NOM BLOG

Dad or Sperm Donor?

 

Canadian courts side with a biological father who wants to care for his daughter, after her mother dies.  This is not a case of IVF.  They just made a baby together the old-fashioned way, but on the understanding he would not interfere. Courts do not normally respect agreements like that. But the contours of legal parenthood are becoming blurry:

A single woman’s decision to conceive a child with the help of an ex-boyfriend has led to a chaotic court battle over who possesses parental rights over the child, after the mother died from cancer.

The unmarried Montreal woman, 36, whose identity is subject to a publication ban by court order, desired to raise offspring a few years ago, reported the National Post. The woman reportedly explored the option of using the services of a fertility clinic that would artificially inseminate her with sperm from an anonymous donor. But when the expensive procedure proved beyond the woman’s budget, she turned to her ex-boyfriend and employed his services to help make a baby.

The woman reportedly paid the ex-boyfriend $1400 for what she considered to be a sperm donation, a service that he rendered to her through sexual intercourse. The woman considered herself a single mom, but allowed the father of the child to visit his daughter occasionally.

Three years after the child’s birth, the mother succumbed to cancer and left her young daughter in the legal care of grandparents. -- LifeSiteNews

21 Comments

  1. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

    The father did the right thing to step up to care for his daughter, and the court made the right decision to grant him those rights.

    Everything else about this story is grossly immoral.

    Reilander nailed it when she said in the article:

    “What a case like this highlights is the overall attack on the traditional meaning and dignity of marriage and the family that results from it. The case only demonstrates how marriage and family have been ripped asunder, to the detriment of the child, through the aid of unnatural procedures such as artificial insemination and IVF.”

  2. eliasasm
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    Hey Barb, I have a very mixed up, complicated, extended family. No kids have the same father, brothers married to sisters and cousins (no mingling of DNA!) Ex's becoming sister-in-laws, Ex's and currants, some parents not married, some gays with kids, some non-whites, it goes on and on and none of us are "suffering the consequences". We all get along, we all care for and love each other and no one has any issues with anyone beyond the proverbial family and normal problems. Are we grossly ammoral because none of us fit YOUR definition of the way things are supposed to be?

  3. AM
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    Barb, I agree with your comment.

    And this statement from the lawyer is incredible:
    Michael Lubetsky, the lawyer who represented the girl’s grandparents at the appeal court, told the National Post that it is a parent’s “worst nightmare” that a biological parent can “show up and start asserting rights over the child.”

  4. Randy E King
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    eliasasm,

    The immorality resides in your insistance of calling your relationships what they are not. If you truly believed your relationships where moral you would not be working this hard to have them decreed what they are incappable of being.

    The problem rests with you my friend; not with those who refuse to call a horse a dog - so to speak;)

  5. AJ
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    eliasasm: You stated that we are "highly evolved life forms" (and apparently you include gays in this description) What part of "survival of the fittest" means that same sex marriage (and the lack of ability to procreate) is needed for survival? If yo u believe in evolution, how does this support your beliefs about what is natural and necessary for us all? Seems that we need OPPOSITE sex couples to survive. T'hats obvious. Why do children NEED 2 dads or 2 moms? How is that as good or better? Research proves that children do BEST with both gender parents. Each contributes something UNIQUE and important. (no, not all children have both, but we shouldn't be creating this lack if we have the option) So why are gays suddenly cramming THEIR beliefs down OUR throats? Something they were ashamed of is now being displayed for all to see. FORMER HOMOSEXUALS tell us that the gay lifestyle was very destructive and that the most loving thing to do for gays is help them to GET OUT. They tell is that REAL love is possible with the opposite sex, and that gay couples only have a counterfeit version that will never truly satisfy and no real romantic bond can ever be formed (but only the bond of friendship) with the same sex. We need to have love and compassion for gays and help them find what is best, not what destroys. If we help drug addicts leave their destructive life, is that hate? Of course not. We can love someone and help them get OUT at the same time.

  6. Alex
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

    Randy, nope, old man, it's you that has a problem with other people's families. It must actually hurt your pointed little head to see others thriving while you are mired in resentment, bitterness and angry. I pity your rotten, decrepit soul.

  7. Randy E King
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

    Alex,

    As I sit here in my house on the beach I can't help but feel sorry for you. You are like a drowning victim flailing around for someone to save you not realizing that your would be resuers know all to well that you would drag them down with you in your current state-of-mind.

  8. Alex
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

    Randy, I am at home with my wife and four children. The only thing I am drowning in is freshly laundered clothing for my children's school tomorrow. But I'm getting a clearer image of a sad, lonely old loser, whose regret and disappointment has turned him into a raging, embittered shell of a human being. Old man, you need to see if that minister friend if yours can bring you back to Jesus before it is too late.

