"A British firefighter who donated his sperm so a lesbian couple could have two babies is being forced to pay thousands of pounds in child support.

Andy Bathie, 37, initially agreed to help Sharon and Terri Arnold after being assured he would not have to be involved in the upbringing of their young boy and girl or have any financial responsibility towards them.

But the British government's Child Support Agency has begun docking his pay to force him to contribute to the children's upbringing because the lesbian couple have split up.

Mr Bathie has launched unprecedented court action in an attempt to ensure he cannot be recognised as a legal parent to the children.

"These women wanted to be parents and take on all the responsibilities that brings," he told the Evening Standard newspaper.

"I would never have agreed to this unless they had been living as a committed family.

"And now I can't afford to have children with my own wife - it's crippling me financially."

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/12/05/1196530715490.html

If he had gotten the Lesbains to sign an agreement to cover his child support costs, would that stand up in court?

The lesbian couple admitted that was their original agreement, but they said Bathie was the one who changed the terms by getting involved with his children.  He had them once a month in access visits and was involved in their upbringing.

It seems he can't have it both ways.  

freediver wrote on Dec 5^th, 2007 at 11:34am:

If he had gotten the Lesbains to sign an agreement to cover his child support costs, would that stand up in court?

Nope.

Any particular reason, Deepy?

mantra - your comments are at odds with the article I posted.


there is no mention about the man wanting to change the agreement. there is mention he can't have kids with his wife due to financial restraint.
I assume it means he has no other kids, which is at odds with your statement.

lesbians or homos can't have kids, so they can't have kids is my motto.
bad idea to get invovled with either party for kids.


Some lesbians in Aussie had a similar thing happen a few years ago.
They split up and one wanted to pay nothing, as she was not the kids dad (obviously).
The judge ordered her to pay maintenance.  Fair call too I thought.
there is still a child to be schooled.

freediver wrote on Dec 5^th, 2007 at 8:37pm:

Any particular reason, Deepy?

Agencies, such as the CSA, don't accept such agreements as being a valid excuse to 'shirk responsibility'.

deepy - much as I dislike their reason, I agree with their decision in a way.

good warning to all men - don't trust lesbians

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 5^th, 2007 at 9:11pm:

deepy - much as I dislike their reason, I agree with their decision in a way. good warning to all men - don't trust lesbians

I completely disagree with it sprint.  But it happens to be so.  I don't believe the CSA practices any level of fairness.

deepy, I disagree with it in a way too.

should let you know I am a divorced dad with 2 kids and pay maintenance. So have dealings with CSA.

At the end of the day, there is a child to be supported. The CSA desicions are FOR the child.
It's a really debatable point , that another agreement shoujld take precedence over the natural dad and mum.
In the end they opted for the natural mum and dad as the ones responsible.

maybe he should have not given the rugmunchers any info on himself to "get back" at him.
They are menhaters anyway.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 5^th, 2007 at 9:22pm:

deepy, I disagree with it in a way too. should let you know I am a divorced dad with 2 kids and pay maintenance. So have dealings with CSA. At the end of the day, there is a child to be supported. The CSA desicions are FOR the child. It's a really debatable point , that another agreement shoujld take precedence over the natural dad and mum. In the end they opted for the natural mum and dad as the ones responsible. maybe he should have not given the rugmunchers any info on himself to "get back" at him. They are menhaters anyway.

No offence intended to you and yours sprint.  I have no personal experience with the CSA but have never heard anything positive about them and the way they apply their policies.

It appears that oftentimes they apply them in such a way the last person being considered is the child as they apply their policies in such a destructive way that violent incidents occur and/or the child is used as leverage to make one or both parents suffer.  

The CSA came about after that lunatic claim by Bob Hawke that "no child will live in poverty".  A completely impossible promise, he wound up enforcing this stupidity by creating the CSA - an agency which has forced many fathers onto the dole, destroyed many lives and led to some horrific acts of violence or suicide.

Hawke left that disaster for Australians to suffer long after he got his gigantic super payout.

