Thursday, February 21, 2013

Your Turn

A judge in the Jason Patric custody case said that sperm donors who are not married to the woman they give sperm to are not entitled to custody or visitation. Jason had given his sperm to his girlfriend when they broke up. She had a baby using it. The couple got back together and he started seeing his son all the time and when the couple broke up he wanted shared custody or visitation. What are your thoughts on sperm donors and custody? Is it different in this situation?

47 comments:

Agent**It said...

Was his name on the birth certificate?

Renoblondee said...

I think in this case it's different. It's not anonymous. She trusted him enough that when they broke up she requested his sperm. Then, she thought so much of him they got back together. What's wrong with this woman not letting her kid see his dad that he's used to seeing?

auntliddy said...

Yes, he is a sperm donor, but..... They had been together, then i guess as farewell present he gave her the requested sperm. Then they got back together, he got to know and love the baby, so i think he shoukd get visitation. He is childs father with a history, not an anonymous donor. Big diff. Didnt same thing happen with toukie smith and deniro? They agreed he'd donate sperm and sh'd raise baby,but after twins born he wanted parental rights and got them.

jax said...

ya using your ex bf as your sperm donor ALWAYS works out...wtf are these people thinking?

Lola said...

There was a decision in Kansas recently that said that because a sperm donor didn't go through a traditional clinic and even though the mother had signed legal documents absolving him of any responsibility (his name is not on the birth certificate), that the sperm donor IS the legal father and is financially responsible. I smell an eventual Supreme Court case (but not for many years).

Kari said...

Yes, since she let him back in her life along with him being an active dad.

Discobitch said...

If it was random from the sperm bank then no, they shouldn't have rights but she knew who he was AND let the kid bond with him as a father then yes there should be some parental rights there. Wouldn't want to be there when the kid learns the truth though poor thing

VIPblonde said...

Here's the full story: Jason Patric DM

So, he signed over sperm with the explicit arrangement that he would not have any legal or financial ties to the child. The he gets back with the baby mama, and now he wants said rights that he signed away. I think the judge ruled the right way. The baby mama said he is welcome to have visitation, but she didn't want court mandated joint custody. Also, since he is in the child's life now, I'd like to seem him pay any back child support owed, and start paying child support regularly. Since he wants the legal ties now, he should be responsible for the financial ones as well

Ms Cool said...

Thanks VIPBlonde for the extra info. These days, things are very muddled. So many blessings because of technology and societal changes but many complications. I am glad they are trying to clear things up now and I believe the mother should have custody as that was the previous arrangement and he should be allowed visitation.

KellyLynn said...

I agree that sperm donors shouldn't have custody rights. Donors should be required to sign away their custody rights as a matter of course. I can understand where the emotional complications come from, but the whole system shouldn't be changed because of this rare case. He shouldn't get any more rights than any other de facto dad, regardless of the DNA contribution.

Pogue Mahone said...

A sperm donor is just that, a sperm donor. He has no legal rights to the child, incl. child support, visitation or custody.

Xander Dyle said...

Jason Miller Gleason "Patric" is one of the biggest dillhole douche self-entitled losers to ever exist in the history of Hollywood; so it would be karma for him to finally not get something he whines for handed to him on a silver platter. But the little brat will probably get what he wants and leave more people back stabbed and lying in the dust.

Of course, I don't really know anything and this is just my alleged opinion. ;-)

But he is really short. Really. That is not an alleged opinion. That is a fact. :-/

Cathy said...

When he donated the sperm, it was very clear that he had no visitation/custody rights or financial obligations. So the fact that they got back together and he became attached to the child is akin to a man dating/marrying a single mother - unless he legally adopts the kid, he has no legal rights once they break up/divorce.

JSierra said...

In this case I think he should be allowed to see the child, but any other case, no way jose.

VIP thanks for that info, ITA with you that you can't have both worlds. You can't sign away your rights and not pay child support but continue to be a father figure in that childs life. That is cheating man, why do you get to avoid what so many are in debt or in huge legal trouble for?

Jules_345 said...

The fact that she is allowing for visitation but not custody changes my mind. It seems that the judge ruled the right way.

Agent**It said...

This was a unique situation that required judicial resolution :
http://news.yahoo.com/florida-judge-approves-birth-certificate-listing-three-parents-233555185.html

PuggleWug said...

When they got back together, did the kid call him dad? If the mother saw a father son bond forming, she should have shut it down, if she did not want him part of the child's life.

g.strathmore said...

Poor Jason.

Sherry said...

And Pogue to that effect should also NOT be required to pay support either.

dragon said...

if it was me I'll give him custody. The kid and da already bonded and if he is good man the why not?

Sherry said...

If she's requesting child support, given the facts that he supplied the sperm and a relationship with the child (who most likely called him daddy) then I can see why he would want visitation rights. Custody? Not so sure.

MISCH said...

Since he is not an unknown sperm donor he has rights, it's not a product she bought and paid for.

Single Man in Love with Love said...

The legal system is screwed up. I won't go any farther about how un fair the process is to men.

Topper Madison said...

Duh, you shouldn't have your ex-boyfriend's kid, nor should you let your ex-girlfriend have your sperm in order to have your (unwanted) kid. They're both morons. Poor kid.

MISCH said...

P.S. he could have had one of the biggest careers ever, he was with Julia Roberts didn't want to get married and then Christy Turlington again didn't want to get married...
He's a strange guy.

mikey said...

