A judge in Oklahoma has ruled that a sperm donor should have custody of a child that was being raised by a lesbian couple. Quick background of the case: A woman made an agreement with a man for that man to be a sperm donor so the woman could have a baby. The agreement did not say anything about another woman. About 8 months later, the woman entered a lesbian marriage with another woman. She was already 6 months pregnant at the time of the marriage. When the child was born, both women's names were placed on the child's birth certificate. The two women raised the boy together for more than two years before the end of their marriage. The first woman (the biological mother) then entered a relationship with and moved in with another man, and got a Victim Protective Order against the second woman. The biological mother wanted to raise the child in a new family, and didn't want her former partner involved the child's life. The two together (man and biological mother) were now seeking legal status as the child's parents. So basically there is the biological mother, but also three other people contending for the custody rights over the child - the sperm donor, the lesbian woman had been part of the child's family and raised the child as a baby, and then the new man that the biological mother wanted to enter into a family relationship with. The judge said that one of the factors in his decision was that the other woman did not legally adopt the child. "I can tell you that that brings a lot of anger and emotion on me," a Miss Williams tearfully told a reporter. The lesbian former parent is now trying to appeal the case to the state's Supreme Court. Her argument is that same-sex couples shouldn't have to adopt their own kids to be granted parental rights, since that is not required of men who are part of heterosexual couples. Court orders mother to hand custody of son to sperm donor, The Independent, Gustaf Kilander, February 2023
sounds like if was not a legal contract with the sperm donor, this is why legal contracts are so important you never know when a sperm donor or a surrogate mother will change their minds, get a lawyer to draw up the contracts or risk this nonsense will this women have to pay the man child support
now if she was married to a man, and the child turned out not to be his, would he have to pay child support to the women as he was the husband
"Legal contracts" don't really apply to children. You can't buy and sell children like ordinary property. Unfortunately yes. In most legal jurisdictions court precedent is clear on this. Men's rights activists are trying to work to change this.
"Unfortunately yes. In most legal jurisdictions, court precedent is clear on this." "Men's rights activists are trying to work to change this." so it seems the judge's bias is showing here then...
yes, and there are contracts for sperm donor fathers and a surrogate mother to prevent just this from happening the woman obviously trusted this man, she was wrong to do so it sounds like
Not necessarily. Child support obligations are a different thing from child custody. One of them people want and are fighting over to get, and the other people are trying to avoid. It is nevertheless an interesting similarity to compare the two. Let's say there were not two other people fighting over and trying to get legal custody of the child, and that this lesbian woman now did not want the child she had helped to raise, a child whom she had placed her name on the birth certificate. It's likely the judge would have ruled she would be on the hook to pay child support. Bad things are easy to get when you don't want them; good things are hard to get when you do want them.
I think you have pointed out something interesting, a seeming paradox that exists. Suppose this were a man in a relationship, he got together in a relationship with a woman who got pregnant from another man's sperm, and he signed his name on the birth certificate. If he separated, he would be on the hook for child support. So a person is obligated to have to pay child support, but in that same exact situation they are not entitled to be able to claim custody of the child. It's interesting. It seems like the person who is in that position is treated kind of like a second class citizen. Such a person has the obligations, if no one else wants that child, but not the rights, if those other people are trying to get custody that child.
They should all just go on Jerry Springer and fight about it. It would probably be a little less confusing that way.
"When the child was born, both women's names were placed on the child's birth certificate." if she was a man, this would not of happened, no one would have talked about adopting the child, they would have said they were married at birth and his name was on the birth certificate and the women always gets custody, especially if she already had custody - so why did the judge give the sperm donor custody in this case?
if any man could say they wanted to be a sperm donor, then collect child support and take the child, it would happen more often then it does
Just to clarify in case it was not clear, the man who is the sperm donor has been awarded joint custody of the child with the biological mother.
from the article “Show me where the case law says that gay people have to adopt their own children?” the lawyer asked. “Why do gay people have to have a home study and a background check to adopt their own children and pay upwards of a couple thousand dollars and go to court to make it official? If a father abandons his child, or dies, and mom gets married, the step-dad needs to adopt the child in order to have full parental rights. This is no different. The woman knew the law and admittedly didn't chose to do the right thing