IVF fraud, man forced to be father without his consent by ex

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,277
So ex uses prior frozen eggs to get herself pregnant without the consent of the man. Man sues clinic for £1m for the cost of raising the child but loses case even though the clinic by any standards had ropey systems if all it took was is one person to forge paperwork. Clearly the ex is a despicable gold digger and probably mentally unstable yet she seems to be swanning off into the sunset, nanny and Range Rover paid for

He is able to appeal so hope he does. Obviously it wasnt a custody case or a case against the women as such but it does seem like the IVF clinic was negligent in their duty of care towards the man. Dont know what the judges comments about children being a benefit and not being a financial liability was all about, seems bizarre given that the opposite is the bread and butter of family courts

Anyway if IVF is to become more popular good lesson for men not to get spermjacked.


Judge criticises Harley Street IVF clinic where ex-girlfriend 'forged' father's signature to become pregnant


A High Court judge has criticised a Harley Street IVF clinic for “troubling and illogical” procedures that let a woman have a secret baby after forging the father’s signature.

Although ruling that the father had lost his claim for £1 million damages against IVF Hammersmith Ltd, Mr Justice Jay said his judgement was a “complete personal and moral vindication” for the wealthy businessman.

The father, who is in his 50’s and cannot be named, was told by text message on Valentine’s Day 2011 by his ex-girlfriend that she was pregnant from embryos they had frozen when together three years earlier and having their first child.


this made me chuckle

Father LOSES legal battle over cost of his ex's IVF baby | Daily Mail Online

Rejecting his claim, however, the judge cited 'legal policy objections' to awards of compensation for the birth of healthy children.
He said the law views parenthood as a 'benefit' and that it is 'morally unacceptable' to regard children as a 'financial liability'.
 


Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
30,451
LOL Silverharp, the things that worry him.

Which is worse, the nanny or the Range Rover?
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,277
LOL Silverharp, the things that worry him.

Which is worse, the nanny or the Range Rover?
apologies for having empathy with other men, clearly something you are incapable of
 

Rural

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
27,532
The poor baby, born into this mess.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,887
Rejecting his claim, however, the judge cited 'legal policy objections' to awards of compensation for the birth of healthy children.
He said the law views parenthood as a 'benefit' and that it is 'morally unacceptable' to regard children as a 'financial liability'.
That would seem to need rewriting. The judges ruling is right in law, but any child clearly is a financial liability whatever way you cut it. I doubt any such rewrite will occur.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,681
That would seem to need rewriting. The judges ruling is right in law, but any child clearly is a financial liability whatever way you cut it. I doubt any such rewrite will occur.
There's a similar legal situation in France (I'm going by a court case a few years back, not an IVF clinic though).
It seems the law is based on the premise that having a live child is not having done to you and that costs are just inherent to having children. It'd be like suing your employer for the costs associated with buying clothes for work.

The problem apparently is that if the birth of a child may be considered to be a harm done to the parents, then anyone whose contraception fails may have the right to sue the doctor who prescribed it or the company that made it.
 

toughbutfair

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
9,906
Crazy that there's no financial disclaimer. No way he should be on the hook . A man should always protect himself financially in such matters.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,681
Crazy that there's no financial disclaimer. No way he should be on the hook . A man should always protect himself financially in such matters.
The clinic is responsible for its failed procedures, and the woman is (criminally I suppose) responsible for fraud. Both should be punished for that.

The child however now exists - so is s/he potentially to grow up in poverty despite having a rich father because its mother did something wrong? And how far is the father entitled to cut off links with the child : what if the kid wants to meet its father - is that its right or not? IOW is this only a money question or a parental rights issue?
 

toughbutfair

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
9,906
The clinic is responsible for its failed procedures, and the woman is (criminally I suppose) responsible for fraud. Both should be punished for that.

The child however now exists - so is s/he potentially to grow up in poverty despite having a rich father because its mother did something wrong? And how far is the father entitled to cut off links with the child : what if the kid wants to meet its father - is that its right or not? IOW is this only a money question or a parental rights issue?
If the father clearly stated that he didn't want to be a father, he shouldn't be financially liable, the mother should be. If the kid is "disadvantaged " so be it. The father should be free of all this.
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,277
The clinic is responsible for its failed procedures, and the woman is (criminally I suppose) responsible for fraud. Both should be punished for that.