  9. OvercameSSA
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    Alex - Why the personal attacks? They only make you look ignorant.

  10. OvercameSSA
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

    elias -

    Your family sounds like a big 'ol mess. Hard to figure out what the moral issues are, let alone the practical ones, but it certainly doesn't sound like a series of ideal arrangements that should be modeled.

    There are poor people living on the government dole in urban centers across the country - no fathers around, young men getting into the drug trade, young daughters getting pregnant - who would say the same thing about their situations as yours.

  11. Alex
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

    Simple: Randy's raisin d'être is to launch vicious, personal attacks against all gay people, their families and their friends. Traitors, miscreants, perverts, depraved. The list is as endless as it is disgusting. It isn't even within the remit of honest disagreement. Randy is a repulsive anachronism. And a total and utter disgrace to Christianity.

  12. Randy E King
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

    Alex,

    I weep for my country when I consider you may be exposing children to your ignorance on a daily basis. You stand in defense of sexual deviants while professing hatred and resentment for those who are older and obviously wiser than you.

    Your resentment for these truths we hold to be self evident is quite apparent. Do you truly believe that your bullying tactics will be enough to carry the day?

  13. OvercameSSA
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

    Well, Alex, I'm sorry you let Randy get to you. If it's true what you say, then his comments won't become part of the dialogue. His comments do have an inflammatory edge to them, but there is usually is at least some substance underlying his remarks.

    I need not tell you that the better ways to combat such comments is to either ignore them or counter with substance. Makes for a better blog too.

  14. Alex
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

    Save your phony tears for your own soul, Randy. And pray for forgiveness for the hatred you have unleashed on millions of Americans. You don't even represent what NOM claims to be about. Yours is a vindictive anti-gay crusade. There's some pit of rage deep inside you which just keeps firing off vitriol. It's like you have a huge boil that you must lance every day, only for it to reappear. And you are a vain, proud and arrogant fool who cannot abide being criticized. You must always have the last word, the most vulgar and nasty retort. Your life is so without joy. Return to God, old man, while you still can.

  15. Randy E King
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    Alex,

    LGBT

    Lesbian = Women
    Gay = Men
    Bi-sexual = Switch Hitter
    Transgender = Confused

    There is no such thing as a "Gay" people. Do you truly believe same-gender sexual intercourse is so repugnant that you have to try to flower it up with a word that has no relationship to said activity?

    Miscreant: unbeliever
    Heathen: strange; uncivilized
    Pervert: a unusual or abnormal sexual act that is habitual
    Depraved: marked by corruption or evil; especially: perverted
    Corruption: to change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions

    I can see why you would be offended by the proper discriptives of your cause. Historical fact really does not paint a pretty picture of it. ;)

  16. Alex
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    Overcame, it is not possible for me to let Randy's hatred go unchallenged. It would be cowardly to ignore him. I believe he needs spiritual help, but is too proud to pursue it.

  17. AM
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

    This woman under the pressure of her biological clock made a decision that was focused on her own desires rather than her future child's needs. Despite that, the mother invited the father to be a part of his child's life and he was willing to do so. Sometime we think we have it all figured out and life throws a curve ball.
    Like Barb, I think the outcome of this situation is a good one.
    One other point I think remarkable about this story is that the woman considered paying for fatherhood as the same as paying for no- strings attached -sex.

  18. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

    The opposition is incorrect in believing that every comment made at this blog has something to do with them.

    The father and mother of this child were both wrong in their decision to manufacture a baby with the intent that the child would be raised (mostly) without a father. That's cruel and selfish regardless of who does it.

    Then the attorney representing the grandparents makes the outrageous remark that it's a parent’s “worst nightmare” that a biological parent can “show up and start asserting rights over the child.”

    This attorney believes it's a "nightmare" that a father would want to care for his child. I don't know what to call that other than immoral.

  19. Ash
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

    It’s sad that we are in a time when people argue that a man stepping up to take care of his child after the death of her mother constitutes an “attack on the family structure.” But it was refreshing to read the words of the sane interviewees, who praised the father for pursuing custody.

  20. Posted April 29, 2012 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

    Every state court follows the doctrine that in custody matters the most important consideration (polestar, primary concern etc) is the welfare of the child. Judges at the trial court level have wide discretion in these matters. Such cases are decided on a case by case basis, not by rules fixed by the doctrine of stare decisis .

  21. Anne
    Posted April 30, 2012 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    Well, it's encouraging to see that Canada got this one right. Hopefully a sign of things to come.