I don't think this Is right..

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Aug 22, 2014 1:51 pm

There are a couple of Lesbians who live In my street and I get on very well with them.

Six years ago, they wanted a child and so In a verbal agreement with a male friend who is also gay and In a secure partnership with his civil partner, he obliged via a turkey baster.

Apparently, the desire to have a child at the time outweighed any desire to be financially maintained although agreed he could see the child.

I have no problem with that either, both women are excellent Mothers to the child.

But, now, 6 years on, the lesbian couple find themselves still unemployed and financially struggling. Thus, they have asked the gay Father for financial support, renegading on the verbal agreement 6 years ago.

He's kicked up a little and now they are threatening to with hold visiting rights to the child and have gone to the CSA who has taken up their case and Is persuing the gay chap with gusto.

I'm outraged at such appalling behaviour.

What do you think ?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:05 pm

Oscar Namechange;1462570 wrote: There are a couple of Lesbians who live In my street and I get on very well with them.

Six years ago, they wanted a child and so In a verbal agreement with a male friend who is also gay and In a secure partnership with his civil partner, he obliged via a turkey baster.

Apparently, the desire to have a child at the time outweighed any desire to be financially maintained although agreed he could see the child.

I have no problem with that either, both women are excellent Mothers to the child.

But, now, 6 years on, the lesbian couple find themselves still unemployed and financially struggling. Thus, they have asked the gay Father for financial support, renegading on the verbal agreement 6 years ago.

He's kicked up a little and now they are threatening to with hold visiting rights to the child and have gone to the CSA who has taken up their case and Is persuing the gay chap with gusto.

I'm outraged at such appalling behaviour.

What do you think ?

He was daft not to get the agreement in writing but I agree, they made a contract and should stick to it.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:10 pm

Bryn Mawr;1462571 wrote: He was daft not to get the agreement in writing but I agree, they made a contract and should stick to it.

In spirit I agree Bryn, but wouldn't the natural father, who does see the child (does the child know the relationship?) wouldn't he want to contribute to its' welfare if he can afford to? Here, in the U.S., the mothers would win in court, EVEN if the agreement were legally in writing.

eta--collecting would be Another Story, but the mothers would win.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:13 pm

Bryn Mawr;1462571 wrote: He was daft not to get the agreement in writing but I agree, they made a contract and should stick to it. As I understand It, at the time, the gay chap wasn't that keen In the first place having envisaged future pitfalls and the women assured him, It would be a ' mates' arrangement that once the woman was pregnant, that was the end of It.

The CSA have said, verbal agreements count for nothing and he Is legally obliged to maintain the child.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:15 pm

AnneBoleyn;1462572 wrote: In spirit I agree Bryn, but wouldn't the natural father, who does see the child (does the child know the relationship?) wouldn't he want to contribute to its' welfare if he can afford to? Here, in the U.S., the mothers would win in court, EVEN if the agreement were legally in writing.

eta--collecting would be Another Story, but the mothers would win. He has been contributing here and there, where he can but the agency Is going full out for a portion of his salery every month until the child finishes full time education which In higher education can be up to 21 years old.

eta... oh and because the gay chap Is In a legal civil partnership with his partner and live togther, the partner's salery can be taken Into account for maintainance despite him having nothing to do with the child.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:35 pm

That's appalling and I can't imagine there is any way out now that the CSA is involved.

Unless of course the father can bring himself to put an offer on the table of a monthly amount that the women will accept prior to the CSA working out what THEY think he should pay. Then they can all leave it as a 'family based agreement' without the CSA side of things taking a cut of his money for their fees.

Not an ideal solution but will end up cheaper than letting the CSA sort it out.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:38 pm

That's exactly what would happen here, Oscar, except a legal spouse who is not a natural parent would not be forced to contribute, but most would help out their spouse. In NY State, one child would receive 1/3 of the absent parent's salary. I was a paralegal in Family Court in one of my past lives.

We both know moral & legal are not the same animal.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:40 pm

What really irritates me is when the father does not know about the child's existence and years later must support a child he never knew he had!

Post by **Peter Lake** » Fri Aug 22, 2014 3:00 pm

It's disgusting behaviour that's seen the gay father being made ill over this. The lesbian couple were unemployed when one fell pregnant and they're still unemployed so circumstances have not changed for them. Circumstances have changed with the gay father now he has a legal civil partner who earns a high income. The child is now the weapon. The C.S,A are following the law but it all leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth. ( No pun intended).

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Aug 22, 2014 5:15 pm

Although I'm all in favour of Same Sex Marriage / Civil Partnerships, I'm totally opposed to the idea of them having children. Not because of the Sexual Abuse risk, as the vast majority of Child Sex Offenders are Straight, but because of the psychological effect it's likely to have on the child.

A lot of it boils down to what your definition of 'Normal' is. As far as proportions are concerned, Gays are in the minority & Gay couples, even more so. This 'may' be viewed as not being 'normal'.

There is also the view of 'Normal' being applied to 'Natural' & those who believe that to be Gay is not Natural, but a matter of choice which, of course, it is not - it's not even limited to Humans and is, therefore, totally natural. What is not natural, however, is the conception of a child from a couple of the same sex.

The legal aspects of this case, however, are not without precedent:

Gay sperm donor told to pay child maintenance for 'his' two children | Money | The Guardian

As to whether or not a 'Pre-Conceptual Contract' would be applicable or not is another question, over which I have no idea what the legal situation is.

Also (and I am uncertain on this point as well) if, for instance, in the case of a divorce and the Mother later marries, is the Father still liable to pay Child Support, and would the same rules apply to a Same Sex Marriage, and if not, why not?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Aug 22, 2014 5:55 pm

FourPart;1462595 wrote: Also (and I am uncertain on this point as well) if, for instance, in the case of a divorce and the Mother later marries, is the Father still liable to pay Child Support, and would the same rules apply to a Same Sex Marriage, and if not, why not?

From what I can source, In the UK, It appears, should a lesbian couple split, then only providing they entered Into a civil partnership, does one pay the one with the child maintenance.

If a man has donated his sperm through an agency, he may be exempt from child support. This Is not the case with my neighbours.

Lady J · Post by **Lady J** » Fri Aug 22, 2014 8:19 pm

Very strange...Oscar in all honestly are you making this up?

Without a written agreement I would say the gay man is screwed....in more ways than one.

Teaches you to think ahead...no pun intended.

Lady J

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 1:04 am

Oscar Namechange;1462570 wrote: There are a couple of Lesbians who live In my street and I get on very well with them.

Six years ago, they wanted a child and so In a verbal agreement with a male friend who is also gay and In a secure partnership with his civil partner, he obliged via a turkey baster.

Apparently, the desire to have a child at the time outweighed any desire to be financially maintained although agreed he could see the child.

I have no problem with that either, both women are excellent Mothers to the child.

But, now, 6 years on, the lesbian couple find themselves still unemployed and financially struggling. Thus, they have asked the gay Father for financial support, renegading on the verbal agreement 6 years ago.

He's kicked up a little and now they are threatening to with hold visiting rights to the child and have gone to the CSA who has taken up their case and Is persuing the gay chap with gusto.

I'm outraged at such appalling behaviour.

What do you think ?

I know that you're asking detailed opinion but I'm old fashioned. I find the situation appalling from beginning to end. We could discuss it but I don't think you really want to know.

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 5:08 am

FourPart;1462595 wrote: Although I'm all in favour of Same Sex Marriage / Civil Partnerships, I'm totally opposed to the idea of them having children. Not because of the Sexual Abuse risk, as the vast majority of Child Sex Offenders are Straight, but because of the psychological effect it's likely to have on the child.

A lot of it boils down to what your definition of 'Normal' is. As far as proportions are concerned, Gays are in the minority & Gay couples, even more so. This 'may' be viewed as not being 'normal'.

There is also the view of 'Normal' being applied to 'Natural' & those who believe that to be Gay is not Natural, but a matter of choice which, of course, it is not - it's not even limited to Humans and is, therefore, totally natural. What is not natural, however, is the conception of a child from a couple of the same sex.

The legal aspects of this case, however, are not without precedent:

Gay sperm donor told to pay child maintenance for 'his' two children | Money | The Guardian

As to whether or not a 'Pre-Conceptual Contract' would be applicable or not is another question, over which I have no idea what the legal situation is.

Also (and I am uncertain on this point as well) if, for instance, in the case of a divorce and the Mother later marries, is the Father still liable to pay Child Support, and would the same rules apply to a Same Sex Marriage, and if not, why not?
I think a lot of children in "normal" families ie. a mother and a father, female and male also have a lot of psychological distress for a variety of reasons to do with neglect, abuse, etc.

As to the issue at hand, I think they should be ashamed of themselves. Yes he agreed ( albeit maybe with some coercion) so he should maybe try to help out a bit with financial costs,, but as they used that bargaining point to persuade hin in the first place, its unfair imo. I agree with Bryn he should have got a written agreement but that's hindsight for you. I think they have realise he now has a partner on a high income and decided to take advantage and cash in.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 7:38 am

FourPart;1462595 wrote: Although I'm all in favour of Same Sex Marriage / Civil Partnerships, I'm totally opposed to the idea of them having children. Not because of the Sexual Abuse risk, as the vast majority of Child Sex Offenders are Straight, but because of the psychological effect it's likely to have on the child.

I agree with this 1000%

We talk about the divorce rate and the high number of fathers who lose contact with their mummy's-got-them children. It must be common knowledge that without their fathers children suffer in many ways. So let's ignore all that we know and sanction relationships where the children have no father at all! Sounds like a splendid idea! And let's not forget the test-tube source as well!

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 7:54 am

kazalala;1462618 wrote: I think a lot of children in "normal" families ie. a mother and a father, female and male also have a lot of psychological distress for a variety of reasons to do with neglect, abuse, etc.

As to the issue at hand, I think they should be ashamed of themselves. Yes he agreed ( albeit maybe with some coercion) so he should maybe try to help out a bit with financial costs,, but as they used that bargaining point to persuade hin in the first place, its unfair imo. I agree with Bryn he should have got a written agreement but that's hindsight for you. I think they have realise he now has a partner on a high income and decided to take advantage and cash in.

In a sense the homosexual aspect of this case is irrelevant. I don't know who honestly thinks that having visitation rights makes up for a fathers longing to be together with his child, and a man who isn't all that keen on a having a relationship with a child in the first place oughtn't be forced into the relationship or threatened to have visitation rights removed if he doesn't pay for it. â€œSorry boy, dad won't be coming round till he pays this month's instalment. But just let him try coming and I'll see to it that he lands in jail!â€

Anyway, the bottom line is that a handshake isn't worth the sweat that's transferred between them.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 8:14 am

Lady J;1462603 wrote: Very strange...Oscar in all honestly are you making this up?

Without a written agreement I would say the gay man is screwed....in more ways than one.

Teaches you to think ahead...no pun intended.

Lady J

No, R... I am not making It up, In fact, I wish I was..

You may have seen a thread I wrote about these particular neighbours some time ago I called ' The Borrowers'.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 8:19 am

kazalala;1462618 wrote: I think a lot of children in "normal" families ie. a mother and a father, female and male also have a lot of psychological distress for a variety of reasons to do with neglect, abuse, etc.

As to the issue at hand, I think they should be ashamed of themselves. Yes he agreed ( albeit maybe with some coercion) so he should maybe try to help out a bit with financial costs,, but as they used that bargaining point to persuade hin in the first place, its unfair imo. I agree with Bryn he should have got a written agreement but that's hindsight for you. I think they have realise he now has a partner on a high income and decided to take advantage and cash in.

I've always got on well with them until recently when they started to borrow everything and anything from us and It started to get on my nerves but that's passed.

In fact, I remember when they first made the agreement and both were adamant they wanted nothing from the gay chap In return.

I also recall, It was more their decision that he should be known to the child and although he didn't have to, he has bought clothes etc for the boy.

I have added my tuppence worth and told them we think It's bang out of order but they genuinely believe now that because they are struggling financially and the Father Isn't, he owes them.

It's the old saying Isn't It ?.... ' If you want to see anothers true character, just wait until money comes Into the equation'.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:09 am

Oscar Namechange;1462629 wrote: ...... they genuinely believe now that because they are struggling financially and the Father Isn't, he owes them.

Just for the sake of discussion, how do you think it would play out (theoretically of course) if he had a complete change of heart and decided he wanted to take the boy himself and set up family together with his partner? After all, he's apparently the one who's gainfully employed, right?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:17 am

High Threshold;1462634 wrote: Just for the sake of discussion, how do you think it would play out (theoretically of course) if he had a complete change of heart and decided he wanted to take the boy himself and set up family together with his partner? After all, he's apparently the one who's gainfully employed, right? I agree... It'd serve them right If he went for custody. I'm not normally a vindictive person but It may give me a tad of perverse pleasure should he decide to do so. The child would certainly have a better life, financially speaking.

The CSA want to bankrupt him, then he might as well have the child.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:31 am

Oscar Namechange;1462635 wrote: I agree... It'd serve them right If he went for custody. I'm not normally a vindictive person but It may give me a tad of perverse pleasure should he decide to do so. The child would certainly have a better life, financially speaking.

The CSA want to bankrupt him, then he might as well have the child.

Assuming he and his mate are fair dinkum, and they get on well with the boy, it would be the perfect ending to a dirty story! :yh_clap Cue the orchestra please, Basil!

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:33 am

Perhaps you could have a word with him & suggest it. It wouldn't surprise me that even the threat of such a thing happening would make the Mother back off.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:36 am

High Threshold;1462636 wrote: Assuming he and his mate are fair dinkum, and they get on well with the boy, it would be the perfect ending to a dirty story! :yh_clap Cue the orchestra please, Basil!

:wah::wah::wah:

We just feel desperately sorry for the guy seeing as he believed he was ' helping mates out' and giving them something they longed for.

From my gay friends, I feel male gay's make excellent parents. We have a couple of male gay friends who own a Newsagents near us... we always address their birthday cards and Christmas cards to ' Gay News'.... they think It's hilarious. They just seem to be less at odds with the world than most men.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 11:45 am

High Threshold;1462626 wrote: In a sense the homosexual aspect of this case is irrelevant. I don't know who honestly thinks that having visitation rights makes up for a fathers longing to be together with his child, and a man who isn't all that keen on a having a relationship with a child in the first place oughtn't be forced into the relationship or threatened to have visitation rights removed if he doesn't pay for it. â€œSorry boy, dad won't be coming round till he pays this month's instalment. But just let him try coming and I'll see to it that he lands in jail!â€

Anyway, the bottom line is that a handshake isn't worth the sweat that's transferred between them.

Visitation rights, in the U.S. are not dependent on whether or not the non-custodial parent pays his/her child support. Legally, the custodial parent cannot deny the non-custodial parent his/her right to see the child. HOWEVER, this is true only if it comes to Family Courts.

This father mentioned here would have no right to get custody as there is no legal relationship between him & the child. Biological here ONLY refers to child support. Of course, I am discussing U.S. law in most states, I don't know all laws in every state, but when I worked in Family Court I found them rather uniform.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 12:03 pm

AnneBoleyn;1462665 wrote: This father mentioned here would have no right to get custody ...

Hmmm?

AnneBoleyn;1462665 wrote: ... as there is no legal relationship between him & the child. ..

Pardon me?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 12:05 pm

The gay Father In my case stands no chance now the CSA are Involved.

Post by **Peter Lake** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 12:08 pm

That's the last time i loan them my drill.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 12:13 pm

Peter Lake;1462670 wrote: That's the last time i loan them my drill.

Oh! Does Oscar know? I thought it were only the gay fellow what did that.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 12:24 pm

It looks like the key point (according to law) is down to whether the clinic was licenced or not:

https://www.gov.uk/legal-rights-for-egg ... erm-donors

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 2:17 pm

High Threshold;1462668 wrote: Hmmm?

Pardon me?

If he is not on the birth certificate as father, & if the 2nd mum adopted, the natural father, never being married to the natural mother, has No Legal Right to this child! I'm talking US Family Court Law.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 2:20 pm

AnneBoleyn;1462685 wrote: If he is not on the birth certificate as father, & if the 2nd mum adopted, the natural father, never being married to the natural mother, has No Legal Right to this child! I'm talking US Family Court Law.

I believe It's similar here Anne.

Another option for him would be to sue them for all their worth given they have plenty of witness's to the verbal agreement. That may scare them Into dropping It but as I said, once the CSA are brought In, there's little room for withdrawing. ( No pun Intended)

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 2:24 pm

I feel sorry for this child.

The two women can't be trusted & perhaps had this financial avenue in the back of their minds all along.

The sperm donor Guy could put up a argument for custody - indicating he's being used as their paycheck etc. (if he has any interest in raising the child)?

Sounds as if this man is screwed & stuck with a monthly child support.

Why didn't this guy get a written contract? this is just common sense.

Well, many females on welfare continue to have children to stay on welfare - that's their contribution to society...:-5

Patsy

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 2:25 pm

Oscar Namechange;1462689 wrote: I believe It's similar here Anne.

Another option for him would be to sue them for all their worth given they have plenty of witness's to the verbal agreement. That may scare them Into dropping It but as I said, once the CSA are brought In, there's little room for withdrawing. ( No pun Intended)

Maybe, but that becomes "he said/she said" & the judge could decide the witnesses' truthfulness as deceit. Today, even notarized legalities, such as pre-nups, are overturned as being coerced.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 2:27 pm

Patsy Warnick;1462691 wrote: I feel sorry for this child.

The two women can't be trusted & perhaps had this financial avenue in the back of their minds all along.

The sperm donor Guy could put up a argument for custody - indicating he's being used as their paycheck etc. (if he has any interest in raising the child)?

Sounds as if this man is screwed & stuck with a monthly child support.

Why didn't this guy get a written contract? this is just common sense.

Well, many females on welfare continue to have children to stay on welfare - that's their contribution to society...:-5

Patsy

When the welfare of the child is at stake, written legalities signed by both parents are not considered valid by Family Courts. They represent the child's interests, not the parents. It all boils down to what is best for the child, not any deals the parents may have made, especially before the child is born.

If the court decides the child needs the money from the natural father, the child support WILL be awarded.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 2:31 pm

Patsy Warnick;1462691 wrote: I feel sorry for this child.

The two women can't be trusted & perhaps had this financial avenue in the back of their minds all along.

Well, many females on welfare continue to have children to stay on welfare - that's their contribution to society...:-5

PatsyWe're beginning to wonder that now also. However, the gay Father was not In a civil partnership with a high Income partner back then..... but, that's not to say they've seized on the opportunity of changed circumstances.

I have no problem with women having children while on welfare. Every man and woman has a right to bear children. It's just when they have the 4th or the 6th while still on welfare that I go Into a Daily Mail reader rant.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 8:02 pm

AnneBoleyn;1462685 wrote: If he is not on the birth certificate as father, & if the 2nd mum adopted, the natural father, never being married to the natural mother, has No Legal Right to this child! I'm talking US Family Court Law.

I refuse to believe this is true. Are you telling me that the courts have no avenues through which to award him legal custody? Let's start with DNA and take it from there.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:58 pm

I do know that it is not a legal requirement to have the Father's name on the Birth Certificate, even if the Father is known (whether this applies to Married couples or not, I couldn't say). However, whether the Father's name is listed or not, if Paternity can be proved that doesn't negate the liability for Child Support.

I refer back to my previous posting to the Government website stating the Law regarding this matter (https://www.gov.uk/legal-rights-for-egg ... erm-donors).

It says that if the procedure was done via a licenced clinic, then legal parenthood or associated liability would not be an issue.

Sperm donors

If you donate sperm through a Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) licensed clinic, you wonâ€™t:

be the legal parent of any child born

have any legal obligation to any child born

have any rights over how the child will be brought up

be asked to support the child financially

be named on the birth certificate

If you use an unlicensed clinic to donate sperm, you will be the legal father of any child born from your donation under UK law.

The question, therefore, lies in whether a licenced clinic was used or not and, if not, what is the legitimacy of the unlicenced clinic to operate? Would you know how to find an UNlicenced clinic?

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:34 pm

FourPart;1462704 wrote: I do know that it is not a legal requirement to have the Father's name on the Birth Certificate, even if the Father is known (whether this applies to Married couples or not, I couldn't say). However, whether the Father's name is listed or not, if Paternity can be proved that doesn't negate the liability for Child Support.

I refer back to my previous posting to the Government website stating the Law regarding this matter .

It says that if the procedure was done via a licenced clinic, then legal parenthood or associated liability would not be an issue.

"Sperm donors

If you donate sperm through a Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) licensed clinic, you wonâ€™t:

be the legal parent of any child born

have any legal obligation to any child born

have any rights over how the child will be brought up

be asked to support the child financially

be named on the birth certificate"

If you use an unlicensed clinic to donate sperm, you will be the legal father of any child born from your donation under UK law.

The question, therefore, lies in whether a licenced clinic was used or not and, if not, what is the legitimacy of the unlicenced clinic to operate? Would you know how to find an UNlicenced clinic?

Tell you true, this brings up so many serious questions (merely by leaving them out) that I think I'll have to revert to the "real me" who gets so inundated by thought that I must escape by making light of the matter. To think this bloke might have done his bit - without any protection - and he didn't even get his leg over. What a queer set of circumstances.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 1:45 am

It's interesting that they've only just got the CSA involved and didn't do so back when there was the ruling that if you didn't name the father of the child to the Benefits Agency they would cut your benefits. Maybe they weathered that cut for years but the real crunch came when the child hit five and the child's mother got bumped off Income support.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 6:49 am

Betty Boop;1462714 wrote: It's interesting that they've only just got the CSA involved and didn't do so back when there was the ruling that if you didn't name the father of the child to the Benefits Agency they would cut your benefits. Maybe they weathered that cut for years but the real crunch came when the child hit five and the child's mother got bumped off Income support. That's a damn good theory which I didn't think of.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 8:36 am

High Threshold;1462703 wrote: I refuse to believe this is true. Are you telling me that the courts have no avenues through which to award him legal custody? Let's start with DNA and take it from there.

