Friends with Benefits: Texas Man Who Donated Sperm to a Friend Has Parental Rights

One could argue that the Texas legislature should revisit its parentage laws to see whether the choices it made decades ago are still wise. But that is not relevant to the trial or appellate court, both of which made the right determination in this case. The cautionary tale, then, is for donors, mothers, and husbands everywhere: Bring a lawyer to every assisted conception.

Click to expand...

Celebrity said:

Ladies: how does it feel to be used for your biological function?

A Texas woman contracted a sperm donor without the use of a physician and then tried to excommunicate the child's father. According to the courts, the father retains paternal rights.



My criticism is not of this analysis. One should certainly exercise caution. However, for men to become fathers does not require "assisted conception." Therefore, my criticism is of the Texas legislature's dereliction of duty. It is unconscionable to not revisit the choices it made decades ago.

Men and women should not be forced to become unwilling parents. In a sense, men do not have the privileges that are extended to women according to Roe v Wade. This columnist's advice to women and men seeking to conceive is: bring a lawyer. However, men who wish to preserve their civil rights should not require a lawyer present any time they interact with a woman in a way which might empower that woman to conceive, whether it is artificial or natural insemination. I am not describing the existence or non-existence of any set of civil rights in present day society, but I am describing an abstract form of civility within a legal construct by which rights may or may not be extended to men and/or women.

There has been talk on the forum of requiring a notary public or a contract to permit a "financial abortion." I don't think that it should be necessary for only men to protect themselves with release forms and legal counsel, so as to not inconvenience women. The Texas woman in question thought that "my body, my choice" meant that she could completely disregard the donor's wishes to have a relationship with the child. For the purposes of this discussion, the difference between disregarding a sperm donor's wish to not become a father and disregarding a sperm donor's wish to become a father is a moot point (even though forced fatherhood is legal).

Please share your thoughts on either men or women disregarding each other's wishes, but do not feel compelled to write about both.

https://verdict.justia.com/2016/11/...exas-man-donated-sperm-friend-parental-rights

Click to expand...

Celebrity said:

Ladies: how does it feel to be used for your biological function?

A Texas woman contracted a sperm donor without the use of a physician and then tried to excommunicate the child's father. According to the courts, the father retains paternal rights.l]

Click to expand...

Bodhisattva said:

This harlot had the Church excommunicate this poor man?

Click to expand...

He wanted children of his own, but did not believe he would ever marry, so he said yes.

Click to expand...

Scrabaholic said:

The article didn't say what agreement they had but this



makes me think that he was expecting to be a part of the child's life from the get go.

I do not have an issue with this. There was no legal agreement in place.

Click to expand...

Celebrity said:

Ladies: how does it feel to be used for your biological function?

A Texas woman contracted a sperm donor without the use of a physician and then tried to excommunicate the child's father. According to the courts, the father retains paternal rights.



My criticism is not of this analysis. One should certainly exercise caution. However, for men to become fathers does not require "assisted conception." Therefore, my criticism is of the Texas legislature's dereliction of duty. It is unconscionable to not revisit the choices it made decades ago.

Men and women should not be forced to become unwilling parents. In a sense, men do not have the privileges that are extended to women according to Roe v Wade. This columnist's advice to women and men seeking to conceive is: bring a lawyer. However, men who wish to preserve their civil rights should not require a lawyer present any time they interact with a woman in a way which might empower that woman to conceive, whether it is artificial or natural insemination. I am not describing the existence or non-existence of any set of civil rights in present day society, but I am describing an abstract form of civility within a legal construct by which rights may or may not be extended to men and/or women.

There has been talk on the forum of requiring a notary public or a contract to permit a "financial abortion." I don't think that it should be necessary for only men to protect themselves with release forms and legal counsel, so as to not inconvenience women. The Texas woman in question thought that "my body, my choice" meant that she could completely disregard the donor's wishes to have a relationship with the child. For the purposes of this discussion, the difference between disregarding a sperm donor's wish to not become a father and disregarding a sperm donor's wish to become a father is a moot point (even though forced fatherhood is legal).

Please share your thoughts on either men or women disregarding each other's wishes, but do not feel compelled to write about both.

https://verdict.justia.com/2016/11/...exas-man-donated-sperm-friend-parental-rights

Click to expand...

Celebrity said:

This is why I'm not a lawyer, Bodi. I take too many poetic liberties. That sort of thing is enough to make judges squeamish. You're not my judge, are you?

Click to expand...

Celebrity said:

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "no legal agreement in place?"

Click to expand...

