Printer-friendly version
Author:
Taxonomy upgrade extras:
This has to be one of the most bizarre cases I've ever read. Boyfriend didn't want children so used condoms. Girlfriend did so saved the sperm they contained, cryogenically preserved them, then at a later date defrosted the little wrigglers and had twins via IVF. Unsurprisingly, when the ex-boyfriend found out, he wasn't exactly pleased...
Ex-girlfriend hid sperm and used for in-vitro pregnancy: suit
Oh, and look at the page filename for the tabloid version of the headline...
Comments
Well... he probably didn't
Well... he probably didn't want children for some reason... It's his life and if she wanted children she should have chosen someone else.
I can understand that he feels betrayed. He never wanted children and now he has twins...
and she could have
But he is a manager of teleconumications or something like that. Think of the dollar signs that showed up in her eyes when she heard the title
got to wonder
Is this true. Fox news had the same story, word for word. But if it is, she's proven she's a gold digger by trying for commonlaw marriage after 6 months. Isn't that normally like 7 years to get a commonlaw marriage noticed
Edit: just loked it up and there is no time that you need to live together. But they would both have to agree. So that's where got denied, most likely. But she sure looks like a gold digger here.
I do not think common law marriage would work.
Common law marriage, in those states that still recognize it, and there are less and less all the time, seems to require a significant amount of time, and six months is not a 'significant amount. The couple must also present as man and wife to the world. See the section below the HHH for Wikipeidia's take on it.
********************************
The most she should be eligible for is child support.
But, if his story is true, I doubt she can even get that, as it was not his intention or accidental. If anything she used stolen property, even if, technically, it may not have been stolen. But if she took the condom from him, saying she would dispose of it, then it my book, it was taken without consent or from the trash, thus it was stolen.
I wonder if we will ever hear how this plays out, or if it will just disappear once its 15 minutes of fame is gone?
HHH
From Wikipedia:
The distinctions of a common-law marriage are following:
1. Common-law marriages are not licensed by government authorities, although they may be recorded in the public records of some governmental entities, but do not need to be registered at all.
2. Common-law marriages are not solemnized before witnesses in a wedding ceremony.
3. Cohabitation alone does not create a common-law marriage; the couple must hold themselves out to the world as spouses (Saskatchewan, Canada, excepted); and
1. There must be mutual consent of the parties to the relationship constituting a marriage (Saskatchewan excepted).
2. Both parties must be of legal age to enter into a marriage or have parental consent to marry.
3. Both parties must be otherwise qualified to enter into a marriage, including being unmarried (Saskatchewan excepted), of sound mind, and, in many states, not sentenced to or serving a term of life in prison.
4. In some jurisdictions, a couple must have cohabited and held themselves out to the world as spouses for a significant period of time, not defined in any state, for the marriage to be recognised as valid.[1] With the exception of Saskatchewan, Canada, no Western World legal jurisdiction is known to allow common law marriages to be created while one or more of the cohabitants are civilly married and not divorced.
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.
Holly
The comments on the posts page are a riot
They were blaming the guy for not having practiced Bible sex... ie, none till after marriage... and to have sex with an exotic dancer? Horrors?!
Wow,
Diana
The problem ISN'T that she stole the sperm
Hi Ben and all,
As I see it it wasn't that she took the sperm, which he had basically discarded, so in my opinion he has no claim to it. The problem is that she got him to financially support her and the children when he wasn't an active participant in creating the children. What was done with the sperm after he 'threw it away', and was quite sure she wasn't pregnant as a direct result of their having sex, wasn't his responsibility.
She is TOTALLY responsible for those children having been born, in my opinion.
That's the way I see it anyway.
with love,
Hope
with love,
Hope
Once in a while I bare my soul, more often my soles bear me.
Interestingly...
...if the fertility clinic hadn't bungled a set of paperwork four years after the fact, he probably wouldn't have found out about the deception...
It appears as though he's now suing the clinic and has joint custody over the twins. So there's certainly potential for more fireworks in future...
--B
As the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body, then only left-handers are in their right mind!
SHE was a TOTAL sleezeball
Not only did she sneak the sperm to the sperm bank and get the bank to fertilise her eggs, but then put the account in his name so that he would have to pay for it. In effect making him pay for his own being scammed by her.
with love,
Hope
Once in a while I bare my soul, more often my soles bear me.
This has a SCARY resemblance to some Magical stories
In some Magical stories there is a STRONG warning to people NOT to leave behind any excretions or hair or fingernail clippings because some magic users could do evil things to the person whose 'essence' they have caught.
with love,
Hope
Once in a while I bare my soul, more often my soles bear me.
Here's the sad part. Texas
Here's the sad part. Texas law, as written, gives fathers ZERO rights. Your only right is to be taken to the cleaners.
Basically, if you inseminate a female, the state will hold you responsible - even if she, six witnesses, her entire family, and the board of directors of your local fertility clinic all state in writing that you are not responsible for any offspring.
The state can, and has, override the woman's wishes, in order to make the 'man step up to his responsibility'. As the fertility clinic was in Texas, and the tests proved that he was the father, that's all she wrote. The best he could hope for from a Texas court would be custody.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
The stars at night are big and bright...
...and just so you don't go blaming Texas, the laws are similar if not nearly identical in many more states; perhaps a reaction to the predicaments of many children who live without any support from fathers?
As much as I find the laws to be 'unfair' in some ways, I'd rather the law erred on the side of caution here. I have three sisters-in-law who managed with great strength and character to raise their kids to adulthood without any help or significant contact from the fathers who chose to walk away, only to duplicate their behavior by siring other children elsewhere.
This particular case is really an anomaly among the many stories of children saddled with irresponsible parents, since both men AND women occasionally leave.
Dio vi benedica tutti
Con grande amore e di affetto
Andrea Lena
Love, Andrea Lena
It may not be that cut n' dry...
That's the key phrase ... and we all have heard how cases that appeared to be open and shut, had the door closed because of a technicality in the wording of the law.
Question is ... did he? He may have penetrated her during the act of sex, but he didn't 'inseminate' her.
According to the dictionary (specifically Dictionary.com) to 'inseminate' means to "inject semen into (the female reproductive tract); impregnate". Technically speaking, he didn't do that ... not with a condom ... and he claimed he always used one. It's further claimed that she used the condom(s) to collect his sperm. Thus, his sperm was never 'injected into the female reproductive tract' - as the dictionary defenition so elloquently puts it.
She took his sperm and had herself inseminated by the clinic after they were falsely lead to believe the couple were married. I'm no lawyer, but it sounds like his case and a good lawyer could poke a few holes in that Texas law.
PB
It's been a while since I
It's been a while since I dug into it, but as far as I remember, insemination isn't mentioned. It's one of those old laws that just never get changed. The father is responsible. Period. Most other states, as I recall, do have provisions for one party or the other to deny responsibility. "No harm, no foul" type laws. Note: I'm saying that the _state_ will file for child support, even if the mother doesn't ask for it, or even want it. As far as I'm concerned, that shouldn't happen.
It's almost a draft notice :)
The reason it's come up before is due to people (say, lesbians) asking for assistance in having a baby. They want the baby, they don't need the sperm donor, but because it's coming from someone who is upright, breathing, and traceable, the state wants their ass.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.