|
Author
|
Topic: Swedish court: sperm donor responsible for child support
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 14 October 2005 10:28 AM
Don't donors usually sign an agreement that absolves them from usual parental responsibilities?I think the new "dad" should try to petition for joint custody of the child, just to see if the law is going to be consistent. They can't exactly tell him "sorry, sir, but you're just a sperm donor" at this point. And if it means losing her kid for half a year, maybe mom will reconsider just how badly she really needs access to this guy's wallet.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 14 October 2005 12:01 PM
quote:
Every parent has a right to know their child, and every child has the right to know their parents.
I think we generally hold sperm donors (or surrogate mothers) as exempt from the usual rules of parenting. In fact, I wonder how this might ripple out in Sweden with regard to infertile couples or gay couples, whose best hope of having a child rests on being able to find a donor. How do you convince someone to help you out if, a year later, you can screw them over like this. quote:
The law is on the side of the mother, for good or ill.
Clearly. But that's no reason why she shouldn't still be very ashamed of herself. I'm not privy to any private conversations (in Swedish, no less), but I think it's a safe bet that when this guy agreed to help out a couple, he was told that he wouldn't be financially responsible for the child. Now, because it's convenient, he is. Nice. Real nice. And I have to agree with firecaptain: this child had two legal parents, right? Why should a third get pulled into the picture? Because one legal parent wants $$$ and the other legal parent is not going to pay? Or is going to play the biology card?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 14 October 2005 12:14 PM
If donating sperm means, effectively, being the child's parent, with full rights and responsibilities, wouldn't that pretty much sign the death certificate for artificial insemination as an option for infertile or gay parents?It's all well and good to say that "the child comes first", but in the interest of parents who can't otherwise conceive, we've invented this concept of donorship, whereby someone helps you out. I can't imagine many more men donating sperm if it means being a parent to someone else's child, and similarly I doubt many couples are going to consider a sperm donor if it means that that sperm donor will have full parental rights, and effectively be "dad".
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 14 October 2005 05:03 PM
quote:
Nister, I don't think I can say anything significant about the Swedish law of sperm donation.Here in Canada, I have actually been approached by a potential sperm donor (a few years ago) who asked me whether he might ever have to pay support if they signed a contract saying he didn't. After reviewing the Ontario law, I concluded that if he were to father a child, he would be on the hook if that child needed support.
If you are the father, you are the father. He might request successfully additional visitation rights, but it would depend on all the circumstances. Had he been intentionally absent for a long time? Would it be disquieting for the child to see more of him? Etc. Paying the support flows from biology. Access is awarded depending upon the actual psychological relationships between the two.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 14 October 2005 05:31 PM
Wow.A friend of mine back in University days was a sperm donor. To him it was an easy enough, ethical enough thing to do for a bit of money. I doubt they ever told him that he was the legal father of some kids, and could someday be ordered to financially support them. I wonder if a sperm donor could, if he wanted to, decide he wants to be the legal father of his biological children, and petition the court for access to records and ultimately access to his children. I wonder too what the children's parents would think of this intrusion. I had always believed that sperm donors and surrogate mothers were exempt from responsibilities and rights with regard to the children they help produce. How could they get volunteers otherwise?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 14 October 2005 05:45 PM
Well, I think in this case, Magoo, it had never been an issue before (otherwise it wouldn't have been a groundbreaking case). Hopefully it got enough press in Sweden for any future potential sperm donors to take note.It's interesting - I'm not sure if I have these details correct, but I remember being told by someone a while back that clinics will not do artificial inseminations with a sperm donor known to the woman being inseminated. You either have to have an anonymous donor, or you have to be in a committed relationship of some sort with the donor. When I heard this, I thought that was outrageous, and I was very indignant about it. But considering what jeff house has said about liability, and this story, I think I see the logic behind it now.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 14 October 2005 05:48 PM
Often, the way courts encounter this issue has to do with a choice: who should provide the upkeep of the child?If the mother cannot do it, and her non-marital partner is out the picture, should the state pay? Or the biological father? Obviously, the legislature could write a law insulating biological parents in this situation. I don't think anyone has done so, though.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 14 October 2005 05:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
Often, the way courts encounter this issue has to do with a choice: who should provide the upkeep of the child?If the mother cannot do it, and her non-marital partner is out the picture, should the state pay? Or the biological father?
Well, first of all, yes, the state should pay. The state should pay for the upkeep of any child whose parents cannot make ends meet. That said, in this case, "her non-marital partner is out of the picture" isn't good enough. They should make HER pay, if they had the child together. That's what PARENTING (not sperm-donating) is all about - you pay child support for your kids, even if you just adopted them. Can we imagine a case where a husband and a wife with an adopted child divorce, and then, if the wife has custody and the husband goes deadbeat, the courts order the woman who gave the child up for adoption when it was an infant to pay child support? Unbelievable!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 14 October 2005 06:01 PM
quote:
If the mother cannot do it, and her non-marital partner is out the picture, should the state pay?
