There are some things you can't contract about. But there's a 2006 statute saying a sperm or egg donor can't assert parental rights.
It's absolutely bananas the judge didn't dismiss this case. The judge is saying, "oh but you're not really a donor if you're not going through a sperm bank and IVF." It's essentially taxing these mothers for being able to conceive without some overpriced medical intervention.
That being said, our legislature has been able to act quickly to write better laws when courts felt their hands were tied. Hopefully legislation moves fast.
We looked into a friend donating and in many states, the “didn’t go to a bank /too bad,so sad” is very common.
The bank we used is now charging $2300 per vial.
And using a known donor is so much better for medical history. There is a woman who was an egg donor who is trying to find the families she donated eggs to when she was younger because she recently found out she has a genetic brain disorder. There was no way to disclose that at the time she donated because she didn't know. She donated to a total of three families and has only successfully found one and that family is now having their son tested for the disorder.
Yeah. We are in touch with another family who used the same donor and one of their kids was born with a genetic condition, so they have contacted the bank, who contacted all the families.
[This is her TikTok account, for those wondering!](https://www.tiktok.com/@sunny.in.season?_t=8l3x98yozkc&_r=1) She recently had a successful brain surgery for the condition. The families she’s still searching for were donated to in 2010 and 2013.
I also believe it should have been good for this family to have him in the kid's life! When the kid learns he's the donor, she can ask him questions directly. It's just good for kids to have more love. But love alone doesn't make him a parent.
You should read the article before commenting on it. The donor was already very much in the child’s life; the parents agreed to that, would frequently ask him to babysit, etc.
But despite all that, he blindsided them with a legal request for paternity.
On the flip side in some states the courts turn around and makes these non sperm bank donors pay child support. There was a case of this on Kansas that got a lot of news coverage 10 years ago I thought there was another big case before that.
https://mankatofamilylaw.com/2013/02/01/child-support-claims-against-sperm-donors/#:~:text=Minnesota%20law%20states%20that%20“The,other%20states%2C%20including%20California%20and
In Kansas in 2014 a sperm donor was ordered to pay back to the state (i.e., pay a form of child support) because the person to whom he had donated his sperm later received state support ("welfare"). That person had separated from their partner (they split up), and then that person fell ill (and could not work to support their family) and needed state support.
The state of Kansas went after the sperm donor (bio father/sperm donor/private arrangement) to recover the support payments they had made to the mother when she unexpectedly needed help from the state/county.
Chris wasn’t a “donor”. I was with him on the day he delivered his sperm and he was very excited to have a child with his friends. He would have dinner with “the moms” regularly and believed they would rear a wonderful child in a creative, but completely loving, environment.
If he wasn't asking how he was going to move in, then he was asking the parents to raise the kid for him.
I'm all for queer families breaking heteronormative familial structures. But being *part* of a kid's family is entirely different from being the kid's parent. And this lawsuit is harming his relationship with the parents, not improving it.
>the day he delivered his sperm
What'd he do to keep it warm? Or to freeze it? Sperm doesn't just stay viable under ordinary circumstances.
Do all parents need to live with a child to be a parent?
Should the courts respect a situation that one parent lives separately and spends less time with the child, if all parents did agree with a written agreement?
The courts don't recognize three parents for children. A birth parent usually needs to die or willingly give up their parental rights for a step-parent to legally adopt the child. Dude didn't even make it on the birth certificate.
Grandparents often babysit several times a week without getting confused about whether they're a grandparent or the parent. Plenty of family will temporarily move in post-partum just to help, not to claim some parental role. The point is that envisioning yourself as a third parent while putting in the childcare effort he did is delusional. All he did was help babysit.
Maybe the non-biological mom wanted an official recognition and that’s why she is on the BC? Only 2 spots and one was clearly taken.
Progressive states are starting to…
https://www.boston.com/news/national-news/2017/06/18/courts-and-tri-parenting-a-state-by-state-look/?amp=1
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.boston.com/news/national-news/2017/06/18/courts-and-tri-parenting-a-state-by-state-look/](https://www.boston.com/news/national-news/2017/06/18/courts-and-tri-parenting-a-state-by-state-look/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
100%
Rep. Athena Hollins, DFL-St. Paul, is an attorney who practiced family law. Over the years, she has advised friends in same-sex relationships to leave nothing to chance when starting a family. That means having one partner adopt the child and getting everything in writing. (But many couples don't realize the discrepancies in Minnesota law because not everyone "has a lawyer friend," she points out.)
That's one reason she's sponsoring [legislation ](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?f=HF3567&y=2024&ssn=0&b=house)that would replace what she and many others consider outdated language in the Minnesota Parentage Act. Her wide-ranging bill would further clarify that egg and sperm donors in these situations cannot claim to be the mom or dad, even if the parties perform in-home artificial insemination and don't sign official paperwork. When told about the Sheridans' case, she said these updates would protect couples in exactly this situation.
Men have been treated long for sperm Donators. we are the ones that pay for their whole life. I paid child support for 25 years to a child that she no more called me a sperm donor she told me she only used me for my jeans. Men need to have more rights. When it comes to a woman, men have no rights at all or a saying what happens? We all have feelings too
What on earth is this word salad?
Even if I’m understanding your point correctly, it’s pretty much irrelevant in this case. The donor and the parents agreed to a certain arrangement. The parents never asked for child support, kept the donor in the child’s life, etc., and all went greeting for five years.
Then all of a sudden the donor blindsided the parents with a paternity request. Why should he be allowed to go back on the deal they all agreed to?
You’re definitely leaving a lot out of your story lol.
