING the guy?
come to think of it, isn't every act that results in conception a form of sperm donation? (wham bam, thank you, sir!)
posted by jellybuzz at 11:52 AM on February 1, 2002
i wonder: would it have been legal if she got pregnant by FUCKING the guy?
come to think of it, isn't every act that results in conception a form of sperm donation? (wham bam, thank you, sir!)
posted by jellybuzz at 11:52 AM on February 1, 2002
*whipes chin*
Thank you sir!
Now... to get these babies into the deep-freezer.
posted by Dark Messiah at 1:12 PM on February 1, 2002
Thank you sir!
Now... to get these babies into the deep-freezer.
posted by Dark Messiah at 1:12 PM on February 1, 2002
if you don't wanna pay for the kids you bring to this earth - keep your sperms in the bag or at least don't go around signing papers that you are the dad and doing it three times just proves how daft that guy is.
so most males want to breed - but to claim to do it as a "service for a friend" and then act all surprised when there is a price to pay for producing off-spring should be punished. why should the state pay for his kids when he could do it himself?
posted by jema at 2:43 PM on February 1, 2002
so most males want to breed - but to claim to do it as a "service for a friend" and then act all surprised when there is a price to pay for producing off-spring should be punished. why should the state pay for his kids when he could do it himself?
posted by jema at 2:43 PM on February 1, 2002
why should the state pay for his kids when he could do it himself?
um, because in no meaningful sense are they his kids?
posted by rushmc at 4:19 PM on February 1, 2002
um, because in no meaningful sense are they his kids?
posted by rushmc at 4:19 PM on February 1, 2002
but to claim to do it as a "service for a friend" and then act all surprised when there is a price to pay for producing off-spring should be punished.
Why do you read it as a "claim"? Why isn't it possible that he honestly thought he was doing his friend a favor? Yeah, clearly he should have outlines his rights and duties, or lack thereof, more deliberately, in some sort of legal document. But it's clear he wasn't an active participant in the family, and it seems likely that was the preference of the lesbian couple.
If that's the case, why should he have to provide money to them? It's not like he accidently knocked someone up - he purposefully turned over the necessary fertilization material that the lesbian couple needed in order to produce a child, which is what they wanted. Why does he need to be punished for that?
posted by mdn at 4:31 PM on February 1, 2002
Why do you read it as a "claim"? Why isn't it possible that he honestly thought he was doing his friend a favor? Yeah, clearly he should have outlines his rights and duties, or lack thereof, more deliberately, in some sort of legal document. But it's clear he wasn't an active participant in the family, and it seems likely that was the preference of the lesbian couple.
If that's the case, why should he have to provide money to them? It's not like he accidently knocked someone up - he purposefully turned over the necessary fertilization material that the lesbian couple needed in order to produce a child, which is what they wanted. Why does he need to be punished for that?
posted by mdn at 4:31 PM on February 1, 2002
The courts are hesitant to take away the rights of the children in this type of case, and I think that they are correct. The claim is for child support, not alimony.
Regardless of the understanding between the biological parents, written or not, a court will normally do what it feels is in the best interests of a child. In this case, it was to force the father to take financial responsibility for the children.
Courts do make public policy based decisions on a regular basis, and on their face they sometimes might not appear to be fair. But I think that it's the right decision here.
posted by bragadocchio at 6:50 PM on February 1, 2002
Regardless of the understanding between the biological parents, written or not, a court will normally do what it feels is in the best interests of a child. In this case, it was to force the father to take financial responsibility for the children.
Courts do make public policy based decisions on a regular basis, and on their face they sometimes might not appear to be fair. But I think that it's the right decision here.
posted by bragadocchio at 6:50 PM on February 1, 2002
"But it's clear he wasn't an active participant in the family, and it seems likely that was the preference of the lesbian couple."
this is simply not true. the media almost exclusivly reported the story as the man told it. the mother has only been heard in court due to her wanting to protect her children from the media. but one of the facts that is NOT widely reported is that the man in fact DID have contact with the children. The children knew who he was and he wanted it that way. he gave up his parental obligation for the other woman but he never gave up on his parental rights - to meet and socialize with the children.
if it is such a punishment to pay for what you bring into this world - then one should just be careful and not daft enough to sign the papers.
there have been one intervju with the mother of the children in tha news here and i am just sorry it was never translated or more spread to the general public.
the only victims here are the children and it was them that the court thought about when they did their ruling
posted by jema at 1:21 AM on February 2, 2002
this is simply not true. the media almost exclusivly reported the story as the man told it. the mother has only been heard in court due to her wanting to protect her children from the media. but one of the facts that is NOT widely reported is that the man in fact DID have contact with the children. The children knew who he was and he wanted it that way. he gave up his parental obligation for the other woman but he never gave up on his parental rights - to meet and socialize with the children.
if it is such a punishment to pay for what you bring into this world - then one should just be careful and not daft enough to sign the papers.
there have been one intervju with the mother of the children in tha news here and i am just sorry it was never translated or more spread to the general public.
the only victims here are the children and it was them that the court thought about when they did their ruling
posted by jema at 1:21 AM on February 2, 2002
« Older Flash Player 6 Beta | Newspapers lose the web war. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by folktrash at 9:15 AM on February 1, 2002