Scottish Mag 3 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 A man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple is being made to pay maintenance by the Child Support Agency (CSA). Andy Bathie, 37, from Enfield, north London, claims he was assured by the couple he would have no personal or financial involvement for the children. He donated his sperm as a friend rather than go through a fertility clinic. The CSA said only anonymous donors at licensed centres are exempt from being treated as the legal father of a child born as a result of their donation. Mr Bathie, a firefighter, said he cannot afford to have children with his own wife due to the financial implications. The lesbian couple, who approached the couple five years ago after they married in a civil ceremony, have a boy and a girl. Mr Bathie said he reacted with "shock, anger and despair", when he was contacted by the CSA in November. He said: "I don't have any particular ill will. It's the fact that I still even now don't see why I should have to pay for another couple's children." A spokesman for Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) said: "The law says that men donating sperm through licensed fertility clinics are not the legal father of any child born through that donation. "Men giving out their sperm in any other way - such as via internet arrangements - are legally the father of any children born with all the responsibilities that carries." A spokeswoman for CSA said: "Unless the child is legally adopted, both biological parents are financially responsible for their child - the Child Support Agency legislation is not gender or partnership based." Ministers have drawn up fertility reforms giving equal parenting rights to same-sex couples who "marry" in a civil partnership. This means they will be recognised as the legal parents of children conceived through sperm donation. The change comes too late for Mr Bathie, although he is now pushing for an amendment to make the laws retrospective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Silly guy. Ironic though that a judge claimed a father had no rights a little while ago: Mother can keep birth 'a secret' The court ruled the mother and child should remain anonymous A woman who became pregnant after a one-night stand has been given the right to keep the birth a secret from the father. The Court of Appeal ruling came after a county court ordered the 20-year-old to tell both her parents and the father. The three appeal judges agreed "the ultimate veto" over who is told about the birth lay with the mother. Fathers' groups said the ruling treated the child as the property of the mother "to be disposed of as she sees fit". The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, also kept the pregnancy hidden from her family. No access She said she wanted the baby girl, who is now 19 weeks old, adopted at birth without the knowledge of either them or her father. A legal guardian and a local authority made the county court application to ensure the father and the woman's parents were told about the child. But the Court of Appeal ordered the local authority not to take any action to inform the father. They also prevented the local authority from taking any steps to allow the girl to meet any of her mother's family in order that they be assessed as potential carers. It is now clear that the Government believes children have no entitlement to a relationship with their fathers Michael Cox, Fathers 4 Justice The judge said the mother became pregnant when she was 19, and as she lived on her own, kept it secret from her divorced parents who she did not think would provide a good home for the baby. Lady Justice Arden said the father's rights had not been violated because he did not have any to violate. John Baker, chairman of Families Need Fathers, said "It treats the child as the property of the mother, to be disposed of as she sees fit." He said the ruling, taken in conjunction with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which could remove the requirement for IVF clinics to recognise the need of a father, was "intensely worrying". He said: "A strong message seems to be sent that makes fathers redundant in the upbringing of children." 'Ultimate veto' Fathers 4 Justice barrister Michael Cox said: "This father is the victim of a wicked deceit in which the State has been complicit. "It is now clear that the Government believes children have no entitlement to a relationship with their fathers and that children are the property of their mothers and of the State." Lord Justice Thorpe said: "The law improves the opportunity of the child of anonymous birth to search out its biological origin. "However, the ultimate veto remains with the mother. Registers of information are in place to lead the searching child to the mother's door but the child has no right of entry if the mother, despite counselling, refuses to unlock it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smooth Operator 10 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 The CSA take no shit these days man. I'm not surprised by this tbh. The bloke wants his head examined for not getting something written up before hand to cover himself. Dykes man, can't be trusted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 The CSA take no shit these days man. I'm not surprised by this tbh. The bloke wants his head examined for not getting something written up before hand to cover himself. Dykes man, can't be trusted. Might not be the women as such (although equally it might be), if they claim benefits they have to name the father (or lose benefits) and he'll be taken for the money. Don't think anything written would remove his obligation legally, unless he gets the retrospective Law change he wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smooth Operator 10 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 The CSA take no shit these days man. I'm not surprised by this tbh. The bloke wants his head examined for not getting something written up before hand to cover himself. Dykes man, can't be trusted. Might not be the women as such (although equally it might be), if they claim benefits they have to name the father (or lose benefits) and he'll be taken for the money. Don't think anything written would remove his obligation legally, unless he gets the retrospective Law change he wants. The dykes split and thats when one of them made a claim to the CSA, the claim should be to the other dyke imo although legally the