Father loses IVF damages claim over daughter conceived after split from ex-partner

[Deleted]

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-10-06/f...om-ex-partner/

A father has lost his High Court action against a London IVF clinic over the conception of his daughter by his ex-partner after their split.

The man, who can only be identified as ARB, said that his ex, R, had tricked doctors into impregnating her with a frozen egg fertilised by his sperm in October 2010.

He claimed damages for the cost of the upkeep of the child, born the following summer, from IVF Hammersmith Ltd.

Mr Justice Jay said ARB had succeeded on all issues "save the issue of legal policy".

"It follows that there must be judgment for the clinic on the claim," he said.

The judge added: "Although he has lost this case, my judgment must be seen as a complete personal and moral vindication for ARB.

"The same, of course, cannot be said for R."

He granted ARB permission to appeal.

ARB broke up with R, with whom he already had a son by IVF, in May 2010.

A number of embryos had been frozen and the couple signed agreements on an annual basis for these to remain in storage.

In October 2010, R handed the clinic a consent-to-thaw form, signed by her and purportedly signed by ARB and, on the basis of this document, an embryo was thawed and successfully implanted.

The judge said that ARB's case, denied by R, was that the form was not signed by him and must have been forged by R, as their relationship had irretrievably broken down and she had moved out of the house they were sharing.

ARB said that there were no circumstances in which he would or could have signed the form and it followed that the daughter, E, was an "unwanted child" and that the clinic must now bear the financial consequences.

The judge concluded that ARB did not sign the consent to thaw form in October or at all - and his signature was forged by R.

"I am also completely satisfied that ARB had no intention of having another child with R after May 2010.

"In October 2010, R well knew that, which explains why she resorted to desperate, dishonest measures."

The judge said that E was "by all accounts a lovely, healthy girl" who lived most of the time with R, with ARB discharging his parental duties in a separate household.

Describing it as an "extraordinary case", he said that E was born in "extremely fraught, possibly unique, circumstances".

He added: "I have held that the clinic owed a strict contractual obligation to ARB to obtain his written consent to the procedure, and that the clinic is in breach of that obligation because it did not obtain it.

"I have also held that the clinic was not negligent.

"The claim fails owing to public policy. I have held that the principles underpinning two House of Lords' decisions in NHS claims given some 15 years ago apply equally to this contractual claim."

Jude Fleming, of IVF Hammersmith, which denied liability, said: "We are pleased the court has found in our favour, and dismissed the claim against the clinic.

"We are particularly pleased that the judge found that we acted with reasonable care.

"As a clinic, we place patient care at the heart of everything we do.

This story has left me feeling a little conflicted

[EnclosedOne]

i see no reason why the man should have to pay anything for the child conceived with such underhanded and shady tactics. The woman wanted the kid, he did not, therefore the child should be her sole responsibility and he should be absolved from having anything to do with her unless HE chooses otherwise. What she did should never be condoned, ever

[Super Kami Dende]

Wait. So the court basically said "The Woman forged your Signature and illegally used your Sperm to create a Child buuuuuuut you can still Pay for it anyway."

People wonder why MRA's exist.

[Deleted]

Wait. So the court basically said "The Woman forged your Signature and illegally used your Sperm to create a Child buuuuuuut you can still Pay for it anyway."

People wonder why MRA's exist.

I believe the case was more complicated than that, I believe he wanted the clinic to pay

[GreenJesus]

hahaha what a joke. The problem is the duty of the clinic in this. It isn't their fault the woman falsified his signature. He sued the clinic since they would have money to pay damages, but the ex has no money. I just don't understand why he has to pay the ex. I guess in the future they can require both consenting parties to be in person. Seems crazy that a dude can get fucked over because some nutter ex signs his name.

[unfilteredJW]

I see no reason the child should suffer because the mother is a shitter.

Don't fuck with crazy. We all know this.

[Super Kami Dende]

I believe the case was more complicated than that, I believe he wanted the clinic to pay

I get that. but with them not needing to pay damages for something they were directly responsible for, who does it fall to to provide financial support.