None of these scenarios end well. Stop playing with babies lives, it's not pretend babies. If you really want a baby get a totally anonymous donor and you don't have to worry about custody and you won't get money from him. You get the baby and isn't that what you wanted?

Gayeld said...

I used donor sperm for all three of my pregnancies (btw, it's totally fun picking your "baby daddy" out of the catalog. You can be so obnoxiously picky about it. *g*) My motto in live - "My house, my car , my kid." No custody battles, no split-weekends, no answering to anyone else on the decisions that you make for your child.

And I see her decision as totally wrong. Using someone you personally know as a donor? A little skivvy, but whatever. Letting the father back into the child's life and letting them build a relationship and a bond, then locking him out the kid's life? Unless he's abusing that child, that is an evil bitch move that will come back and bite her on the ass once that kid is old enough to realize what she did. He will hate her for it.

PuggleWug said...

I agree, Gayeld. Poor kid.

Maximus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Maximus said...

This is fine as long as she's not entitled to any child support. If she won't let him have anything to do with the child, he certainly shouldn't have to pay. Ultimately: Both of them are douchebags for not looking out for their kid.

Gayeld said...

@PuggleWug. One of the hardest things for my Mom after my parents divorced was to bite her tongue when it came to Dad (or when it came to John, for that matter,) but she knew that eventually we'd hate (or at least dislike) her for anything she said, true or not, when we were adults. And she was right, as an adult I have a lot more respect for how Mom handled it than how Dad did.

Of course, Dad wanted to fight over 8-track tapes and pot holders.

Layna Day said...

Gayeld, ITA with you. Why allow Patric to come back into her life and build a relationship in the first place?

If Patric hasn't been abusive toward her or the child, I don't see why he can't be in his/her life. Let him pay for the child's education and give him some visitation rights.

They muddied the waters badly on this one and as always, it's the child who will be hurt the most by it.

Xander Dyle said...

@MISCH
" he was with Julia Roberts didn't want to get married and then Christy Turlington again didn't want to get married... He's a strange guy."
Uhmmm, that would have required him to put another human being's wants and needs into consideration. That's not really his style.

B626 said...

I read he was going for 'full custody' which to me says power trip.Glad he was denied. Serves him right.

Ms Cool said...

@Xander - Can you tell us more?

Aqua Velvet said...

I don't think that people who use anonymous sperm banks should have access to the information. I do think that Jason Patric has the right to see his child and shared custody, even if he signed it away in the past. He may have signed his rights away under duress or while he was depressed.

Zeeky_Boogy_Doog said...

The Daily Mail story said the mom is happy to let Patric see and spend time with the kid; she just doesn't want it ordered by a judge.

jax said...

you do know kids aren't an object you posses right? you may be responsible for it until 18, but you do not own another human being.

Me said...

aww, this is sad. poor child has bonded with the man who IS his bio dad. mom will never explain why he's gone away. mean mommy!

Dandy said...

She may still let him see the child, but now she does not have to have his consent for schools, etc. She has more to say in his upbringing, which I think is right, given the fact that he did not want the child. If she is agreeable, he can still be the father's child emotionally.

She just does not have to involve him in her decisions. For example, she can marry and move away, unlike Hallie Berry.

Dandy said...

Also, in the past, at least, he has been a fierce alcoholic.

car54 said...

I think the day she let him form a relationship with the child she undid whatever document they signed.

I vote for the child and if the child is aware and knows this man as his father, then they should be allowed visitation if there is no known abuse or anything he's done wrong toward the child.

In terms of support--if he wants to have the perks of fatherhood--and he wants to parent the kid, then he should pay support.

You think many things before the child is a reality--but this is a person they are dealing with--and the way you relate to a parent impacts your entire life--to let the child bond and know they have a father then cut that person out --will only hurt the kid.

If she had stayed independent and raised the child alone with no contact--and Patric was trying now to get rights I would feel differently--but the mother is playing fast and loose with her kid now.

Henriette said...

I think one day this will have to be decided by the Supreme Court too. I had a colleague who did something similar. It was a HUGE mess.

3culprits said...

I met with attorneys in two different states regarding using a man I knew and respected as a sperm donor. Life circumstances meant that I had to deal with the reality of aging eggs and no committed relationship. A friend was willing. However, in both states what we wanted to do was impossible. The reason is simple: in each of the states we dealt with (Kansas was one), the child has independent rights to the love and support of each bio parent. When sperm donation is done privately, the state doesn't recognize the "donation" part. If, however, I wanted to pay for the sperm (via sperm bank), then all was well -- I would have all rights and responsibilities. Commerce trumps all. So the bottom line was that whether or not the donor and I signed a contract with whatever terms, it was irrelevant: I did not have the right to sign away support to the child; the child has an independent right to that support. It was a deal breaker for us.

Nyan said...

The saddest part of this story, and others like it is, the innocent child/chilren are the ones paying for the adults idiotic decisions. Sperm banks exist explicitly for anonymity, exes don't.

Picasso One said...

In this case it's different and should be treated like a regular couple who had children wether by IVF or naturally. Dad get's shared parenting rights.

Tina Mallette said...

I agree with car54, not sure what the law is but if the child has established a relationship with its biological father, once they got back together, seems to me the best interests of the child would be to treat it just like a couple that broke up and got back together.

I am sure there are couples that break up when the woman gets pregnant and the man comes around later and they get back together.

If you didn't want the father to be involved in this child's life you shouldn't have got back together with him or used anon sperm.