Absent fathers should support their children but

[hc4361]

this takes the biscuit, I think.
What was the judge thinking?

http://www.dailymail....ing-frozen-sperm.html

Couldn't the ex-wife be prosecuted for fraud, and the clinic be held accountable for lack of proper procedure?

[ummmm]

He might be compensated the money back again...hopefully. And then some on top from the clinic...

[jno]

bizarre. I'd have thought he'd have a case for suing the clinic for the money; they must have been in breach of contract, giving his property away, same as a bank is if it pays out on a forged cheque. (At least, I think banks are.)

[New Judge]

So who exactly should support them then?

He donated his sperm in the belief that it might one day be used to impregnate his wife (otherwise why donate it?). That's just what it's been used for. Women play all sorts of tricks on their men to become pregnant when the man may not necessarily want a child. I know it's slightly different here because they have parted company but I really cannot see who else should bear the financial burden of raising the children.

[jno]

the clinic, as per my previous post? It might depend on the exact terms of the contract.

[jno]

... and of course the mother.

[ummmm]

He has fought in court for access to his kids so I don't think he's shying away from paying for them. But to be landed with a bill for 100k for children he didn't even know were conceived is not right.

[hc4361]

Their mother should support them. She says she'd do the same thing again - incredibly selfish woman, telling her children they came from the freezer and not letting her ex know he had children.

[Prudie]

I'd also question the clinic about their motives for allowing a 51 year old woman to undergo IVF treatment (twice) without delving into her circumstances. If a woman chooses on her own to have children then I think she should be responsible for supporting them.

[Whickerman]

so does this change the situation for anonymous donors?

[cazzz1975]

I agree with prudie

[scotman]

Not relevant to the topic but are fertility clinics not compulsorily licensed in UK. Surely this will be sufficient to cause it's licence to be revoked.

[ummmm]

scotman - this was in 1979. I think things have tightened up since then...

[pastafreak]

The woman is 51 NOW...so she must have been 39-40 back in 2001 when she first had treatment.
What bugs me is that the second child must have been conceived after she and her husband were divorced...so how did she have the right to his sperm?

[Beanicle]

How can she be allowed to get away with that?! She obviously wanted to use his sperm so she could make him financially responsible otherwise she would have used sperm from an anonymous donor. Disgraceful creature

[beso]

He did not DONATE his sperm. He had it stored. She fraudulently accessed it and should be charged with the crime.

[ummmm]

Agreed beso..

[venator]

New judge - it wasn't a "trick" - it was fraud - I think you'd say "uttering a false document"

Can't the husband counter sue?