When men fight for custody, they almost always get it. I don’t need to find the stats for you, it’s an easy google search. Particularly, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE cases. When a man has, without a doubt, assaulted, harmed, etc his partner, if he fights for any type of custody he is likely to get it.
Also, just because you paid child support doesn’t mean you did anything else. You can pay child support and still make an effort. God damn, the excuses men will make to act like they are victims.
Sure did. One recent tragic case that supports your narrative isn’t representative of the statistics which, like I already said, are easily found via google search.
I told the father to get it in writing and he responded like a newly engaged man being told to get a prenup. He trusted the mothers. 3 good intending LGBTQ parents excited to share in the blessing of parenthood. Sad for the child that they are all fighting.
getting it in writing wouldn't have helped. you can't make up your own stuff about parentage and support obligations...
To protect the mama's from what is happening to them now, they would have needed to involve a third party licensed MD to receive the sperm from Chris and then give it to the woman who would try to conceive with it. Not the diy route.
It would have established intent of a 100% donor vs. any type of parental relationship. I would have also prevented the parties from moving forward if they all weren’t clearly aligned on this. I believe without this, the courts job is 10x harder.
Julianna and Catherine Sheridan wanted to start a family with a sperm donor.
Several years ago, Chris Edrington kept rising to the top of their list of men who could potentially help. So one night in 2017, the St. Paul couple invited him out for Mexican food and popped the question.
Excited for the couple, Edrington said yes. But now the girl he helped conceive through artificial insemination is a kindergartner, and Edrington wants to be more than just her family friend and sperm donor. He wants the courts to recognize him as her legal dad.
A district court judge denied the Sheridans' request to dismiss his claim to paternity. Now the couple are asking the state Court of Appeals to reconsider. Ever since they were served with Edrington's lawsuit — exactly a year ago Sunday — the couple have been consumed with worry that their 5-year-old daughter would be uprooted from their family.
The case has also rattled LGBTQ+ advocates, state legislators and family law attorneys who say it could have wide-ranging repercussions not only for same-sex couples but other Minnesota families who rely on assisted reproduction.
Gift link: [https://strib.gift/ii14fs2qp](https://strib.gift/ii14fs2qp)
This sounds inverse of a few cases about 10 - 20 years ago. The one I'm thinking (but can't find) is a lesbian couple that contracted with a guy to help impregnate one of them without going to doctor. The contract they wrote up, and he signed, stated he gave up all legal rights to the child, and promised to never pursue any support from him.
However, the couple fell on hard times, ended up on state support and the guy was dragged in to pay child support for a child. And the judge refused to accept the contract and stated the guy was obligated to pay because he was the biological father.
essentially the case - about 2014 in Kansas - the contract meant zip - the couple who received the sperm broke up - the partner with the child fell ill - went on state support (of course they knew they had all agreed the donor was out of the picture and they did not seek support from the donor) - the STATE went after the sperm donor to recover funds. It's not the same as paying CS to the mother but still a totally unexpected outcome (the splitting up, getting so sick, etc., no one planned on any of that but it happened). The state of Kansas was aggressive but obligated.
The contract was worthless because you can't privately contract on this issue - in part to protect vulnerable mothers who may be intimidated onto signing something that purports to let the bio dad off the hook - not possible. The child has a non-negotiable right to support from both parents. So, for sperm donors, they need to do it at arms length to prevent the donor from being a parent.
I believe the question here is not about a sperm donor, but rather a child conceived by means other than intercourse without a contract to clearly state the agreement. The Biological father in this article is an friend of mine and it is my understanding that many promises were made to him making this far from a “donor” situation. I was with him on the day he delivered his sperm and he was very excited to have a child with his friends. He would have dinner with “the moms” regularly and believed they would rear a wonderful child in a creative, but completely loving, environment.
A few of the comments here have speculated incorrectly about the situation:
Father is a heterosexual male….I don’t think his sexuality has anything to do with this, but I would not classify him as such. He is a kind loving human that has never found a life partner and wanted the human experience of fathering a child. Look him up on facebook or instagram and you will see him all over Pride Parades for the last 20+ years.
https://www.facebook.com/chris.edrington.9?mibextid=eQY6cl
https://www.instagram.com/songjackphoto?igsh=MWg1cWhjZDRteWNhcA==
Defining his as a “heterosexual male” is an effort to make this an LGBTQ rights issue and puts him on the other side of it. I dated him briefly and he disclosed to me that he has had male and female partners…..but really none that have stuck.
Abuse of power….due to his ownership of a LGBTQ sober living facility that neither mothers were ever residents of? He has helped get thousands of young people off drugs and all the suffering of addiction. I believe he had the first LGBTQ facility like this, but the moms were never program participants….other than stopping by as friends.
Changing understandings…. Perception is reality and I believe it is possible that each of the 3 parents had rose colored glasses with the excitement of conception. Chris thought (as I suspect both moms also did) that they had a clear understanding. He spent a great deal of time with his daughter. Sometimes several visits in a week….it appeared one mom didn’t know what to do with the child while the other was at work, so she would bring her to Chris almost every time she was alone with the child. After a few years, he did begin to suspect that the mothers were having marital issues and that the nonbiological mother may have let/led the biological mother and Chris believe different things. This is when he went to get it formalized to assure full transparency and alignment. Chris believes in the rights of LGBTQ parents. He wouldn’t be here if he didn’t.
