A woman scorned...

Gee. Greed from someone who wants to have their cake (be gay) and eat it too (still have kids). Who ever would have seen that coming.
 
Lesbians in donor dad row
Sperm donor Andy Bathie, 37, agreed to assist Sharon and Terri Arnold with having children.


A SPERM donor who helped a lesbian pal and her lover have babies is being forced to pay child maintenance.

Fireman Andy Bathie, 37, claims that it was agreed his role would end once he gave sperm.

Civil partners Terri and Sharon Arnold left his name off the two tots’ birth certificates.

But when the couple split the Child Support Agency tracked down Andy to demand £425 a month for the girl, four, and boy, two.

Now newly-married Andy, from Enfield, North London, has launched a landmark legal challenge so he is not recognised as a legal parent. He said: “It’s crippling me financially. These women wanted to be parents and take on all the responsibilities.

“Now I can’t afford to have children with my own wife.”

But Terri — who impregnated herself with Andy’s sperm at home — last night insisted he SHOULD be paying maintenance because he kept regular contact with the girl and bought her presents.

The 25-year-old, of Clacton-on-Sea, Essex, said: “He saw her roughly once a month, picking her up on Saturday and dropping her back on the Sunday. He was uncle Andy then it became daddy. He wanted the responsibility to be the father.”

She claimed Andy suddenly stopped seeing the kids, and added: "You can’t play at being a dad for two years and then just leave.”

But Ms Arnold today admitted the initial arrangement was for him just to be a donor.

She said: "I will openly admit to that, but it was him that changed his mind. He wanted to be involved, he wanted to be a dad. Who was I to stop him?

"At the end of the day, I believed it would be beneficial for my children to have their father involved. He wanted that responsibility."

But Andy hit back, saying he was asked to “babysit” the children, including two others from Sharon’s first marriage. He said: “Terri wants to live off benefits while I work.”

Ms Arnold said today: "At the end of the day, he walked away. He knew full well. It is not like the CSA contacted him out of the blue.

"My son was diagnosed with a disability after he was born. He was still seeing my daughter on a regular basis. I couldn't return to work because of my son being in hospital so much.

"I was then informed by the CSA that if I did not give the father's details then my income support would be cut down, and I wouldn't be able to afford to live."

The CSA said that both the biological parents “remain financially responsible” unless a child is legally adopted.

But anonymous sperm donors at licensed centres are exempt.
Click to expand...

Source

I guess it's the thing to do now, isn't it?
 
The common thread here is that the sperm donors wanted to be daddy for a while, then suddenly weren't anymore. That complicates things.
 
Professur said:
Gee. Greed from someone who wants to have their cake (be gay) and eat it too (still have kids). Who ever would have seen that coming.
Click to expand...

Wants to be gay? Does that mean you could make yourself attracted to men right now with just a little effort? So you could get ridiculed and have bigots deny you rights and so forth?

Try it! Let me know how that works out.
 
BeardofPants said:
Yep, takes 'em beyond the role of 'mere' sperm doner.
Click to expand...

Looks like you missed this part...

These women wanted to be parents and take on all the responsibilities.
Click to expand...

When it was no longer convenient to be parents is when they hit this guy up for support. If they'd have done so from the beginning, you'd have something, but, now that they (the lesbian couple) split up, suddenly they need the man to provide. Sorry. I'm not buying it. To be fair, though, the other lesbian in that relationship should be forced to pay 3/4 of the support. After all...wasn't she there most of the time in the 'father' role?
 
I ain't touching this one other than to say, I get labled (unfairly and incorrectly, because I am very much an independant who votes democrat most of the time because sometimes I try to believe it's better than politcal apathy) politically a lot here, but I am almost a nazi when you get me on the subject of lawyers. I am anti death penalty except for lawyers, and to me passing the bar should in some cases be a capiltal offense....

Civil law in this nation needs a complete overhaul....

That story is a slippery slope leading to a cliff, with nasty jagged rocks at the bottom, unless you are a trial lawyer....

Or a greedy bitch capable of plopping one out....

But it's not misogyny, most women aren't, but man....

Stuff like that can really make me think I wish I had a sexual off switch....
 
Gonz said:
What rights are bering denied them?
Click to expand...

Professur doesn't seem to think they should be able to raise children for starters. Then there's being able to marry who they want, the military, etc.

You're not really oblivious to this stuff are you?
 
Why are you arguing my points against Gonz? Focus, Spike. I'm over here. And yes, I do believe that most gays today 'choose' their orientation. And as for choosing to be the subject of scorn and ridicule ..... son, take a look around you. Being scorned is today's Power of the People. Everyone wants to be 'different' just like everyone else. Look at the way the sheep dress, for Pete's sake.


You want to suggest it's not a choice? Then please explain to me why 'marriage' is so important to them? Why 'civil union' wasn't good enough? Go ahead, I could use a good laugh today. Everything is choice, Spike. Everything. To suggest otherwise is on invalidate your own constitution, which demands that people have the right to choose.


