Good luck to him. I hope he gains some access.
Any lesbian couple who has a child with a man in any manner other than anonymous sperm donation is tacitly acknowledging that the father may seek access to the child, and that the courts may allow this.
That’s only fair and reasonable.
A ‘gentleman’s agreement’ or even a contract signed before conception or birth should be regarded as utterly meaningless as you cannot legislate for human emotions and the bond created between the parent and child after the birth.
As a gay man coparenting happily with a lesbian couple, I would ALWAYS advise people to have a written agreement. It is very helpful in focusing on what everyone wants out of the expereince, regardless of whether it will be used for legal reasons later on. In fact if people have signed up to something then the chance of a legal disagreement is reduced to a very minimal level. These people were naive not to discuss what would happen if the father wanted more involvement after the birth. They should have realised that this was likely. The outcome has to be what’s best for the child and in this case if the child’s father wants to provide her with love and financial contributions then that has got to be in the child’s best interests. The mums should embrace the many benefits of co-parenting. How many straight parents would jump at the chance of a reliable, regualr baby-sitter who gives them financial contributions, instead of asking to be paid? Being a parent can be tough and with a third person on hand helping out with finances and childcare life is easier.
Why is it suddenly unreasonable for fathers to have a parental bond with his child? It would hardly be acceptable for mothers to be treated the same way.
Unless you have had children you never know of a bond like it until you hold them in your arms. The power that brings is strong.
Good luck to this man.
The situation is comparable to what happened in the early days of surrogate mothers. After the baby was born, some of those mothers claimed their biological bond to the child trumped any rights of the couple they agreed to bear children for. Any agreement they previously had with the couple they considered void if they felt they bonded with the baby. Biology was said to be the trump card. Well, decades later, we have worked through many of the issues, legal and personal, surrounding that form of surrogacy.
A gay man in this situation is agreeing to be a ‘surrogate’. In the same way woman can agree to be a surrogate for a couple where the woman is infertile or otherwise unable to carry the child. The model for these cases should, again both personal and legal, needs to follow in the light of previous surrogacy relationships.
But there seems to be a bit of sexism in people who immediately jump in and say ‘yeah for fathers rights’ and ‘damn those selfish lesbians for not thinking things through.’ What about damn the adult male in this situation who thinks his desires trump everyone else involved, particularly those pesky women who just need to be reminded of who and what he is to them. Sorry, not as cut & dried as so many posters here and in other similar threads keep making it out to be.
Sorry, but the rose tinted glass of these are all just nice guys who
If he wants his so called parental rights, he better start paying up half of the costs of raising the kid.
It seems like he is playing some sick misogynistic power game on both of the mothers.
in what way is the gentleman playing a “sick misogynistic power game on both of the mothers?”
Give an example?
He has entered into an agreement and then become emotionally attached to the baby. There is little that one can do for the change in emotion – it happens.
Legally, if he is proven to be the father and wants to play a role in that childs life (and there is no legal reason why he shouldn’t be around children) then there is little that the courts can do to stop him – and rightly so in my opinion.
Father’s have a right to have access to their children and for too long this society and legal system has strongly advocated the rights of the mother over that of the father and that is an inequality.
This type of story is not uncommon though. It’s happened before. Guys, if you want to donate sperm to a female couple then do so but please be absolutely clear on what you want and when you want it.
I just think he entered into the agreement with his own hidden agenda. I just don’t believe the whole becoming emotionally attached to the baby after seeing it. I think he had his own desire to not just create a baby, but to become a father that he kept hidden from both of the mothers from the offset.
I think he used this couple as his unknowing surrogate.
Possibly, Helen, but that’s why I think it’s better not to do things this way unless you actually want the father to be involved. Maybe I’m naturally suspicious but I’d question why any man would advertise in this way unless he wanted some involvement. Again, if the lesbian couple didn’t want this, however trustworthy the man seems, it’s always best to go for anonymous sperm, in my opinion. ‘Best’ as in safest.
Okay, I have nothing against these guys or anything but: Men, if you want a baby, get your own. These kids made from your sperm have their own parents. You can go and be someone else’s parent.
And everyone, stop fighting over children, they have feelings too.
it can be guaranteed that the mothers will never go after the “father” for any financial support….
Always get a written agreement. I didn’t.
I fathered a child for 2 women friends on the understanding that I would be recognised as the father (not the parent) and would have access to and involvement with the child. The said they wanted my total involvement. Simple. They wanted me at the birth.