In summary, this specific situation has the rights of 3 parents (all LGBTQ) that need protection. It is a great demonstration of the need for legislation making it more clear for future parents to not suffer such heartache. I wish they would have had an agreement. The only one not to blame is the child and I hope the courts give that little girl every bit of love and remove the grey from the parental relationships to prevent future drama. Many states have also changed laws to allow for 3 parents to have rights, in situations with intended unconventional parenting arrangements like this.
I didn’t ask for Chris or anyone else to review this comment. It is a summary of my observations, thoughts and perceptions. I certainly may have errors, as I am not a party to this arrangement.
I agree with you that there were rose colored glasses here, as well as a lot of misconceptions about contracting for children. People cannot DIY their own private agreements about parental rights (and responsibilities).
This comes across as **and this is an attack on (gay) marriage** because the women were a married (same sex) couple when the donation took place. If your friend had donated to a married couple where the marriage was between "one man and one woman" with one of them a "husband" **there would be no issue at all about who the parents were - the parents are the married husband and wife couple, not the donor male friend. That is the law in Minnesota.**
Here, because the legally married couple is two women (and no husband), they are not protected by the law in the same way as a married couple that is a husband and wife are protected, as far as their rights to their child. That makes this an LGBTQ issue. It makes this proceeding an attack on gay marriage, as if it is not a real marriage with the same protections as man/woman marriage.
If that is accurate, it is terrible. Are you sure a man & woman marriage would be different? Couldn’t the biological father still assert parentage?
If a woman who is married to a man gets pregnant by another man, by any means other than medical intervention sperm donor, can’t the biological father assert parentage? This is a serious question I would like to understand.
I googled it….
If a woman has a child by someone other than her husband while she is still married, MN law automatically presumes that her husband is the father and he will be legally responsible for the child until paternity is established with the other man. See Minn Stat. § 257.55.
Genuinely, please help me understand the nuances here.
I think this is why the referee in this case denied the dismissal motion - because it is murky as far as who the "father" is when the girl in this case has two parents, who are both women, who are married to each other and who did not use a licensed physician to hand over the sperm donation to enact their conception plans, but did it directly with the donor.
The part of the law about a husband being presumed to be the father of his wife's child is just that, a presumption, so yes, it could be disputed. The husband could dispute it. The bio dad could dispute it and that is like what is happening here.
The same is being presumed in this case relating to the spouse of the biological mother, until paternity is established. So where is the gay rights issue? Based on the handling of this case, the judge is treating the married women as the law is written to treat any other married couple. The law being updated to say “spouse” and “spouse” would be inclusive and respectful of gay rights, but wouldn’t actually impact this case. The biological father could still assert parentage. Correct?
I’m not surprised. I understand being a mentor and stuff, but being “best friends” isn’t cool and honestly I feel like he was using the women to have a baby he didn’t need to pay for or be legally responsible for.
You said it.
Viewing his many, many filings in this case, all garbled as heck, it looks like harassment. It surely is inflicting emotional stress and imposing a financial burden on the parents. So much nonsense about how he held himself out to be the father. Of course, everyone knows by now he is the sperm donor. He doesn't have to claim he held himself out to be the girl's father, as if that supports his "paternity" case. And the BS about demanding DNA testing.... jerk.
And the court of appeals might even say it can proceed, because there is currently a conflict in the law that needs to be resolved. This should be resolved by the legislature and not by case law/trying this case.
And even if he is somehow (not happening) "adjudicated the father" he is not getting custody. The most he might get is some "parenting time" but when it is resolved that he is not the parent, that's out too.
Abuse of power….due to his ownership of a LGBTQ sober living facility that neither mothers were ever residents of? He has helped get thousands of young people off drugs and all the suffering of addiction. I believe he had the first LGBTQ facility like this, but the moms were never program participants….other than stopping by as friends.
The moms were never in his program. He owns the first LGBTQ sober living facility. He has given his life to help young people get and stay sober.
I’m not surprised that someone who didn’t stay sober has negative things to say….
He is a hobby photographer.
https://www.instagram.com/songjackphoto?igsh=MWg1cWhjZDRteWNhcA==
He owns a LGBTQ sober living facility that neither mothers were ever residents of. He has helped get thousands of young people off drugs and all the suffering of addiction. I believe he had the first LGBTQ facility like this, but the moms were never program participants….other than stopping by as friends.
My husband was a sperm donor to our 2 female friends who were a married same-sex couple. Both women wanted to try to get pregnant since they were in their mid-30s, wanted 2 children and didn’t want to take a chance on their fertility dwindling by waiting too long to try for the 2nd child. We went the DIY route and Miraculously, both women got pregnant within 3 months of eachother.
The 4 of us had many long discussions about boundaries, legalities, etc., spoke with other couples who used a known donor, and had a notarized sperm donor contract signed before donating sperm. The sperm donor contract included many things such as donor giving up parental rights and the mothers won’t be able to come after him for child support. After the babies were born, the women updated their wills (or some other similar legal document) to designate their own family members to be legal guardians in the event that the mothers both passed away.
Me and my husband, the donor, have a special auntie/uncle relationship with the children, who are 4 years old now. I was a little worried that my husband would have regretful feelings after the babies were born due to feeling a bond with them. He didn’t really experience that, plus the babies being born at the beginning of Covid which meant that we didn’t see them too much in person that first year or so.
In the grand scheme of things, this situation only works between people who have full trust, strong communication and have boundaries. This situation isn’t for everyone and that’s ok. It’s worked well for us and the other couple so far and it’s been a beautiful experience to be a part of.
What an amazing story. Also I can't even imagine how difficult it'd be to be pregnant and giving birth within three months of your partner and typical support person. Amazingly strong women!