[Endus]

Wait. So the court basically said "The Woman forged your Signature and illegally used your Sperm to create a Child buuuuuuut you can still Pay for it anyway."

People wonder why MRA's exist.

Here's the thing.

Children aren't a punishment. Their support isn't assigned as a legal penalty, it's assigned based on the needs of the child, and both parents share that responsibility. That's why this argument always falls to pieces. Plenty of kids weren't deliberately wanted, but were conceived and born anyway; that the parents weren't seeking to procreate when they had sex doesn't change those parental obligations. The child needs to be supported, and the courts rule on the parents sharing that burden when it's contested, unless there's really solid circumstances to contradict that. And "I didn't want a kid" doesn't count as such.

In this case, the guy sued the IVF firm. And lost, for really obvious reasons. He'd have to prove the clinic KNEW he wasn't approving the implantation; that they knew, at the time, his required signature was missing or (in this case) forged. That wasn't proven. So the clinic's off the hook.

Now, if he sued his ex, and asked that the penalty be "my share of child support", I'd support that case being a "win", assuming he can prove that the signature was forged and this isn't just him changing his mind (which I assume he can do, I'm just pointing out the legal requirements not disputing his claim). That's down to the deceit of her forging his signature, though, not just having a kid he didn't want; if he'd signed off legitimately, and THEN they had a fight, and she went and got implanted anyway, he'd have no legal "out".

[Z-Man]

General Jack D. Ripper: Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No.
General Jack D. Ripper: But I... I do deny them my essence.

[Blamblam41]

hahaha what a joke. The problem is the duty of the clinic in this. It isn't their fault the woman falsified his signature. He sued the clinic since they would have money to pay damages, but the ex has no money. I just don't understand why he has to pay the ex. I guess in the future they can require both consenting parties to be in person. Seems crazy that a dude can get fucked over because some nutter ex signs his name.

Yeah.,... something like creating a fucking child should have written and verbal consent of both parties in person to an impartial third party and the clinic.

And the fact all it required was a signature.... Seriously, stuff like that should require government issue ID's at the very least.

[Super Kami Dende]

Here's the thing.

Children aren't a punishment. Their support isn't assigned as a legal penalty, it's assigned based on the needs of the child, and both parents share that responsibility. That's why this argument always falls to pieces. Plenty of kids weren't deliberately wanted, but were conceived and born anyway; that the parents weren't seeking to procreate when they had sex doesn't change those parental obligations..

The absolute difference being here, if it was a simple case of "both people had sex, she got pregnant, you accept the responsibility" does not work in the situation of "this Woman go Pregnant by illegally forging a signature and stealing a Mans Semen."

The Child is not a punishment, but the financial burden on someone that had no intent or direct cause in said pregnancy and was screwed by someone doing something illegal is perfectly fine grounds for someone not wanting to financially fuck himself supporting a Child he did not want.

Like I said, I got that the Clinic was found not guilty and was not required to pay. Totally understandable, but in this type of case who does pay? Does it just fall back entirely on the Woman and by extension Welfare? or is he still going to be expected to foot child support.

[GreenJesus]

The absolute difference being here, if it was a simple case of "both people had sex, she got pregnant, you accept the responsibility" does not work in the situation of "this Woman go Pregnant by illegally forging a signature and stealing a Mans Semen."

The Child is not a punishment, but the financial burden on someone that had no intent or direct cause in said pregnancy and was screwed by someone doing something illegal is perfectly fine grounds for someone not wanting to financially fuck himself supporting a Child he did not want.

Like I said, I got that the Clinic was found not guilty and was not required to pay. Totally understandable, but in this type of case who does pay? Does it just fall back entirely on the Woman and by extension Welfare? or is he still going to be expected to foot child support.

Obviously men are just sperm bots for woman to take advantage of and steal money from.

[Super Kami Dende]

Obviously men are just sperm bots for woman to take advantage of and steal money from.

One step closer to the Cum and Joke mines of Mars.