Come labour day, a stranger rang to say they’d call me when they were ready. They’d already arranged for someone to be at the birth and cut me out totally.
They not only reneged on everything but rang my friends to say I wasn’t the father, just the sperm donor.
Always get a written agreement.
When are you gay men going to say ” NO” to being a SPERM DONOR.
Single women have NO right to have children. The selfish needs of lesbians is appalling. The RIGHTS of CHILDREN should be paramount against the selfish needs of queers.
You must make sure that you are protected under the law and your rights in regards to this important issue and access to the child you helped create.
No such thing as gentleman’s agreement. The law is on men’s side now. Stand up and Stop being USED.
radical53 – the law has been on men’s side for centuries. That’s nothing new.
And what on earth do single women have to do with it?
“Single women have NO right to have children”
Really? Since when?
Any straight single woman can go to a bar, pick up a randomer, and get pregnant. She has every right to do that. Since when did someone (i.e. you) decide she had no right to that child?
Seriously, some of the stuff people come out with in here amazes me….
…and as for the “selfish needs of queers”.
You mean the biological drive that’s build into every form of life, not just human, to reproduce? The fundamental drive to procreate instilled by 3.5 million years of evolution?
Yes, I can see how that is “selfish”.
I completely understand these women’s frustration but they were, like the women in the other recent story, very naive not to go for an anonymous donor. This man advertised to be a donor, not a co-parent. This child already has her parents and a home. To now want to swoop in and become involved in the child’s upbringing is selfish. What kind of relationship will there be be between this man and the women going forward? This child will go from living with her two parents to having a mother and a father that can’t stand each other. A happy childhood can so easily become a broken family and all for this man’s “change of heart”.
“But the couple told The Sun…”
going to the Sun will not win you respect: you may be able to vilify the man in print but you won’t gain support from the mass of Sun “readers” who think “1 queer + 2 lezzies”.
Diignified silence and a fair court hearing is the way to do it, not splashing your lives and that of yoiur child all over the nation
Helen, I do understand your point but in the end no-one knows what has gone on between the couple and the donor. A ‘gentleman’s agreement’ isn’t legally binding nor a codified guidline and therefore is invalid – the chances are that any court will agree the same.
Val, there’s nothing in this article to suggest that the father has “swooped in”. In fact the article suggests that he was allowed to see the baby several times and thus build up a bond with her. As I’ve said before there is little that any law or court can do regarding human emotion. Your term of lanagauge is both misleading and possibly incorrect seeing as we do not know the facts of the story.
Will, I’d personally be wary of using biology in such an argument. Many cultures and societies around the world have different ideas of what constitutues being a father. In some cultures fathers are away for years and are not involved in the upbringing of a child.
I also completely agree with Mihangel apYrs. Why on earth go to the Sun? Do you seriusly think that the newspaper or many of the readership has any inclination to support you? Some of them could quite possibly want you dead.
“….the selfish needs of queers.”
Yes, because no straight person has children for ‘selfish’ reasons (ie they want them). They just do it out of the goodness of their hearts. NOT.
One’s sexuality doesn’t affect one’s desire for children. Nor does it affect one’s ability to be a good, caring and loving parent.
“Will, I’d personally be wary of using biology in such an argument. Many cultures and societies around the world have different ideas of what constitutues being a father.”
I’m sorry, but then someone says “selfish” as a reason to have a child, culture is nothing to do with it. The biological motivations to have children, of which most are not even conscious, let alone cultural, are more influential than you might think. To ignore the biological imperative is actually naive.
“The biological motivations to have children, of which most are not even conscious, let alone cultural, are more influential than you might think. To ignore the biological imperative is actually naive.”
I work in children’s services. I see so many contradicitions to that argument day in and day out. Google cases of abuse, mistreatment and negelct in the news over the past five years. Just because the majority of people follow a rule doesn’t mean that everyone does the same, but that’s my opinion.
Will, for me it’s me societal and for you it’s more biological. That’s fine, we just come from two differing viewpoints. I gave evidence to suggest that a bond between parent and child is a product of society and not through a biological programming. If it were biological then many species around the world would not abandon their young upon birth but have an inherent interest in staying with their offspring untill maturity.
However, I’m not ignoring the biological argument. I understand that whatever the reasoning behing the bond between parent and child it can be an exceptionally strong force and I fully agree and support this father in his fight against this particular couple.
