"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

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.

Any particular reason, Deepy?

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


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

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


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

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


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.

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.

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.