Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Sperm donor wins access to lesbian couple’s son

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Simon Murphy 10 Dec 2009, 5:26pm

    I think this is the right decision.

    If the plan was that he was going to be in regular contact with the child then it is of course appropriate that he be granted access by the courts if the mothers planned to take the child to the other side of the world.

    I presume the couple will maintain primary custody, so it is only fair and reasonable that they continue to allow the father access if that was the arrangement they had.

    I also agree however that the non-biological mother be granted rights to the child so long as they do not supercede the rights of the father ie if the birth mother was to die then the custody of the child could be split between the father and the non-biological mother.

  2. Simon Murphy 10 Dec 2009, 5:35pm

    I do not like the way that Pink News refers to the father as a ‘sperm donor’

    For me a ‘sperm donor’ means a man who is willing to donate sperm on the understanding that he will not be involved in the upbringing of the child.

    That is clearly not the case here as he donated his sperm on the understanding that he would have regular access to the child (and seemingly this was agreed with the mothers). In this instance he is quite obviously more than a mere sperm donor seeing as he wanted and arranged access to the child before agreeing to donate his sperm. In my view he is the father of the child. And the lesbian couple are the mothers.

  3. Tony Konrath 10 Dec 2009, 6:24pm

    When “donated” in the 70′s (through the infamous turkey baster) it was with the agreement that I would not have contact with the children. That was fair enough. This is different.

  4. Until the child was born, I was called the ‘father’ and I agreed I wasn’t a parent but was an ‘uncle’.
    After the birth I suddenly became the anonymous sperm donor. All my friends were contacted and told this (unbeknownst to me).
    They got what they wanted through deceit and lies.
    Guys. get everything in writing no matter how ‘good’ the friendship. Hormones kick in. The other partner gets jealous.
    GLEN is worried about the couple’s rights? Hello. What about the ‘father’s’ rights?

  5. Paul, if you are “A”, my heartfelt congratulation to your legal success and your tenacity. I hope, you will get the contact with your son you desire. But I wouldn’t hold my breath:
    You are now in the same position as other hetero men (like myself) who find, that court-orders aren’t worth the paper they are printed on. And the mother(s) will come up with all sorts of allegations and reasons why, in the “paramount interest of the child’s welfare”, court-orders should be ignored and altered.
    You will be in and out of court until the cows come home and your son is completely f**ked up…

  6. Paul (not the one above) 11 Dec 2009, 5:34pm

    Good this was the right decision. What were the mothers thinking? That child would have grown up wondering who his father was, I’m sure they wouldn’t have liked had they been the child.

  7. This is a great debate and will continue to be now that more and more gay/lesbian couples are having their own families. I have friends who went the anonymous route and I worry about their kids wondering about their dad, who he was and how much like him they turned out to be etc. Then I have friends who have “uncles” sperm supplier dads who have a bit of a hand in the raising of the kids (one couple are lesbians who each had a baby with the sperm supplied by both different “dad-uncles” couple and it works great!) and the kids get to have their ‘dad” in their lives. Both situations have merit and drawbacks. Will be interesting in future decades to see how this all played out.

  8. Paul Brownsey 12 Dec 2009, 11:59am

    “When “donated” in the 70′s (through the infamous turkey baster) it was with the agreement that I would not have contact with the children. That was fair enough.” (3)

    But the child was not a party to that agreement, so it wasn’t “fair enough”. I hate this idea of children as property, to be traded among adults like schoolboys swapping stamps. If the child seeks contact from, or money from, her or his biological parent, why should this be vetoed because the adults involved had some sort of private deal? (It’s the same attitude towards children that generates the strange insistence that children are to be brought up in the parents’ religion – children seen as Barbi-or-Ken dolls to be dressed up in their parents’ religious clothes.)

  9. This is exactly at the core of the problem:
    WHY do the parents WANT a child? In modern, western societies conception normally doesn’t HAPPEN any more (particularly not once the mother’s biological clock passes 35), conception is MANU-FACTURED with the aim to PRODUCE ONE(1!) child like the ultimate, must-have life-accessory, over which the mother subsequently must have EXCLUSIVE control, otherwise she feels her property-rights diminished.
    As long as the male manu-facturer (in this case one can take it 100% literal) stays out of the picture, like the old male role-model who brings the bacon home and at most tucks the child up at night when he comes home late from work, as long everything is allright.
    The problem arises when he goes beyond sperm-donating and providing. When he wants to love and be loved by the child as well, when he wants to spend time with it, when he wants to be involved in decision-making – then the mother begins to feel threaten in her sole ownership. She then would have to enter a powersharing-deal. And with that the proverbial hits the fan…
    The emotional stakes are substantially higher than with Barbie-or-Ken dolls, thus court-proceedings which lead to the destruction of peace of mind, finances, enjoyment of life of all involved. The parents committ suicide for fear of dying and the child finds itself inside “The Caucasian Chalk Circle”. Read it up with Brecht.
    Unfortunately none of our Judges, soc.-workers, shrinks have the wisdom of Brecht’s judge…

  10. Paul Brownsey 12 Dec 2009, 6:10pm

    “the mother begins to feel threaten in her sole ownership. She then would have to enter a powersharing-deal. And with that the proverbial hits the fan…” (9)

    Unlike Sun Shine’s comment, mine was not directed at vilifying women specifically. I’d take the same line in the case of a two male parenters and a woman who carried a child for them: they might have a deal whereby the mother would stay out of the picture, but that would be a rotten imposition on the child. Children aren’t *anyone’s* playthings, to be subject to arrangements and deals to suit adults.

  11. You are right, Paul, it was gauche to choose genderspecific examples. My excuse for that would be, that the scenario I choose still represents the vast majority of cases.
    And you have a point as well in chosing the term “vilifying”. That’s what I do in my example, or do in any case where a child is treated that way. I make a moral judgement. I find it ethically unacceptable to behave in a manner which objectifies a child (or ANY person for that matter). The irony is, that treating a child in such a demeaning manner, demeans the perpetrators equally!
    But coming back to the point in question, which you raised so appropriately: the fact that children are demeaned into property, toys, playthings, whatever you like to call it:
    I attempted to go beyond this statement of fact – WHY is it, that children are treated like this? How twisted are the people who are doing this, and why. What has caused them to treat other people like playthings.
    My hunch – and difficult to express: maybe it has to do with the desperate search for love, which people particularly try to find in a dependent person: i.e. the child? Maybe they hope a child will give them the (exclusive) unconditional love they long for? WHY this exclusivity?
    Maybe they actually DEMAND love, like a human right? What makes them so unlovable, or difficult to love – imagined or for real? How alienated are they, and what are the conditions which created this alienation – if that is what it is?(Maybe one should go back to Marx and with that to societal circumstances?)

  12. You want our SPERM, then we have the right to have access to our child. Hypocrisy of lesbians. Being a sperm donor is not what it used to be. Those days of being an anonymous sperm donor are gone.
    Time to say NO to being a sperm donor for all women. Men must make a stand on this issue.

  13. Gyus & Gals
    I am in the same situation. Mother agreed that child will have my surname, that I want to be involved, I want to be ‘Daddy. Now they have changed their mind. This is gonna be a mixd race child. Farthers dont seem to any rights!!!!! Guys, be very very careful think before you agree to donate.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all