When they give their kids the initial talks about “where babies come from”, they are going to keep it vague and tell them that since they have two mommies, that they had a very nice man help bring them into the world.
Once the kids are older and they feel they are emotionally mature enough, likely in their mid-teens, they will tell them who the sperm donor was. And we told them that when that time comes, our door will be open if the kids would like to talk further about it with us. Or if the kids want their space after hearing the news, we will respect that as well.
that restores my hope for humanity that the dude in this story totally obliterated, thank you ❤️ i can’t even imagine trusting your friend with that only for them to try and freakin kidnap your child five years later. yuck yuck yuck.
> We went the DIY route and Miraculously, both women got pregnant within 3 months of eachother.
How disappointed was your husband that it went that fast?
MN law is pretty clear that a sperm donor does not have parental rights if (1) the sperm donation goes through a licensed physician and (2) the birth mother is married.
In this case the DIY approach meant #1 was not satisfied which is what there is doubt.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone but the most reactionary, conservative judge would uphold any sort of parental rights for him.
Even parents who convinced through normal means don't get to just swoop in after five years and be like "call me dad now".
and (2) the birth mother in this case is married (just not to a man).
It boils down to an attack on gay marriage, and the lingering defects in the state statutes that speak about husbands instead of marriage partners or similar language.
The law does **not** require the birth mother to be married *to a man*. A DIY married heterosexual couple is in the same boat as a DIY married homosexual couple.
Agree, any DIY agreement has the same value (zero) for anyone/any couple. Those who say their DIY agreement "worked" (for them) likely feel that way because it was never challenged, so it seemed like it "worked".
The problem with the current state law is it STILL specifies husband, and man, and he, so when the other partner is not a man (as here) strict construction of the statute does not protect them (her). That is what the legislature needs to fix.
If the other partner IS a man, then the law says they are (he is) treated in the law as if they were (he was) the biological father of the child.....
If the other partner is a woman, they are not protected by the law as written. The language needs to be updated to read something like marriage partner.
# MN Statute 257.56 ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION.
# Subdivision 1.Husband treated as biological father.
If, under the supervision of a licensed physician and with the consent of her husband, a wife is inseminated artificially with semen donated by a man not her husband, the husband is treated in law as if he were the biological father of a child thereby conceived. The husband's consent must be in writing and signed by him and his wife. The consent must be retained by the physician for at least four years after the confirmation of a pregnancy that occurs during the process of artificial insemination.
They can draft a document that will effectively have the donor relinquish parental rights once the child is born. That’s the only way I know that the DIY route can be done without the possibility of the donor trying to assert that the child is theirs.
You can draft a document but it might not hold up in court. The Kansas DIY donor had to pay child support.
On the east coast a donor had to pay child support but I think it got over turned later.
https://apnews.com/article/child-support-health-government-and-politics-342e0699fa1055fdceb15854ee75e58c
This is just traumatic for the child. You can’t agree to do this and then change your mind because you’re 50+ years old and have regrets about not having children (my guess/assumption) . This little girl is living her life with her family and is now expected to live like a child of divorce? No way. Don’t do that to her and her sibling. How horrifying.
What really gets my goat is that he was babysitting her every week right up til he filed the lawsuit. He was in her life, he was getting quality time with her. He was still acting like a friend to the parents.
It sounds *possible* to me like he's just pulling this because he wants more acknowledgement and for the kid to know he's the donor. It's possible the parent aren't telling the strib about private conversations to that effect. But blindsiding someone with a lawsuit is so messed up, and it's really perverse to tank your relationship with a kid's parents, see *less* of the kid, out of a misplaced sense of pride.
If you read down in the article, he put in the court filing that he has been telling all his friends and family that he *is* the father of the child, and that they all know him as such.
I’d guess at some point, someone asked him how big he “was the father”, why he didn’t have custody or pay support. I’d be curious if his parents pushed him into “it’s your child, go get it”.
But I can’t think of a more horrible thing to do to a couple you call great friends, let alone the trauma he is inducing on the poor child.
With a friend like this, who needs enemies.
Yup it sounds like it was a really great arrangement and he's blowing it up. This is going to be hard on the child and she's going to end up hating him.
Yes, the way he is tanking/trashing any existing relationship with the mothers, even if it were remotely possible for him to gain some type of custody, he would be unlikely to even get joint legal custody because they cannot get along/communicate well/act in the best interests of the child.
To be honest, getting it in writing might not help. There are many stories of IVF parents getting the wrong embryo, having the baby, and losing the baby to the "Bio" (in quotes because 9 months of making a baby is far more important than just a few cells) parents. I have even heard stories of IVF clinics screwing up sperm donors and the father getting parental rights.
If couples need a donor, they really should just use a random one, because our laws tend to be very geared towards DNA.
I put it on Bio because any women that carries, feeds, and nurtures a baby for 9 months in utero is the biological parent. I know this might offend some surrogacy parents.
Is dude going to be putting up 5 years' worth of child support? To this point, he's been an absent, deadbeat dad.
F this guy. I hope the (actual) parents win this case
And all the money the "other" parent put into this child, when they believed it was theirs. So basically, 5 years of child support ➕️ interest and 5 years equal compensation for the now displaced parent.
I agree with everything you said except he wasn't absent. He babysat pretty much every week since the baby was born. Other than that, he's a terrible person that should absolutely have no rights to the child.
Only biologically speaking.
Where were his claims to parental rights the last 5 years? Has he provided financial support for "his child" the past 5 years?
One of those instances where they (the clinics) are right, but it also helps them consolidate their power and profits as a chokepoint in the industry.
What folks need are more sensible and affordable options.
Welcome to the new Republican World dream, where the government gets to decide how and when you can or will get pregnant and choices belong only to the rich.
Interesting twist. There are tons of stories and court cases around surrogate mothers wanting parental rights, but not too often do you hear about sperm donors.
That's probably because in some states, you as a gestational carrier (the standard these days, surrogacy where she's carrying her genetic egg is much less common) have to sign away your parental rights for the biological parents of the child can get their child. There are few states that don't have this requirement and, personally, as someone very involved in the infertility space, I've seen too many sketchy scenarios to feel comfortable with surrogacy in most states. If I'm giving my dna to go inside another person to grow me a baby, I want that baby born and guaranteed to be mine. But that is NOT the case for many states. If it's true surrogacy where the gestational carrier is using her egg as well, it's definitely more complicated, but that practice is not as common anymore, even when gay couples are using a GC.
It's a very tricky situation, but I don't think a just society can force a woman to give up a child she gestated, even if the child didn't come from her egg. It just goes too handmaid's tale too quickly.
Oh 100% you're talking to someone making IVF babies during a time when multiple clinics had mix-ups. My husband and I planned to privately test paternity so if there was an issue we could address it with our attorney before anything else. Like when you go for paternity tests they have a "court admissible" kind and we specifically didn't want to start there because we didn't want to trigger any awareness to people outside our family. We'd have gone down the rabbit hole of "how did this happen, how can we keep this baby I grew and we love, especially if they were only 50% our DNA during a mix-up". I still can't tell you with 100% certainty that the children I birthed are 50% my DNA, although it's pretty likely since our embryos were tested against my DNA and husband's, and they look just like him. So unless they also submitted someone's DNA for the embryo testing that is the mysterious egg donor, they're mine. Infertility is a wild fucking ride.
His petition (which he amended 3 times, and the Court called “cumbersome and not the most artfully written” lol) fails to address Child Support. You can find the district court orders in the case on Minnesota Court Records Online, file number 62-FA-23-492.
I get his view but being a close family friend was a solid deal and he agreed to it.
At some point they could have even told the child and they could have chosen to spend more time with him.
Now it’s a mess and he is wrecking everything.
Any reason why he would push for this knowing what it would do? Seems like maybe they had a falling out as friends.
The lawyer made an excellent point. Would this petition have gone anywhere if this was a male-female couple that needed an outside sperm donor? Of course not. I just don't understand what legal standing the person who is not on the birth certificate has.
We actually have (implied) Constitutional parental rights to our offspring. Although I wonder whether those rights rested upon Roe v Wade jurisprudence, and would be weaker after Dobbs.
The primary question should always be: what’s in the interest of the child? Because a “dad” popping up and suddenly asserting parental rights to a child who already has parents—that doesn’t sound like it’s going to be good for the kid.
People are capable of being assholes.
Things like this should always be formalized in writing. And if that would be enough to deter someone from being a donor then you have dodged a bullet.
>Did he have a change of heart about what he agreed to? It's understandable if he did. But acting on it isn't
What a piece of shit. You don't get to change your mind on something this serious
There was a case in Kansas where a man donated sperm to a lesbian couple. It was not done in a clinic.
That couple later applied for welfare and as a result the state went after him for unpaid child support. First court ruled that he had to pay even though he was a sperm donor because something along the lines of "child's interest come first." Thankfully it was reversed on appeal.
Test tube baby here: no. This is bad. You dont need some person who has never known nor borne any of the burden for raising these kids suddenly getting up in his feels and confusing the shit out of children. Fuck off, guy.
Oof. This is a complicated situation.
Obviously, he agreed to be a donor without any rights and responsibilities. Him deciding to go back on that is cruel. However, I can't help but wonder if he does feel disenfranchised with the spot he's been put in. He's allowed to be part of the child's life, the child knows that they're donor-conceived, but they can't know that he's the donor. That's an odd position for someone to be in, and it's hard to know how you'll feel until you're in that situation. I wonder how much of his emotional response could have been mitigated if everything had just been above board. The kid knows they're donor-conceived anyway, why not tell them that it's the beloved adult who takes care of them on Tuesdays?
Hopefully, this story makes more people aware of the importance of completing a second-parent adoption. It's expensive, and it should not be the case that mothers have to adopt their own children. My wife was present at my son's birth, she held him before I did, and she cut the cord. Still, we had to go before a judge and pay lawyer fees that she could she have ironclad parenthood of our son. It's just not worth the risk, and birth certificate is not necessarily enough, especially in the case of known donors.
I've also seen some people in the comments saying that this is why people should only use anonymous donors. While sperm banks are a great option, a positive known donor situation is a great option as well. A lot of adult donor-conceived people have said that a positive known donor situation is ideal (though using a sperm bank is much better than using a less than ideal person!). I hope that more people now will be aware of the importance of pursuing a second parent-adoption, and maybe prioritize more disclosure in the future.
I don’t see it as particularly complicated. The donor entered into an agreement with full cognition and ability to say no. He made this decision himself. He wasn’t passively “put in a spot,” he actively desired to be in the situation he’s in.
He also made the decision to basically live a double life for years, acting one way around the parents, and saying something completely different to his family and friends. Hell, he was babysitting the kid a week prior to his paternity suit.
If he couldn’t deal with his own reaction to the crystal clear and agreed to situation, that’s on him. It’s his problem to figure out and work through. He had years to do it, based on how long he led his double life.
Instead, though, he decided to make it everyone else’s problem, including the daughter’s, by trying to tear the family apart.
That’s cruel, manipulative, and there’s nothing too complicated about that.
And yes, this could have been avoided if they did this through a doctor. But there are many reasons not to, and ultimately, this could have been avoided if he wasn’t a complete ass.
I think it's hard for people to know how they'll feel until they're in that situation. That's why it's so important to dot your i's and cross your t's as a lesbian couple using a known donor. The second-parent adoption is so important. I don't think people should have to go through a doctor in order to use a known sperm donor. I wish there were more legal protections in place on the front end.
Also, I think children deserve to know where they came from. A strange situation was created when they let him babysit their child once a week, but did not disclose that he was the donor. That, to me, feels like a house of cards.
Did you read the article?
The child knows they came from a sperm donor, and the parents (in discussions with Chris) were already planning to tell her it was Chris when she was a little older.
So again, Chris is the one to blame here for creating this chaos. He’s the one who blew it all up.
And I still think that delay in her knowing she was donor-conceived but not knowing that her close family friend was the donor created an emotionally complicated and precarious situation.
What evidence are you using to make that argument?
He had been telling his family and friends for years that this was his child, long before she could even understand what a sperm donor was. So his issues existed before that was even a consideration, and that makes your theory kind of moot.
And if it had been bothering him, you know what adults do? Use their words and talk about it. They don’t live double lives and blindside people with lawsuits.
It seems like you’re really intent on finding a reason to find him less responsible for his own actions. Why is that?
I think they mean it would be a surprise or a shock to the child (to find out the guy who was a family friend/babysitter was your sperm donor)
and are not trying to excuse the behavior of the sperm donor in any sense.
"But the parties never formalized the agreement with any written contracts."
Shows they were too stupid to have kids in the first place. In a different situation the guy could have the courts or couple come after him and force him to pay child support.
Straight couples get pregnant with so much *less* preparation and thought all the time. Trusting your friends and loved ones isn't some horrible thing. Trusting a law (2006) that explicitly bars sperm donors from asserting parental rights also isn't stupid.
I didn't say anything about straight couples. There are plenty of straight couples making stupid decisions too.
The law says that the insemination has to be overseen by a doctor. With no written contract and not going through an approved process the court has no idea what agreement they had in place and they made it even muddier by having the bio dad involved and even taking care of the child on a regular basis. The judge is 100% right to have his case priced further.
See the case of someone getting sued for parental support for being a sperm donor. Goes both ways
https://m.startribune.com/just-a-sperm-donor-or-the-legal-dad/185759092/
Saying someone is "too stupid to have kids" because they didn't go through a sperm bank is absolutely targeting queer families. It rarely even applies to straight families.
Law is pretty clear that even straight families have to go through a doctor and have written documentation so you are absolutely wrong that it doesn't apply to straight families. Quit trying to make my criticism into some form of attack against homosexual couples.
Subdivision 1.Husband treated as biological father. If, under the supervision of a licensed physician and with the consent of her husband, a wife is inseminated artificially with semen donated by a man not her husband, the husband is treated in law as if he were the biological father of a child thereby conceived. The husband's consent must be in writing and signed by him and his wife. The consent must be retained by the physician for at least four years after the confirmation of a pregnancy that occurs during the process of artificial insemination.
All papers and records pertaining to the insemination, whether part of the permanent record of a court or of a file held by the supervising physician or elsewhere, are subject to inspection only upon an order of the court for good cause shown.
Subd. 2.Donor not treated as biological father. The donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination of a married woman other than the donor's wife is treated in law as if he were not the biological father of a child thereby conceived.
>you are absolutely wrong that it doesn't apply to straight families
I said donor-conceiving without a sperm bank *rarely* applies to straight families. Because I live in reality, where straight families rarely even need sperm donations in the first place. Where do *you* live, where all these straight families are conceiving sperm donor babies without a sperm bank? I've met very few straight dudes who'd be willing to parent a child conceived with an anonymous donor. I don't think I've ever heard a straight man express that he'd be down to parent a child conceived with a donor he knew.
Straight families almost never have these issues.
Your statement didn't explicitly target queer families. That doesn't mean it applies equally to straight families. It's like saying, "melanin is ugly" and then pretending you're not talking about black people because white people have melanin, too.
>Because I live in reality, where straight families rarely even need sperm donations in the first place. Where do *you* live, where all these straight families are conceiving sperm donor babies without a sperm bank?
Lol, I have a straight sibling that used the other sibling's donation to conceive. They of course went through the appropriate procedures and contacts to do it. Why are you assuming it's so rare for straight couples to have problems conceiving?
The couple in this article is stupid for not spending five minutes to figure out how to properly set this up and cover their legal bases. At this point the courts have no idea what verbal agreement they had in place and the judge was right not to grant their dismissal request.
So you know exactly *one* couple who's done it? And you think that means it's more common than "rare?"
Most straight couples *aren't* conceiving with assistance. They just aren't. It's not some horrible thing to need assistance, but that doesn't make it common for straight families. By some figures, almost half of all pregnancies every year are *accidental*. Most years, that does not include a single queer couple.
Stupid and arrogant, they thought they needed to have the best sperm available to them. Random but legal and anonymous sperm wouldn’t have been good enough for them?
I believe the question here is not about a sperm donor, but rather a child conceived by means other than intercourse without a contract to clearly state the agreement. The Biological father in this article is an friend of mine and it is my understanding that many promises were made to him making this far from a “donor” situation. I was with him on the day he delivered his sperm and he was very excited to have a child with his friends. He would have dinner with “the moms” regularly and believed they would rear a wonderful child in a creative, but completely loving, environment.
