Thread: CSA gone mad
View Single Post
Old 12-04-2011, 09:44   #7
Sparkle
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Open Prison, H.M.United Kingdom
Posts: 1,037
Sparkle is the helpful oneSparkle is the helpful oneSparkle is the helpful oneSparkle is the helpful oneSparkle is the helpful oneSparkle is the helpful oneSparkle is the helpful oneSparkle is the helpful oneSparkle is the helpful oneSparkle is the helpful oneSparkle is the helpful oneSparkle is the helpful oneSparkle is the helpful oneSparkle is the helpful oneSparkle is the helpful oneSparkle is the helpful oneSparkle is the helpful one
Re: CSA gone mad
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L View Post
I suppose the question with this case is, does she have the right to change her mind about giving the baby to the couple.
I think that indeed is the question.
Personally, I don't think she should have the right to change her mind unless she's prepared to have an abortion. She's only carrying this man's baby because of a promise she made, and by reneging that promise has dragged an unsuspecting father-to-be into fatherhood with a strange woman instead of his wife. Talk about a dream turning into a nightmare !

Any woman can walk into a sperm bank and the sperm donor isn't held liable, even though he's the biological father.
If a man wants to be a dad he has no choice but to find a surrogate mother and pay a fortune in the process. Hardly fair. I bet if it were the other way around, and it were men who carried the child, women would be able to apply for government grant(s) to pay for a surrogate dad to carry the child ! Oh, and any promise made would be legally binding too !

I think the whole situation is a mess. Any agreement should be legally binding, imo. When was the last time you heard about a dad who donated to a sperm bank, suddenly changing his mind and then gaining custody of the child? Even in cases when the child would've been better off, and if the dad wanted custody - it doesn't happen. So I don't really see why it should be different for the surrogate mother.

Also, it shouldn't be so one sided. It takes two to make a baby, and a woman isn't more entitled to be a mum is than a man is to be a dad.
So, either get rid of the sperm banks or levy an extra fee on them to subsidise the cost for dads to pay for a surrogate mother.

---------- Post added at 10:44 ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 ----------

Not all bad on the DM comments:
Quote:
He has fathered a child, a child he has now deserted and refuses to take responsibility for.Thank God the CSA at least means he cannot avoid his financial responsibilities. - storygirl, hexham Northumberland, 12/4/2011 09:30 --------------------------- Where in the land of all that is good and wholesome did you get that from??!? He fathered a child with a surrogate female, who was suppose to hand the child over to the man and his partner but instead decided to keep the child. Having received nearly £5,000 already, she is now to receive over £500 per month in child maintenance from the man for the chiild's upkeep, when in fact the child should be with the man and his partner. It's unfair, very unfair, I'm bemused as to how the judge can give such a decision. Which part of the article was you reading?!
- Joseph Felts, London, England, 12/4/2011 10:08
Click to rate Rating 27
Joseph Felts said it pretty well. I'm curious as to what on earth is going through Storygirl's mind?
Sparkle is offline   Reply With Quote