Legal Father named in IVF cock-up case..
Discussion
www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/3562079?source=Evening%20Standard
Somehow, I don't think I'd use the term 'blunder' as these people have. To me, a blunder is when you put sugar in someone's tea and they didn't want sugar. Using the wrong sperm in a test-tube fertilization somehow transcends 'blunder'. More like 'complete and utter fcuk-up'.
So now, the legal father (B) will no doubt have the right to go to court to take 'his' children from their family (A).
If married couple (A) divorce, who becomes liable to pay the CSA for these children - Mr A is not their legal father so how can he be expected to? Mr B cannot be expected to do so as he didn't take part in the conception.
What a mess. There's no compensation that can make good this cock-up. Except the public flogging of the stupid stupid person who actually fcuked this up. This must be awful for all concerned.
Edit: And as far as I can tell, it's only because one of the couples is black that this came to light at all.. how many men are unwittingly raising someone elses child and inevitably in some cases being pursued by the CSA to pay for someone elses child?
This is quite incredible really.. it's an intractable problem from all sides..
Court rules on IVF mix-up
The black biological father of mixed-race twins born to a white mother after an IVF sperm mix-up is the children's legal father, a top High Court judge ruled today.
Family Division President Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss announced her decision at London's Law Courts.
The babies were born following a procedural blunder at the Assisted Conception Unit at Leeds General Infirmary.
The sperm of a black man, who cannot be named for legal reasons and is referred to in court as Mr B, was mistakenly used to fertilise the eggs of the white woman, referred to as Mrs A.
Dame Elizabeth was asked to rule on whether Mr B, the biological father, or Mr A, the husband of the white mother and the babies' social and psychological father, was the legal father under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.
She gave her judgment today and said the effect of the order she made was that "at the moment Mr B is the legal father".
The judge had stressed at a previous hearing that there was no question of uprooting the twins from their "happy and loving environment" with the white couple.
But she said that, once legal parentage had been established, the black couple involved would need "time to reflect" on what further assistance they might need from the courts.
She said the twins, referred to as Y and Z, "have been loved by Mr and Mrs A and their wider family from the moment of their birth and nothing that has
happened since then will change that".
Somehow, I don't think I'd use the term 'blunder' as these people have. To me, a blunder is when you put sugar in someone's tea and they didn't want sugar. Using the wrong sperm in a test-tube fertilization somehow transcends 'blunder'. More like 'complete and utter fcuk-up'.
So now, the legal father (B) will no doubt have the right to go to court to take 'his' children from their family (A).
If married couple (A) divorce, who becomes liable to pay the CSA for these children - Mr A is not their legal father so how can he be expected to? Mr B cannot be expected to do so as he didn't take part in the conception.
What a mess. There's no compensation that can make good this cock-up. Except the public flogging of the stupid stupid person who actually fcuked this up. This must be awful for all concerned.
Edit: And as far as I can tell, it's only because one of the couples is black that this came to light at all.. how many men are unwittingly raising someone elses child and inevitably in some cases being pursued by the CSA to pay for someone elses child?
Don't think I'd use the tyerm 'blunder' as these people have. To me, a blunder is when you put sugar in someone's tea and they didn't want sugar. Using the wrong sperm in a test-tube fertilization somehow transcends 'blunder'. More like 'complete and utter fcuk-up'.
Or rather using demerera when white cane was required, to embelish your analogy. I think the problem was down to NOT having the "complete and utter..........".
They should go back to making babies like they did in the olden days, then this sort of problem would never happen.....
I'm sure that as the law stands, a man becomes liable for the upkeep of children even if he is not the biological father, if accepts and he takes on the responsibility.
This has been the case when a man discovers a child is not his, but the result of his wife having an affair with another man, years after the birth of the child. During which time the man has treated and maintained the child as his own.
The law always, i believe, puts the welfare of the children before that of the adults.
This has been the case when a man discovers a child is not his, but the result of his wife having an affair with another man, years after the birth of the child. During which time the man has treated and maintained the child as his own.
The law always, i believe, puts the welfare of the children before that of the adults.
If your missus has been out of the house in the last 12 months, get your DNA tests done in the maternity ward, or be stitched up for ever, chaps .. 