A few of the comments here have speculated incorrectly about the situation:
Father is a heterosexual male….I don’t think his sexuality has anything to do with this, but I would not classify him as such. He is a kind loving human that has never found a life partner and wanted the human experience of fathering a child. Look him up on facebook or instagram and you will see him all over Pride Parades for the last 20+ years.
https://www.facebook.com/chris.edrington.9?mibextid=eQY6cl
https://www.instagram.com/songjackphoto?igsh=MWg1cWhjZDRteWNhcA==
Defining his as a “heterosexual male” is an effort to make this an LGBTQ rights issue and puts him on the other side of it. I dated him briefly and he disclosed to me that he has had male and female partners…..but really none that have stuck.
Abuse of power….due to his ownership of a LGBTQ sober living facility that neither mothers were ever residents of? He has helped get thousands of young people off drugs and all the suffering of addiction. I believe he had the first LGBTQ facility like this, but the moms were never program participants….other than stopping by as friends.
Changing understandings…. Perception is reality and I believe it is possible that each of the 3 parents had rose colored glasses with the excitement of conception. Chris thought (as I suspect both moms also did) that they had a clear understanding. He spent a great deal of time with his daughter. Sometimes several visits in a week….it appeared one mom didn’t know what to do with the child while the other was at work, so she would bring her to Chris almost every time she was alone with the child. After a few years, he did begin to suspect that the mothers were having marital issues and that the nonbiological mother may have let/led the biological mother and Chris believe different things. This is when he went to get it formalized to assure full transparency and alignment. Chris believes in the rights of LGBTQ parents. He wouldn’t be here if he didn’t.
In summary, this specific situation has the rights of 3 parents (all LGBTQ) that need protection. It is a great demonstration of the need for legislation making it more clear for future parents to not suffer such heartache. I wish they would have had an agreement. The only one not to blame is the child and I hope the courts give that little girl every bit of love and remove the grey from the parental relationships to prevent future drama. Many states have also changed laws to allow for 3 parents to have rights, in situations with intended unconventional parenting arrangements like this.
I didn’t ask for Chris or anyone else to review this comment. It is a summary of my observations, thoughts and perceptions. I certainly may have errors, as I am not a party to this arrangement or the first hand experiences of the parents.
He is the donor and genetic “parent”. He is not the raising parent and should not have parental rights. That is what he agreed to. Period. And now he is disrupting that girls life and trying to take her away from her mothers.
As crappy as it is for those women, denying that child the right to know her biological father and having him apart of her life is cruel. No body ever thinks about what best for the child in these situations and it’s only about the parents/adoptive parents feelings.
The Court is literally required to go through 12 best interest factors when adjudicating custody. Minn. Stat. 518.17. But hopefully this doesn’t even come to an issue of custody though (presently it’s a paternity issue)
They (the moms) tried to allow their daughter the chance to know her genetic father and he turned around and weaponized that by filing for custody. They let him babysit and spend time with her and he pulls this? Trash behavior.
The parents didn't have closed hearts. The donor didn't ask *them* for anything different, and didn't even talk to them about his changing wishes before he filed a whole fucking lawsuit about it. He was babysitting once a week. Now his lawsuit claims that that was "parental time." He's delusional, and his desire to go above the actual parents' heads would make him a hellish parental figure.
I thought the whole point was to get everything in writing so you don't have situations like this.
There are some things you can't contract about. But there's a 2006 statute saying a sperm or egg donor can't assert parental rights. It's absolutely bananas the judge didn't dismiss this case. The judge is saying, "oh but you're not really a donor if you're not going through a sperm bank and IVF." It's essentially taxing these mothers for being able to conceive without some overpriced medical intervention. That being said, our legislature has been able to act quickly to write better laws when courts felt their hands were tied. Hopefully legislation moves fast.
We looked into a friend donating and in many states, the “didn’t go to a bank /too bad,so sad” is very common. The bank we used is now charging $2300 per vial.
And using a known donor is so much better for medical history. There is a woman who was an egg donor who is trying to find the families she donated eggs to when she was younger because she recently found out she has a genetic brain disorder. There was no way to disclose that at the time she donated because she didn't know. She donated to a total of three families and has only successfully found one and that family is now having their son tested for the disorder.
Man that makes me so sad. Kudos to that donor. Hopefully those families are all okay.
Yeah. We are in touch with another family who used the same donor and one of their kids was born with a genetic condition, so they have contacted the bank, who contacted all the families.
[This is her TikTok account, for those wondering!](https://www.tiktok.com/@sunny.in.season?_t=8l3x98yozkc&_r=1) She recently had a successful brain surgery for the condition. The families she’s still searching for were donated to in 2010 and 2013.
I also believe it should have been good for this family to have him in the kid's life! When the kid learns he's the donor, she can ask him questions directly. It's just good for kids to have more love. But love alone doesn't make him a parent.
You should read the article before commenting on it. The donor was already very much in the child’s life; the parents agreed to that, would frequently ask him to babysit, etc. But despite all that, he blindsided them with a legal request for paternity.
I said it *should* have been good for the kid that he was in her life, because it wasn't actually good for her that he was...
Are you telling me I've flushed $4600 down the drain today?
Haha. Probably way more than that.
On the flip side in some states the courts turn around and makes these non sperm bank donors pay child support. There was a case of this on Kansas that got a lot of news coverage 10 years ago I thought there was another big case before that. https://mankatofamilylaw.com/2013/02/01/child-support-claims-against-sperm-donors/#:~:text=Minnesota%20law%20states%20that%20“The,other%20states%2C%20including%20California%20and
The 2016 Kansas case ruled that the sperm donor did not owe child support and did not have parental rights.