The child however now exists - so is s/he potentially to grow up in poverty despite having a rich father because its mother did something wrong? And how far is the father entitled to cut off links with the child : what if the kid wants to meet its father - is that its right or not? IOW is this only a money question or a parental rights issue?
you shouldnt reward criminal behaviour , to counteract the moral hazard the father in such a situation should have the option of being deemed to be the main custodian . If the average man was spermjacked it might make it difficult for him to have a family in the future because of financial liabilities.
At a basic level its a consent issue
 

housefree

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2009
Messages
54
Website
bargaindeals.ie

toughbutfair

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
9,906
With all the discussion on abortion going on now It would be a good time for men to talk about having the right to 'abort' responsibility for an unborn child. The issue has been brought up by Swedish politicians

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/03/08/men-should-have-the-right-to-abort-responsibility-for-an-unborn-child-swedish-political-group-says/
A man should have the right to waive responsibility in the first months of a pregnancy. If the woman wants to have it, she pays.
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,277
A man should have the right to waive responsibility in the first months of a pregnancy. If the woman wants to have it, she pays.
A financial abortion would appear to be an equity issue for sure.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,681
you shouldnt reward criminal behaviour , to counteract the moral hazard the father in such a situation should have the option of being deemed to be the main custodian . If the average man was spermjacked it might make it difficult for him to have a family in the future because of financial liabilities.
At a basic level its a consent issue
I said the mother should be punished for that. As a criminal matter.
I'm not sure why the child should grow up in poverty as a result though.
Apart from the child's interests, it's very much not in society's interests to allow rich men to father children with poor women and then change their minds about it after.

(I agree that there's an inconsistency wrt the fact that women alone are entitled to give children away for adoption, but I'm not sure the solution is to allow men to do the same. Perhaps both parents should have to sign adoption papers. But that wouldn't solve this guy's purely financial issue.)
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,681
A financial abortion would appear to be an equity issue for sure.
It wouldn't because it's a nonsensical comparison. In the case of abortion there is no child. So no costs, for either parent.
In your proposal, an existing child could starve to death purely because its father didn't want it.

The clinic should owe him a fortune though, clearly.
And the woman, if she's got the means, also. And she should certainly be tried for fraud.
 

housefree

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2009
Messages
54
Website
bargaindeals.ie
It wouldn't because it's a nonsensical comparison. In the case of abortion there is no child. So no costs, for either parent.
In your proposal, an existing child could starve to death purely because its father didn't want it.
.
The woman would have time for an abortion so she could decide if she was in a good financial position. At the moment a woman gets to decide if the man is financially liable or if she will have an abortion which is hardly fair or equal in any measure. Women's slogan is 'its our body' men's slogan should be 'it's our life'
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,277
I said the mother should be punished for that. As a criminal matter.
I'm not sure why the child should grow up in poverty as a result though.
Apart from the child's interests, it's very much not in society's interests to allow rich men to father children with poor women and then change their minds about it after.

(I agree that there's an inconsistency wrt the fact that women alone are entitled to give children away for adoption, but I'm not sure the solution is to allow men to do the same. Perhaps both parents should have to sign adoption papers. But that wouldn't solve this guy's purely financial issue.)
who said a child should grow up in poverty, in this case the mother is a teacher with a cushy arrangement based on the first kid. Again the issue needs to be looked making deception a special case for starters, if the mother cant support the child on her own then she should be forced to put it up for adoption rather than placing a burden on the male victim of the deception
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,277
It wouldn't because it's a nonsensical comparison. In the case of abortion there is no child. So no costs, for either parent.
In your proposal, an existing child could starve to death purely because its father didn't want it.

The clinic should owe him a fortune though, clearly.
And the woman, if she's got the means, also. And she should certainly be tried for fraud.
you misread the point I was responding to, the poster clearly stated "A man should have the right to waive responsibility in the first months of a pregnancy", the baby should clearly be adopted on in preference to "starvation"
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,681
you misread the point I was responding to, the poster clearly stated "A man should have the right to waive responsibility in the first months of a pregnancy", the baby should clearly be adopted on in preference to "starvation"
He can't tell whether the child will be "adopted on", and it's also fascinating to see right wingers all assuming that the state will step in to pick up the slack for wealthy men who simply don't want to pay for their offspring.

Though I guess it's just a personal application of the sort of "free market" we witnessed during the crash, so we probably shouldn't be surprised if it's only the poor who are ever blamed for freeloading etc.
 

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
30,451
If the father clearly stated that he didn't want to be a father, he shouldn't be financially liable, the mother should be. If the kid is "disadvantaged " so be it. The father should be free of all this.
One reads this and one says to oneself, where to start with this kind of thinking.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top