Also how would one account for the ever increasing number of women and men who make a conscious choice not to have children. I doubt they’d agree that they’re denying their biological imperative.
With the change in society since the 1960′s more and more people have chosen not to have children because their has been arguably a decline in the need for a nuclear family and because life now demands more than for a young women to sit at home , cook, clean and pop out children like a machine and it’s quite insulting I feel to many women just to assume that they all want children.
“I gave evidence to suggest that a bond between parent and child is a product of society and not through a biological programming”
I’m sorry, but you didn’t. I can cite my evidence, but its to vast. Bet even by taking out every scientific study on paleobiology, evolution and natural history, and how imprinting occurs in animals and the drive of parental responsibility in the natural world, you are aware of Attachment theory I presume – a psychological, evolutionary, and ethological theory concerning relationships between humans.
“Also how would one account for the ever increasing number of women and men who make a conscious choice not to have children.”
That’s the other ability humans have, the ability to use cognitive reasoning to make a decision that over comes the biological imperative, but that’s is not an argument to say it does not exist. Anecdotally, you have people refer to the “biological clock” in women – that is simplistic term, but accurate in what it describes biologically.
“Will, for me it’s me societal and for you it’s more biological.”
You are implying disparity where none exists. To isolate culture as a main factor here is insular. You’d be surprised how much of what we do socially is driven by the evolutionary and the biological.
I’m not denying the societal, far from it, but to ignore or reduce the the biological drive, is to ignore 3.5 million years of evolution. And humans are not that evolved that we are above those drives entirely.
I like Will from Dublin’s argument, biology is a potent force in not just us but all life, and we all know the bond between parents. Even if they are not biological parents. But I think all facets of culture and society have a part to play, its a rich tapestry after all. But both your arguments actually support the ridiculousness of the argument made by radical53 on “selfish needs of queers.” Sounds to me like someone has a few issues to work trough there.
‘Val, there’s nothing in this article to suggest that the father has “swooped in”.’
I’m sorry, Danny, but the article is all about swooping in. The women were the intended parents, they initiated the process advertising for a sperm donor (not a co-parent) and, if we are to believe what the article says, the agreement was that he would not be involved in the child’s upbringing, if it wasn’t for the fact that the biological father became ‘besotted’ with the child.
I’ve said it before: the women were naive to have followed this route but in my book this man should allow the child to grow up with her intended parents instead of creating this difficult home environment for her because of a mistake he’s made thinking that he’d be able to handle not being involved in his biological child’s upbringing.
I agree with TheSuburbanBi entirely on this. This man was a surrogate and fully acknowledged his role as such. He is now trying to split a family up. I have no idea how anyone could side with him. The women’s naivety does not excuse his actions at all.
“I have no idea how anyone could side with him.”
I have to agree with you, PumpkinPie.
We as gay men, and lesbians, want to be recognised as a viable and stable provider of family unit for children, so this kind of behaviour is hardly commendable.
What an atrocious practice irrespective of sexual orientation!
If a gay man (or couple) wishes to become parent, he himself should put his own ad in search of a surrogate mom or a female egg donor, not vice versa. Don’t reply an ad asking for a “donor” and then turned around regretted.
I’d also bet ten bucks if the couple were heterosexual, the gay man would lose his case by landslide. But since this case (and the other settled one) involves all LGBT people, he’d have a pretty good chance wining “parental” rights.
Imo, when one answers an ad in written words, one is assumed to agree with those terms and yet it seemed that the judge from another similar case granted the man custody of his spawn 157 days a year which completely voided their contract. The judge just went ahead with century-old blood-kinship nonsense as if blood relationship trumps all.
These kinds of cases will come back and bite us LGBT people’s asses in the future.
I met a gay sperm donor last year on co-parentmatch.com and he does have access to our baby. Unless they are a serial sperm donor and don’t have any attachment any man would fall in love with his baby as soon as he holds him/her in his arms for the first time.
I am gay and I have donated sperm on two occasions. We had very specific written agreements that were legally notarized. The reason for this is so that if there is a medical problem I didn’t know of, or child support issue, they could not come against me. Also, I couldn’t try to dredge up parental rights. The women were foolish to make a “gentleman’s agreement” and I hope this doesn’t affect the child.
I agree with Helen: He had better start paying child maintenance.