Surely if 'Mr A' knows he is not the biological father, he should 'adopt' the kids, and thus become the legal parent.
My brother adopted his wifes child, and then she ran off with another bloke, and tried to claim support. My brother said 'no, you ran off, your choice' court said otherwise, so he puts money into trust for the daughter (who he thinks of as his own).
Pretty clear to me
Sparks
My brother adopted his wifes child, and then she ran off with another bloke, and tried to claim support. My brother said 'no, you ran off, your choice' court said otherwise, so he puts money into trust for the daughter (who he thinks of as his own).
Pretty clear to me
Sparks
Utter, utter, utter disgrace.
Personally I feel that fertility treatment is wrong anyway - but I realise I'm in a minority of one here and wouldn't force my opinions on others.
But this is despicable. As a sperm donor you should have an absolute right not to be identified as the father. And, in fact, you should have signed up to the fact that you no further rights whatsoever over your "donation" or any results it may have and therefore it should be legally impossible to identify you as the father....
Madness.
Personally I feel that fertility treatment is wrong anyway - but I realise I'm in a minority of one here and wouldn't force my opinions on others.
But this is despicable. As a sperm donor you should have an absolute right not to be identified as the father. And, in fact, you should have signed up to the fact that you no further rights whatsoever over your "donation" or any results it may have and therefore it should be legally impossible to identify you as the father....
Madness.
I agree that Mr A accepts all liability if he adopts, but he hasn't and probably won't be able to without the blessing of Mr B. Mr B will have the right to attempt to gain custody of the children.
sparks said: Surely if 'Mr A' knows he is not the biological father, he should 'adopt' the kids, and thus become the legal parent
My original point was merely that on account of what you might call an admin error, two couples and two children have been plunged into a legal, moral and ethical disaster area which raises many questions.
Don't think that's the issue here.. there was no anonymous sperm donor.. just two couples in for IVF treatment using their own sperm & eggs and all the gloop got mixed up by some idiot.
Don said: As a sperm donor you should have an absolute right not to be identified as the father.
Come to think of it, I've got a mate who works as Leeds General.. might drop him a line & see if there's any inside info going.
And as far as I can tell, it's only because one of the couples is black that this came to light at all.. how many men are unwittingly raising someone elses child and inevitably in some cases being pursued by the CSA to pay for someone elses child?
I saw figures for this a while back, and while obviously based on extrapolating figures from a very small sample, the results were alarming, something like 1 in 10.
Edited to add: If you believe the figures of course...and if you do, doesn't say alot for the fairer sex...
>> Edited by AlexH on Wednesday 26th February 14:04
Takes 2 to tango, dear boy.. I don't think you can hold women entirely responsible for this...
AlexH said:Edited to add: If you believe the figures of course...and if you do, doesn't say alot for the fairer sex...
Okay so the 'victim' is the cuckolded man when this happens, but another man participated one way or another.
Not sure I like women being referred to as the 'fairer sex' though... unless in this context, 'fairer sex' means 'the gender I prefer to shag'. Dunno..
CarZee said:Takes 2 to tango, dear boy.. I don't think you can hold women entirely responsible for this...
AlexH said:Edited to add: If you believe the figures of course...and if you do, doesn't say alot for the fairer sex...
Okay so the 'victim' is the cuckolded man when this happens, but another man participated one way or another.
Not sure I like women being referred to as the 'fairer sex' though... unless in this context, 'fairer sex' means 'the gender I prefer to shag'. Dunno..
True...although I wouldn't for a moment pretend to hold women entirely responsible. The only thing being that I think where it happens, deceiving a man into thinking a child is his, and a child into thinking someone is their father when the woman in question knows otherwise, is worse than a chap having an affair (not that that is defensible behaviour either).
Ok won't say 'fairer sex' anymore. Is chicks or totty more PC these days?
Agh, we've got one of those highly embarrassing moments in the office right at the moment, when somebody has brought in a mewling puking thing and most people are desperately trying to hide in the stationary cupboard rather than have awkward conversations about nappies and things...
Quite upset my equilibrium it has
Quite upset my equilibrium it has
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff