Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
Canada: Doctor sues gay friend for child support, 16 years after he first donated sperm to her
Submitted by fathers4fairness on Fri, 2016-10-28 16:13
Story here. Excerpt:
'In 2000, a gay man donated sperm to help a friend from medical school conceive one child, and then another.
Now, 16 years later, the mother, a medical doctor, is suing him for child support using a loophole in Ontario law that means known sperm and egg donors can be held liable for child support based on biology alone.
“He’s really being punished for the fact that he’s a known donor,” and that she didn’t buy sperm from an American bank, said Shirley Levitan, the lawyer for Michael Ranson. Canadians can legally buy sperm from American banks.
A bill before the provincial legislature to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act could close the loophole, but it could be too late for Ranson — or other donors who stay involved in their biological children’s lives and don’t know the law, Levitan said.'
- Log in to post comments
Comments
Comment from submitter
According to Lawyers acting for Micheal Ranson this is the "first case they have heard of" which just shows how deaf they are. Mr Ranson who is gay was asked by a female friend when they were both in Medical School if he might be a sperm donor if she "needed one" and then she followed up on the promise 10 yrs later. He said he had no intention of being the father which they formalized in a legal agreement but over the years made gifts and corresponded with the 2 children she had by IVF. She became an Oby/Gyn specialist and earns about $250,000 per year in Ontario - he earn $350,000 as a Medical specialist in Europe.
Now she has taken him to court for the past 4 yrs Child Support. Mr Ranson's Lawyers said "he never signed up for this" - but I don't hear the shrieking Feminist Lawyers joining in on that chorus.
I recommend reading the
I recommend reading the article before commenting. I have mixed feelings about this one, but it is gray areas like this which is why I do not support artificial conception.
These two should have been much smarter about the whole thing. I'm not sure a 'personal agreement' should trump common sense and society's expectations that one takes care of their own children, this is why we require courts to oversee formal agreements like adoptions. The article makes it sound like they had a verbal agreement until the 2nd child was born, then they made it an informal written agreement; meaning they wrote their agreement down on a piece of paper - and both signed and did not involve lawyers.
According to the article, it appears he has always acted as a father, he refers to himself as "dad" when he speaks to his children, his parents are grandparents to the children and he has always been involved in their lives and had always contributed financially.
It sounds like the mother makes plenty of money and that the father has made plenty of financial contributions including money for college. So I'm unclear why court-ordered financial support is now an issue for the mother.
..and on the flip side, if their was ever a situation where the bio father wanted full custody or more legal custody (say the mother died, or maybe there was a situation where he wanted more rights to the children), and it was contested, I would argue for his paternal rights.
PS- Just imagine in the
PS- Just imagine in the ghetto. A man and women agree to have a child (or several children). They do. They both act as parents. The child knows them both as "mom" and "dad". The dad may even live in the house with mother and child. Now the mother applies for welfare or there is an unpaid bill pertaining to the children's care. Is it fair to society to not count the father's income or to expect him to pay for any expenses because the mother (or father) whips out a piece of paper and says "oh, we have an agreement that stipulates that the father doesn't have to financially support the children"?
Imagination does not trump what actually happened
Kris - I appreciate that whenever I post something you are right there to add your thoughts - including imaginary ones.
This article is quite clear.
He was "helping" a friend and as a Gay man had no intention of being the father - although I commend the emotional support he provided to the kids as it is well recognized that children who do not know their biological parents often have a strong desire to discover them - even if for only knowledge about genetic heritage. This is why open adoption has become more acceptable. His financial support was also generous. But none of that should be held AGAINST him as evidence of "loco parentis" when he clearly stated in the beginning and in the written agreement she signed - that he did NOT want to be a parent.
His crime was thinking an informal agreement between consenting adults who were friends could be considered binding in a courtroom - not that he ever expected it to get there - were it no for a greedy *itch.
"This article is quite
"This article is quite clear." LOL!! Yes, the OPINIONS of the father and his lawyer are quite clear. However, I need facts before I form an opinion.
Have you seen the written agreement? If not, then I don't know how you can be so sure what it says. Do you think it is possible that it was poorly written, and they both could have thought they were in agreement, but afterwards it became apparent that they were not in agreement? (that happens sometimes when non-lawyers write up their own agreements) How do you know that she will not claim that she was helping him? (as a gay man, artificial insemination would be a favorable way to get biological children).
What if the agreement was that he "disappear" and be anonymous to the children, but he broke his agreement? then what, would that allow her out of her agreement? (other articles from her perspective indicate that is what she is claiming.) The children are teens (about 14 and 16, I think) and mother works long hours, she cannot shut them down from internet access and social media where the father keeps communicating and bonding with them and signing off as "dad".
I don't know all the details, which is why I remain neutral and have mixed feelings. I really do not have any problem with this guy as he seems to be providing financial and emotional support to the children and both parents make adequate money. But I have a problem in general about people making simple agreements to complicated situations that involve the conception and raising of children.
I hope they work it out among themselves and remain cordial.
Punished for being a father
He's guilty, of course, because he acted as a father in many ways. Therefore, he must be punished. She now wants to renege on her promise because there's a substantial amount of money involved. This will make it harder for other women in her situation to find a donor, but there's a substantial amount of money involved, so those other women don't matter.
As long as we give children to single mothers, we have but two choices when it comes to fathers: either let them be or go after them for money. We're taking the second option, which means treating fathers as criminals and punishing them for being criminals. So he either pays or loses his medical license or goes to jail. He's a father, ergo he's a criminal, ergo he must be punished. Just like all the other fathers out there.