fatha (the one with the balls and cock) will most likely have to keep paying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 This is what happens when you do people a favour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 2 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 On a related note the law that allows people to find their sperm donating father is one of the stupidest pieces of legislation that has ever been created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 He's donated these dykes his sperm and they've thrown it back in his face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31641 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 The CSA take no shit these days man. I'm not surprised by this tbh. The bloke wants his head examined for not getting something written up before hand to cover himself. Dykes man, can't be trusted. Might not be the women as such (although equally it might be), if they claim benefits they have to name the father (or lose benefits) and he'll be taken for the money. Don't think anything written would remove his obligation legally, unless he gets the retrospective Law change he wants. He could get the other bird to adopt him, therefore he'd not be liable for anything. Seems the money grabbing dykes aren't too keen on that idea though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smooth Operator 10 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I'd batter their fannies and keep the kid myself if it were me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I'd batter their fannies and keep the kid myself if it were me. Battered fanny could be popular in Glasgow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Spunked all his money away tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Whats a firefighter doing knocking about with a pair of dykes in the first place? That's not what I pay my taxes for tbh. He should be out saving lives, not creating life. And certainly not with dykes whichever way you slice it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14021 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Just shows you can barely trust anybody these days, even those you do a favour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 sums up a lot about how this country is becoming more and more devoid of any common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 2 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 sums up a lot about how this country is becoming more and more devoid of any common sense. You're one to talk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 sums up a lot about how this country is becoming more and more devoid of any common sense. To be fair Leazes, it's difficult to legislate (literally) for something like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 The CSA take no shit these days man. I'm not surprised by this tbh. The bloke wants his head examined for not getting something written up before hand to cover himself. Dykes man, can't be trusted. Might not be the women as such (although equally it might be), if they claim benefits they have to name the father (or lose benefits) and he'll be taken for the money. Don't think anything written would remove his obligation legally, unless he gets the retrospective Law change he wants. The dykes split and thats when one of them made a claim to the CSA, the claim should be to the other dyke imo although legally the fatha (the one with the balls and cock) will most likely have to keep paying. Aye if that's the case then that is just pure evil. Be no legal come back for the other woman though I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RlCO 0 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 sums up a lot about how this country is becoming more and more devoid of any common sense. To be fair Leazes, it's difficult to legislate (literally) for something like this. If he had done it officially through the HFEA he would have been legally protected - that's the problem, it is now accepted that you have no protection in terms of plain common sense. The CSA is a prime example of this attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 sums up a lot about how this country is becoming more and more devoid of any common sense. You're one to talk Always speak common sense me man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 sums up a lot about how this country is becoming more and more devoid of any common sense. To be fair Leazes, it's difficult to legislate (literally) for something like this. Well, would YOU have done it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 sums up a lot about how this country is becoming more and more devoid of any common sense. To be fair Leazes, it's difficult to legislate (literally) for something like this. Well, would YOU have done it ? I misunderstood you. I thought you meant his being persued by the CSA was what you were on about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smooth Operator 10 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 sums up a lot about how this country is becoming more and more devoid of any common sense. To be fair Leazes, it's difficult to legislate (literally) for something like this. If he had done it officially through the HFEA he would have been legally protected - that's the problem, it is now accepted that you have no protection in terms of plain common sense. The CSA is a prime example of this attitude. Like any other revenue collecting organisation the CSA has targets to meet!! My advice to him is to try for some access through legal channels (the courts hate the idea of queers and kids living together) then his payments would reduce, so he could afford to have kids with his new partner. Which then would also reduce his payments even more!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James_coDurham Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Fucking lesbians Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 (edited) sums up a lot about how this country is becoming more and more devoid of any common sense. To be fair Leazes, it's difficult to legislate (literally) for something like this. Well, would YOU have done it ? I misunderstood you. I thought you meant his being persued by the CSA was what you were on about. Well yes I generally did, but I thought I'd try and turn the tables on you EDit: when you think about it, WOULD you ? I wouldn't. Edited December 5, 2007 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now