Scrabaholic said:

It doesn't look like they had anything in writing. If she did not want him to be a part of the child's life, she should have had a legal agreement drawn up by a lawyer and signed and notorized.

Click to expand...

Celebrity said:

This is why I'm not a lawyer, Bodi. I take too many poetic liberties. That sort of thing is enough to make judges squeamish. You're not my judge, are you?

Click to expand...

Henrin said:

It wouldn't have mattered since the state won't respect any such arrangement.

Click to expand...

Removable Mind said:

I still believe that ultimately this is the best possible choice for men's rights groups to pursue.

Click to expand...

Henrin said:

It wouldn't have mattered since the state won't respect any such arrangement.

Click to expand...

Scrabaholic said:

So, people who use sperm banks can go after the donor for child support?

Click to expand...

Henrin said:

The government sees sperm banks as different than the kind of arrangement in the OP. Just sleeping with a guy and then arranging a contract to free him of parental rights/child support won't work.

Click to expand...

Scrabaholic said:

Then perhaps men should not enter into such a contract and/or campaign to change the law.

I notice you aren't whining about the man in the OP getting parental rights.......

Click to expand...

Celebrity said:

Anyone over 50, especially a barren woman, who is trying to exercise some form of control over reproduction may try to do so by forcing younger men or women to produce children in order to become grandparents. Think of it this way: a man alone cannot get pregnant, like a parent alone cannot become a grandparent. Forcing women to give birth is not unlike parents forcing their children to become parents. But in what sense is it ok for any other person to force other people's children to become parents?

The best possible choice is not to ignore the fact that this type of abusive relationship does exist, and when it is done to parents of living children it is no less manipulative than when it is done to pregnant women.

Click to expand...

Celebrity said:

Anyone over 50, especially a barren woman, who is trying to exercise some form of control over reproduction may try to do so by forcing younger men or women to produce children in order to become grandparents. Think of it this way: a man alone cannot get pregnant, like a parent alone cannot become a grandparent. Forcing women to give birth is not unlike parents forcing their children to become parents. But in what sense is it ok for any other person to force other people's children to become parents?

The best possible choice is not to ignore the fact that this type of abusive relationship does exist, and when it is done to parents of living children it is no less manipulative than when it is done to pregnant women.

Click to expand...

year2late said:

Barren women over 50 trying to exercise control over reproduction?

#1 not a lot women over 50 getting pregnant and many that do are getting help with IVF. So not sure what this little conspiracy theory is about this time.
#2 barren women forcing younger men and women to reproduce to become grandparents? WTH? A barren women over 50 wanting grandchildren - this is the cherry on the top of your WTH sundae - which is sprinkled with a massive truckload of nuts.

Click to expand...

Celebrity said:

I think it's pretty obvious that I was describing barren women exercising control over other people's reproduction. Perhaps you are the one who believes there is a conspiracy of only men forcing women to become pregnant. Actually I think that would be nuts. But it doesn't surprise me, coming from a chauvinist like yourself who can't accept that it is wrong to force fatherhood.

Click to expand...

Removable Mind said:

Don't know how you arrived at the above from my post about contracts.

Celeb, with all due respect, continuing to post every imaginable situation in which women can **** over men are simply displays of you being eternally stuck in the reproductive/child support legal dilemmas that you emphatically attribute to the fault of women...which is, in my opinion, being extremely myopic, given the number of players involved in controlling issues like reproductive rights, abortion, and who's responsible for children born - wanted or unwanted.

Nothing in my suggestion about using contracts as a solution (or a partial solution) alluded to anybody forcing anybody to do anything.

The contract that I am talking about would be an irrevocable, mutually agreed upon pre-sex set of conditions, which includes, but isn't limited, to waivers regarding responsibilities of both the man and woman should an unwanted pregnancy occur once a sexual relationship begins.

Yes, there are obstacles.

This type of contract is adversarial to public policy. Yet, in my opinion, it is indeed the path of least resistance when considering the current Constitutional, Legislative, and State fiscal statutory obstacles that now make demands on men’s obligations in their reproductive roles/responsibilities and ultimately parenting roles.

In addition to allowing such contracts to be legal instruments, it should also be a mandated obligation of government(s) to appropriate funding, which will be aimed at finding medical contraceptive solutions that are long-lasting technologies for both women and men, which are effective and safe. But equally important, if not more important "very, very easy access" to these technologies on a global scale - and for free if necessary.

Click to expand...

year2late said:

You stated barren women over 50. How many of them can even get pregnant? How many of them want to. After 35yo it is high risk territory (for mother and fetus). You really think 50 year old barren women are out to get you and force fatherhood on you?

