wonder if the couple sued him for support or Britain is doing so for some legal reason... if it's the couple then WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?!?
Not only is it just WRONG, but don't they realize that means he'd have rights to the child and the woman in the partnership who didn't bear the child will have NO rights? As in, he can sue for custody/visitation and ask that the child will be kept away from her?

Its all kindsa messed up. Now see if they treated homsexual unions just like heterosexual unions it wouldn't be a moot issue. This is the problem with "seperate but equal"

who the hell decided that was a valid rule???

I bet he's regretting that orgasm. Poor bugger. Very mercenary of the ladies. Maybe they decided they both wanted to stay at home with baby, but needed someone to pay the bills. Found a nice loop hole to make it possible.

hanging is not enough sometimes.

back in the old days... stoning... buried alive up till the neck, and stones thrown at you.

yeah, this could be a good punishment for such evil and dumb people.

Don't you sign a release form when you donate sperm? One that says you won't seek action to any users and that users wont seek support from the donor? At least that's how I think it is here in the US.

It was donated "unofficially" and thats the problem. If it had been by an anonymous clinic, he'd have been protected.

that's still a retarded law.

of course, he must have been stupid too, officially or not, he should have let them sign a document or something.

but even if naive, he's still right and they must die horribly.

Child birth is silly.

the problem, Looris is twofold:

1) child support is always a consideration of "the best interests of the child" so unfortunately judges really aren't supposed to care about how it affects the parents. Thus unfortunate notion cuts both ways.

2) the reason why he can be sued for support is because since he didn't do it through a lisenced physician and he has no tangible evidence that their agreement was "no contact after insemination" it's really his word against theirs. Sad but, in the interests of protecting children, without any documentation, the judge has to go on the assumption that a man impregnating a woman did so with knowledge and understanding aforethought.

The fact is, if they allowed men to argue that they didn't "mean" to get a woman pregnant to get out of support, then the children suffer and where will that kind of argument end?

bottom line arguemtn being: it doesn't matter whether you wanted to parent a child, the fact remains that you did the actions which you knew could lead to parenting a child and thus you must shoulder part of the burden of supporting sai child.

It is to protect instances of men impregnating women who say "well I didn't WANT kids! Why should I pay for them?" - the answer being "if you really didn't want to pay for them, you shouldn't have comported yourself thusly. It's not the kids' fault that you failed in respect to birth control thereofre the child should not suffer for your dumb ass"

well, thank you, but I thing that for going into details like this we'd need to know precisely the details of the case, which we don't.

at least, I don't.

anyway what you say here makes sense. I mean, it's just wrong (meaning "evil" not "incorrect"), but I can understand better why this thing happened.

I don't see why men who don't want children shouldn't say exactly that, smibbo. If birth control fails, have an abortion. If the woman refuses an abortion, the man should be able to make a legal declaration refusing parental rights and responsibilities to the child.

100% agree with gorilla

"Donated his sperm as a friend" - Is it me, or does that make it sound like he knocked her up the old fashioned way?

yep, I think that's what happened, otherwise I can't imagine how you can do that without a clinic.

Well hopefully he counter sues for visitation and whatnot.

I don't think visitation would be enough, he should try to get custody (is that the word?) and just fuck them off.