See (and I'm not arguing with you, BTW) I'd say the biological father is also "out of the picture". So it seems odd to me that one parent can just split, after presumably being an actual, daily parent to the child, and leave the schmuch who jerked in a jar and thought he was helping holding the financial bag. Like firecaptain said, where's the other parent in this? Presumably they were the parent when they wanted to be, so why the hell aren't they on the hook?? Suppose, for example, that my sperm count is low (I haven't a clue) and so Mrs. M. and I turn to a sperm donor and have a child, which she and I raise for several years before we split up. Wouldn't I still owe support, even though it's not my DNA? Especially since I took on the role of parent? If I just say "Sorry, but if you do a quick DNA test you'll see that it's not really my child, so go find the guy who actually did the sperming and soak him for the money. And tell Billy that Daddy says Hi!" would that fly?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 14 October 2005 06:21 PM
As far as I know, in Ontario only a "parent" has a duty to support a minor child.A "spouse", including a common-law spouse, doesn't. If Mrs. Magoo sees the light and gets impregnanted elsewhere, whether you agree or not, you are not the parent of that child. You could adopt the child though. And the lesbian spouse now out of the picture could also have adopted. If she did, then she would be a "parent". If not, not.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 14 October 2005 11:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
As far as I know, in Ontario only a "parent" has a duty to support a minor child.
Yes, but "parent" includes a person who has demonstrated a settled intention to treat a child as a child of his or her family. That is, a step-parent, whether legally married or not, as long as they've been what we used to call "in loco parentis." If the step-parent, after the breakdown of the second relationship, earns more than the other biological parent whose residence is not the child's primary residence, then they may both be ordered to pay child support. The biological parent will pay pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines Table. The step-parent will pay an amount in the discretion of the court, but normally it's the amount needed to "top-up" the child support paid by the other biological parent, to bring the total up to the Table Amount for the higher-earning step-parent. So it's not terribly common to see someone go after both of them. Still, if mom declines to go after the biological dad, the step-dad can say "look to him first," and the court may well make a temporary order that the step-dad pay, say, half the table amount for 6 months, giving mom no real alternative but to go after the biological dad, and giving her only 6 months to do it. quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Can we imagine a case where a husband and a wife with an adopted child divorce, and then, if the wife has custody and the husband goes deadbeat, the courts order the woman who gave the child up for adoption when it was an infant to pay child support?
No. When the child has been adopted, it ceases to be the child of the former parent, legally. That's also the legal answer to protect sperm donors and surrogate mothers. Both are legally parents. They should sign the birth registrations and immediately sign consents to adoption, so that the intended parents become the legal parents. Then, after the adoption, no court (in Ontario, anyway) can order the former parent to pay child support.
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 21 October 2005 11:58 AM
I've been researching accessibility on the web, and I found out something I didn't know: some deaf parents don't teach their children to read English text. Nearly all websites (at least those that don't provide American Sign Language translation, which is about 99.99999% of them) are thus inaccessible to these children.Honestly, I have trouble wrapping my head around that. It's great that they feel being unable to hear is an "identity", but when you won't teach your kids to read, because English is a "foreign language", or when you purposely try to have a deaf child, that seems a bit much. I wonder if the parents would see it any differently if society chose not to treat their children as disabled? No translators in classrooms, no translators for official documents, just treat ASL the way we treat Urdu or Swahili (which is to say, no special treatment at all) and let them find their own way as non-disabled people?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 21 October 2005 12:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
some deaf parents don't teach their children to read English text.
My parents also didn't teach me to read English (or any other language either). Unless these children are being home-schooled, wouldn't they learn to read in school like 99% of other children?
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 21 October 2005 12:13 PM
I really don't know. What I found was discussing accessibility and didn't really get that deep into why these kids couldn't read, other than to say that it's because their language is ASL.For what it's worth, I wouldn't put it past some of these parents to have protested the idea of their kids being taught English. As I say, I have trouble wrapping my head around some of this.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099
|
posted 22 October 2005 01:31 AM
If there was such a discussion taking place, and this claim was made, it was probably by hearing people ignorant or prejudiced against the Deaf communities.In English and other sound-based languages, we have words that may have two definitions. When I learned ASL, the sign for "liar" was the same or very similar for "hearing person". The historical relationship between hearing and deaf people is fraught with betrayals and pain. And there have been situations that have transcended this history; in a small, isolated island off Martha's Vineyard from the mid-19th to mid-20th century everyone, including those who heard and spoke English, expressed themselves in sign language because 1/4 of the population was Deaf. The two Deaf women who chose to improve their chances to bear children who were also Deaf did so out of pride in their culture and heritage. They are both graduates of Gallaudet University, a world-reknowned and prestigious American college. Thus they are bilingual and bicultural. I presume that they would want their Deaf children to be educated and be able to communicate with other literate Deaf people in the world. And yes, there are Deaf people who are as prejudiced and ignorant about the hearing as you are, Magoon, with regard to the Deaf. quote:
posted by Mr. Magoo: For what it's worth, I wouldn't put it past some of these parents to have protested the idea of their kids being taught English.
[ 22 October 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]
From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