It almost would make sense if you spoke of childless women in their late 30's. But 50? Seriously? Wth?

Click to expand...

Celebrity said:

The fact is, year2late, many people stand less of a chance to reproduce the older they get. We know that men are generally capable of reproducing for a long time. Is it likely that a man of 120 will reproduce? A man of 100? What about a man of 80? I'm not saying that old people are lifeless husks walking around not doing anything productive for society. For a 90 year old man to reproduce is quite a rare feat. What I'm saying is that by selectively forcing men to become patrons for women who are mothers, we are diminishing the likelihood that they will be able to ever reproduce again. If I am a support obligor, I'm not getting any younger, and I know prisoners don't have the right to reproduce. Therefore in order for me to enjoy the liberty of having any kind of family at all, I must pay the government. I'm not paying the government because I have any kind of social family structure. The remote chance of that happening in the future is contingent upon my payment.

That is probably part of what motivated this man to establish paternity. I don't know the details of the case. What we know is that the state of Texas, or any other state for that matter, can demand child support at any time. Regardless of prior arrangements between the two parties, it's supposedly the welfare of the child that we're talking about when a woman becomes entitled to a man's money.* It's likely that he knows men do not have the same liberty as women, even if they made a sperm donation instead of having sex. It's not necessarily the case that he's only protecting his bottom dollar. I'd like to think that any man who establishes paternity by choice wants to be a father, and any man who does not establish paternity by choice does not want to be a father. We may never know, because men do not have a choice.

But you seem to be stuck on the number 50. I specifically chose this age as a threshold because I intended to describe a group of people who are not fit to bear children. I am not backing it up with statistics, I am simply indicating a group of people who cannot make children by alluding to sterility as a result of age. I am confident that you could present some kind of diagram if necessary to substantiate your claim about high risk territory, however I am not debating that. Refer to my analogy in post 13 about people who cannot make children without a pregnancy. Infertile women cannot be related to newborn children without fertile women who endure pregnancy like men cannot make children without fertile women. I find it intriguing that grandparents can have parental rights if their children become parents as minors. That's a lot of responsibility. Apparently for some, it's also a privilege, i.e. the sperm donor in Texas.


*This is what's called pimping. It's exploitative when one person feels entitled to another person's money in this way. We may be talking about the welfare of the child, but the welfare of the support obligor is also at stake. Do not ignore the welfare of the support obligor.

Click to expand...

Celebrity said:

In a system in which men are held responsible to a fault, and women are not, I believe it is clear that women are not doing their part. However, it is myopic to continue to claim that the best possible choice is to either continue forcing men to become fathers or to continue forcing men out of fatherhood. Alleviating one symptom of the same disease is not a cure. Both problems should be addressed.

What I still cannot understand is why it is necessary for anyone to contract their liberty with the federal government in any capacity less than that which is outlined in the Constitution. Does a woman need a contract to perform an abortion? No, she is at liberty to do that herself according to her own personal autonomy.

This woman from Texas is not performing an abortion, she is raising a child. If it came down to only personal autonomy, then she could independently raise the child and he could also share responsibility. But it is not possible for these mutually exclusive courses to coincide. Therefore a compromise must be made according to each party's parental rights in accordance with the law.

In contrast to the logically intractable disaster of simultaneously sharing and not sharing custody, it does not make sense to compromise either a woman or a man's rights to their own personal liberty. I honestly don't know why I have to keep explaining this, because it's a very basic American principle. The law should be concerned, i.e. in a custody battle, but the law should not entitle one person to exercise control exclusively over another person's life, when there exists no overlap in the life of the child. This is the case for both parties when an abortion takes place, there is no life by which any overlap could exist, and hence no control is exercised over the other person's life. This should also be the case for both parties when one party declines to participate in the upbringing of the child. A very clear indicator of this type of relationship is one one parent is not part of the child's family, although the child is part of both parents' families.

Some people have expressed in this thread that they have no problem with custody being arranged for the father. The real problem is when custody is not only not arranged, but it is arranged for there to be no relationship of any kind with the child. This is not possible according to law which forces men to be fathers. That is why I mentioned the example of older men and women and their desire to force men to become fathers. These are the people who wrote the laws arranging custody for families with children in Texas under amicable dissolution as well as blood relatives. Why is it that they only arranged for custody, and an option for women to defect on that charge? Because they wanted men to be under custodial contract, or else be taken into the custody of the state.

Click to expand...