That's fine deepy,
Offend all you want, that's one of the good points of chatrooms :-)

Is a very emotive area for divorcing parents. Who "gets" the kids.  
It's not intended that way and it's better for everyone if it is not done that way.

Bringing up kids is really hard, divorced or not. My ex and I are very flexible in our arrangements.
The kids really benefit from that.
We swop care days/weeks to suit one another.  That's what 99% of all divorced parents do.  

The CSA has been overly on the womens side, but it is evening out.
It has been a large social change, so things won't be "perfect" for a while.

maybe a topic for another thread ??

Agencies, such as the CSA, don't accept such agreements as being a valid excuse to 'shirk responsibility'.

But the agreement does not shirk any responsibility at all. The father would still be responsible for paying maintenance, regardless of the contract.

Quote:

mantra - your comments are at odds with the article I posted.   there is no mention about the man wanting to change the agreement. there is mention he can't have kids with his wife due to financial restraint. I assume it means he has no other kids, which is at odds with your statement.

Sprintcyclist - the  article you posted said:


Quote:

Mr Bathie has launched unprecedented court action in an attempt to ensure he cannot be recognised as a legal parent to the children.

I would assume that means he wants no further responsibility towards these children - financial or otherwise, which is a contradiction after being involved in their upbringing.  Not a nice character - how will this be explained to his children?   He's an idiot - what did he expect when he made such a stupid gesture?

mantra - I still cannot see where it said he had ever been involved in the childrens upbringing.


his stupid gesture was trusting lesbians with his children.
It's a nowin area for him, he's maybe not an idiot, but naieve certainly.

I think its unfair that he is being made to pay for the children.... this wasnt the original agreement and it is effecting his life outside of this situation now.
Very unfair. Not his fault the lesbians relationship broke down.

This will make sperm donors of the future reveiw decisions they make about donating .

Sprintcyclist - there was another more indepth article printed yesterday - didn't keep a link.  It said he was involved in the children's lives and had access visits every four weeks.  The lesbians said that if he hadn't wanted to get involved in their upbringing - they would have stuck to the original agreement.

Oceans - sperm donors come under a different law altogether.  They are immune from paying Child Support - there's legislation to protect them.

Lesbian mother hits back in row over donor's support payments

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2221742,00.html

But today Terri Arnold - who has since separated from her partner Sharon - insisted Bathie had wanted to act as father to her children.
She told GMTV: "He was a father to the children, a dad. He played a father's role for two years of their, well, my daughter's life."

Arnold admitted she had made an initial arrangement with Bathie for him just to be a donor. But she said: "He was Uncle Andy but, after the christening, he said he didn't want to be the uncle; he wanted to be the daddy. It was him that changed his mind."

She said Bathie saw her daughter one weekend every month for two years.

"We've got photographs of our little girl at his home, we've got a box full of birthday and Christmas cards from him saying 'from daddy'. He bought her a silver trinket box and engraved it 'daddy'," she said.

Arnold said Bathie paid towards his daughter's pram and shoes and regularly bought her treats and presents.

Two years after her birth, Bathie became the lesbian couple's sperm donor for a second time and Arnold gave birth to a little boy. But shortly afterwards, Arnold said he no longer wanted to see the children.

---

a similar case:

Sperm donor to pay child support

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,16904774-23109,00.html

A SWEDISH man who donated his sperm to a lesbian couple must pay child support for the three children he fathered, Sweden's Supreme Court ruled today.

The man, now 39, donated his sperm to the couple in the early 1990s. Three sons were born during the years 1992-1996, according to Swedish news agency TT which reported the ruling.

The man told the court that he and the women had agreed that he would play no role in the boys' child rearing and that the two women would be their parents.

Nonetheless, the man signed a document confirming that he was the biological father of the children.

Shortly after he signed the document, the two women separated and the biological mother demanded that the man pay child support.

The man took the case to court, but lost in the district and appeals courts.

The Supreme Court upheld those rulings today, saying that as the biological father he is required to pay for the children's upbringing.