[Wyrt]

The egg was already fertilized? But wouldn't it be murder for her not to have her carry it?

[xChurch]

So they failed their obligation to obtain written consent from both parties..but weren't negligent? Does not compute.

[Deleted]

The egg was already fertilized? But wouldn't it be murder for her not to have her carry it?

No we're not Americans

[Super Kami Dende]

So they failed their obligation to obtain written consent from both parties..but weren't negligent? Does not compute.

I believe the forgery was the "written consent" of the Father. They only failed to have visual identification. I believe that should have been required at the turning in of the documents. BUt what I believe and what is legally negligent are 2 different things.

[Endus]

The absolute difference being here, if it was a simple case of "both people had sex, she got pregnant, you accept the responsibility" does not work in the situation of "this Woman go Pregnant by illegally forging a signature and stealing a Mans Semen."

The Child is not a punishment, but the financial burden on someone that had no intent or direct cause in said pregnancy and was screwed by someone doing something illegal is perfectly fine grounds for someone not wanting to financially fuck himself supporting a Child he did not want.

Like I said, I got that the Clinic was found not guilty and was not required to pay. Totally understandable, but in this type of case who does pay? Does it just fall back entirely on the Woman and by extension Welfare? or is he still going to be expected to foot child support.

The point is that child support isn't a legal penalty, it's a legal obligation. The guy has (another) kid. That he didn't WANT the kid is irrelevant. He's the father, half the duty of care and support is his, to a standard he can afford.

The malfeasance by his ex is a separate issue, and while I fully agree she should be punished if it played out the way presented (again, I'm not disputing that, really, just stating it would have to be established positively in a court case), that's not directly connected to the support issue. I think an elegant solution by a judge that agrees she should face penalty would be to assign her a penalty of "whatever her ex's child support would've been". So if you want to get technical, he's still owing child support, but she owes him the same amount, so they could just agree to not be idiots and handshake it off rather than insisting on monthly checks that zero out.

Maybe that's a fine legal distinction, but fine legal distinctions matter. It doesn't end his parental obligations. It just introduces legal obligations on her to pay for the malfeasance.

[baskev]

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-10-06/f...om-ex-partner/



This story has left me feeling a little conflicted

I am bit tired but i am reading it like this:
- male has child with "stolen" sperm ( a boy) and breaks up with his ex.
- he sues clinic for not handling the stuff correct. So he can pay for his son.
- clinic fucks up again and now he has a daughter. ( because his ex forged/stole again)
- he has no rights over the girl. And because he is no longer with his ex and he has no duty's for his daughter he does not have to pay.
- and because he does not have to pay he is not getting money from the clinic???

.......okay....if i am reading this correct....then this is my opinion:

- That B*TCH needs to be neutered...If a man does this its rape.....
- The state should look into if she is fit as a parent. because if you do this twice...i doubt she is capable to be a parent. So look at what is good for the children. And i really doubt that she is sane if she does this twice.
- The man should get the kids...and if he was a man...he would take care of them.
- Duty's or not. Taking care or not. They guy deserve's money. They did something without consent. On top of that its still rape.

[Serpha]

The point is that child support isn't a legal penalty, it's a legal obligation. The guy has (another) kid. That he didn't WANT the kid is irrelevant. He's the father, half the duty of care and support is his, to a standard he can afford.

The malfeasance by his ex is a separate issue, and while I fully agree she should be punished if it played out the way presented (again, I'm not disputing that, really, just stating it would have to be established positively in a court case), that's not directly connected to the support issue. I think an elegant solution by a judge that agrees she should face penalty would be to assign her a penalty of "whatever her ex's child support would've been". So if you want to get technical, he's still owing child support, but she owes him the same amount, so they could just agree to not be idiots and handshake it off rather than insisting on monthly checks that zero out.

Maybe that's a fine legal distinction, but fine legal distinctions matter. It doesn't end his parental obligations. It just introduces legal obligations on her to pay for the malfeasance.

Citation of the law needed, otherwise you talking out of your arse.