If it's not a choice, then by definition, it must be an illness. Perhaps even a genetic failing. Perhaps an evolutionary trigger to end a gene line. That would explain why there are so many all of a sudden, wouldn't it? After all, you've got all those hospitals saving all those people who, by nature, should have died out long since.
 
Professur said:
Why are you arguing my points against Gonz?
Click to expand...

Gonz replied before you. So I replied to him. What's the problem exactly?

And yes, I do believe that most gays today 'choose' their orientation.
Click to expand...

Great, that means that you could choose to be sexually attracted to men right now. Go ahead. Tell me how that works out for you.

And as for choosing to be the subject of scorn and ridicule ..... son, take a look around you. Being scorned is today's Power of the People. Everyone wants to be 'different' just like everyone else. Look at the way the sheep dress, for Pete's sake.
Click to expand...

How do the sheep dress? Jeans and a polo shirt?

You want to suggest it's not a choice? Then please explain to me why 'marriage' is so important to them? Why 'civil union' wasn't good enough?
Click to expand...

Why is 'civil union' not good enough for heterosexuals?

Everything is choice, Spike. Everything. To suggest otherwise is on invalidate your own constitution, which demands that people have the right to choose.
Click to expand...

Extremely flawed logic. Everything is a choice? Do people choose to be asian, have blue eyes, their height, etc?

If it's not a choice, then by definition, it must be an illness. Perhaps even a genetic failing.
Click to expand...

More flawed logic. Being asian is not a choice. Is it defined as an illness? No.
 
The problem is you're expecting him to justify my statements.

You want to talk about flawed logic? How, exactly, do you figure that I could choose such a thing, when I've already stated a distaste for it? Spike, try and follow this: Someone chooses to BASE jump. I've got no head for heights. Does that mean that the BASE jumper didn't choose?


Play stupid, Spike. Go right ahead. I've got kids. They're better at it than you.

Civil Union not for heteros? Really? Unc, Tonks, you guys really gay then? Bish? you and yours gay too?

The last two I'm not even going to bother with. Once again, you're reaching well outside of the argument trying to drag it onto some other ground, and once again ... I'm not following. The topic was gays and children. I'm willing to stretch it to cover gay asians. You find me a blue eyed, dwarf asian fagot and I'll wager his odds of continuing his genetic line is pretty slim too.
 
Professur said:
The problem is you're expecting him to justify my statements.
Click to expand...

Nope, never happened.

You want to talk about flawed logic? How, exactly, do you figure that I could choose such a thing, when I've already stated a distaste for it?
Click to expand...

I don't figure you could choose such a thing. Neither could I. Doesn't really support that choice theory does it?

Spike, try and follow this: Someone chooses to BASE jump. I've got no head for heights. Does that mean that the BASE jumper didn't choose?
Click to expand...

Why don't you just choose to have a head for heights then?

Play stupid, Spike. Go right ahead. I've got kids. They're better at it than you.
Click to expand...

Hopefully they are able to recognize reason better than you do.

Civil Union not for heteros? Really? Unc, Tonks, you guys really gay then? Bish? you and yours gay too?
Click to expand...

What are you saying Bish, Unc, and Tonks had civil union ceremonies? Does that mean that heteros don't need marriage and nobody should be able to get married?

The last two I'm not even going to bother with.
Click to expand...

Of course not. Flawed logic is too hard to defend.

You find me a blue eyed, dwarf asian fagot and I'll wager his odds of continuing his genetic line is pretty slim too.
Click to expand...

Where did i talk about continuing genetic lines. You're trying to stretch the argument.
 
civil marriage should be open to everyone, religious marriage, that can be controlled by the church temple etc.
 
spike said:
Where did i talk about continuing genetic lines. You're trying to stretch the argument.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

I was talking about it. That was, in fact, the crux of my post. No stretch required. You entered the conversation, quoting me. If that's not what you were talking about, then why the fuck were you even talking to me in the first place?
 
Professur said:
*sigh*

I was talking about it. That was, in fact, the crux of my post. No stretch required. You entered the conversation, quoting me.
Click to expand...

I in fact was addressing the "wants to be gay" part of your post from the start if you go back and look. You were even addressing it until you're logic fell apart.

But if you want to focus on genetics now the odds of continuing the line are pretty good for the person in the article. You know since two kids were already born and everything.

So where is your point now?
 
After all, marriage has been so irrational, up until the homosexuals decided to play politics.

There is no law or code stopping homosexuals from marrying.

There are limits on whom one may marry-of any sexual persuasion.
 
Gonz said:
After all, marriage has been so irrational, up until the homosexuals decided to play politics.

There is no law or code stopping homosexuals from marrying.

There are limits on whom one may marry-of any sexual persuasion.
Click to expand...

Hey Gonz, we won't stop you from voting. As long as it's for a Democrat. :laugh:

That wouldn't be stepping on your rights would it now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top