Refuse all you want. Still True. He has no "Standing" in which to be custodial parent.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 3:20 pm

I don't know Anne

This guy must have some Law behind him.

With all the sperm donors there has to be some legality that one can or cannot pursue.

This issue brings up serious questions with the Females manipulation of the sperm donor and manipulation of the court system.

I realize courts have the child's interest - but a sperm donor/father has rights.

I believe these 2 females intended to make this guy a meal ticket.

Patsy

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 3:44 pm

New Fathers 4 Justice | New F4J – Campaigning for the rights of fathers to see their children.

In the UK

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 4:53 pm

Patsy Warnick;1462767 wrote: I don't know Anne

This guy must have some Law behind him.

With all the sperm donors there has to be some legality that one can or cannot pursue.

This issue brings up serious questions with the Females manipulation of the sperm donor and manipulation of the court system.

I realize courts have the child's interest - but a sperm donor/father has rights.

I believe these 2 females intended to make this guy a meal ticket.

Patsy

You can believe it, I don't know these women, oscar does, but you have no way of proving intent. Female manipulation? I wonder where that comes from in your mind; I wonder why a woman would feel that way, in general, as you have no specifics.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 4:57 pm

Oscar Namechange;1462768 wrote: New Fathers 4 Justice | New F4J – Campaigning for the rights of fathers to see their children.

In the UK

It's one thing if a father IS the father from the start, or whether he suddenly comes to the conclusion. In my way of thinking, unless there is something truly amiss about one parent, custody should be a joint, co-parent arrangement. However, the case that opened this thread does not fit that description, or am I missing something? Wouldn't be the first time!

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 8:35 pm

Patsy Warnick;1462767 wrote:

With all the sperm donors there has to be some legality that one can or cannot pursue.

That's what I'm thinking.

Patsy Warnick;1462767 wrote: This issue brings up serious questions with the Females manipulation of the sperm donor and manipulation of the court system.

I've known 2 or 3 of them myself.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 8:41 pm

AnneBoleyn;1462772 wrote: It's one thing if a father IS the father from the start, or whether he suddenly comes to the conclusion.

Well, let's see now. Try this one: A woman showes up on your door-step, babe in arms, and she says; "Do you remember me from that New Year Eve's party in the Poconos last year?" It's the same old story - boy meets girl, sperm meets egg. There are all sorts of legal terms for it (such as "DNA proof") but the common layman's expression is, "father from the start".

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:33 pm

Anne

NO I can't prove their intent. No one can

Where does my suspicion come from --I don't trust people with just their word of good.

Then why didn't these 2 females collect child support from the date of birth?

Oscar states they have always been unemployed and we do want to have the best interest of the child. And now the 2 females have taken the avenue to pursue funds?

If you want a child in this scenario - then be able to afford that child. go get a job.

Or what are they teaching this child - how to scam others? scam the system?

I don't like that this guy is being railroaded into a financial debt.

I hope there are some laws in the UK and US to protect this guy and any & all sperm donors.

Have you not been screwed out of money from trusting soles?

Have you not seen or experienced a financial screwing?

I don't have children for several reasons - one I didn't want to be a 2 child syndrome - meaning I have 2 kids - husband wants a divorce & I would have to deal with him forever - depending on his monthly funds if & when they arrive no thank you - I witnessed too much of that mess.

These 2 females didn't want this guy involved with this child but now his money will come in handy - really?

I'd love it if the courts flipped on the 2 females & awarded this guy custody, that probably wouldn't happen - but it's like spitting in the wind - back at ya.

And if they want his money then this guy should have a choice to be involved with the child.

HT - I'm with ya on this scenario & I'm tired of the man being buried financially.

This is a ugly scenario & yes I'm very suspicious of they motive.

Patsy

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 10:14 pm

Patsy Warnick;1462779 wrote: ..... Oscar states they have always been unemployed ..... If you want a child in this scenario - then be able to afford that child. ....

Patsy

It's like I've always said, "No dick - No job - No child."

Yet here they are. They want money without a job and they want a child without a dick!

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:30 am

HT

You have a way with words - Good God..:yh_rotfl

Patsy