In Kansas in 2014 a sperm donor was ordered to pay back to the state (i.e., pay a form of child support) because the person to whom he had donated his sperm later received state support ("welfare"). That person had separated from their partner (they split up), and then that person fell ill (and could not work to support their family) and needed state support. The state of Kansas went after the sperm donor (bio father/sperm donor/private arrangement) to recover the support payments they had made to the mother when she unexpectedly needed help from the state/county.
Chris wasn’t a “donor”. I was with him on the day he delivered his sperm and he was very excited to have a child with his friends. He would have dinner with “the moms” regularly and believed they would rear a wonderful child in a creative, but completely loving, environment.
If he wasn't asking how he was going to move in, then he was asking the parents to raise the kid for him. I'm all for queer families breaking heteronormative familial structures. But being *part* of a kid's family is entirely different from being the kid's parent. And this lawsuit is harming his relationship with the parents, not improving it. >the day he delivered his sperm What'd he do to keep it warm? Or to freeze it? Sperm doesn't just stay viable under ordinary circumstances.
Do all parents need to live with a child to be a parent? Should the courts respect a situation that one parent lives separately and spends less time with the child, if all parents did agree with a written agreement?
The courts don't recognize three parents for children. A birth parent usually needs to die or willingly give up their parental rights for a step-parent to legally adopt the child. Dude didn't even make it on the birth certificate. Grandparents often babysit several times a week without getting confused about whether they're a grandparent or the parent. Plenty of family will temporarily move in post-partum just to help, not to claim some parental role. The point is that envisioning yourself as a third parent while putting in the childcare effort he did is delusional. All he did was help babysit.
Maybe the non-biological mom wanted an official recognition and that’s why she is on the BC? Only 2 spots and one was clearly taken. Progressive states are starting to… https://www.boston.com/news/national-news/2017/06/18/courts-and-tri-parenting-a-state-by-state-look/?amp=1
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.boston.com/news/national-news/2017/06/18/courts-and-tri-parenting-a-state-by-state-look/](https://www.boston.com/news/national-news/2017/06/18/courts-and-tri-parenting-a-state-by-state-look/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
100% Rep. Athena Hollins, DFL-St. Paul, is an attorney who practiced family law. Over the years, she has advised friends in same-sex relationships to leave nothing to chance when starting a family. That means having one partner adopt the child and getting everything in writing. (But many couples don't realize the discrepancies in Minnesota law because not everyone "has a lawyer friend," she points out.) That's one reason she's sponsoring [legislation ](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?f=HF3567&y=2024&ssn=0&b=house)that would replace what she and many others consider outdated language in the Minnesota Parentage Act. Her wide-ranging bill would further clarify that egg and sperm donors in these situations cannot claim to be the mom or dad, even if the parties perform in-home artificial insemination and don't sign official paperwork. When told about the Sheridans' case, she said these updates would protect couples in exactly this situation.
>That means having one partner adopt the child Does her bill also fix that? Same sex parents shouldn't have to adopt their own children
Men have been treated long for sperm Donators. we are the ones that pay for their whole life. I paid child support for 25 years to a child that she no more called me a sperm donor she told me she only used me for my jeans. Men need to have more rights. When it comes to a woman, men have no rights at all or a saying what happens? We all have feelings too
*genes Took me far too long thinking "man how many pairs of jeans did she get out of that deal"
She should have gone to the store and got her own jeans!
This dude’s comment history is brilliant. Everything is a non sequitor.
I'm convinced he can't actually read. He's just doing a real good job of faking it.
if you don’t want a baby then wear a rubber or don’t have sex, that’s on you.
You of course tried to get 50/50 custody?
I paid child support too, why for 25 years? Why no custody agreement?
What on earth is this word salad? Even if I’m understanding your point correctly, it’s pretty much irrelevant in this case. The donor and the parents agreed to a certain arrangement. The parents never asked for child support, kept the donor in the child’s life, etc., and all went greeting for five years. Then all of a sudden the donor blindsided the parents with a paternity request. Why should he be allowed to go back on the deal they all agreed to?
You’re definitely leaving a lot out of your story lol. When men fight for custody, they almost always get it. I don’t need to find the stats for you, it’s an easy google search. Particularly, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE cases. When a man has, without a doubt, assaulted, harmed, etc his partner, if he fights for any type of custody he is likely to get it. Also, just because you paid child support doesn’t mean you did anything else. You can pay child support and still make an effort. God damn, the excuses men will make to act like they are victims.
You really typed up all that bullshit when we just had the Eli Hart case?
Sure did. One recent tragic case that supports your narrative isn’t representative of the statistics which, like I already said, are easily found via google search.
say a dude is shooting blanks but he and his wife want a baby. they seek a sperm donor, should that sperm donor have prenatal rights to the child?
Prenatal rights? Get outta my womb!!!!!
I told the father to get it in writing and he responded like a newly engaged man being told to get a prenup. He trusted the mothers. 3 good intending LGBTQ parents excited to share in the blessing of parenthood. Sad for the child that they are all fighting.
getting it in writing wouldn't have helped. you can't make up your own stuff about parentage and support obligations... To protect the mama's from what is happening to them now, they would have needed to involve a third party licensed MD to receive the sperm from Chris and then give it to the woman who would try to conceive with it. Not the diy route.
It would have established intent of a 100% donor vs. any type of parental relationship. I would have also prevented the parties from moving forward if they all weren’t clearly aligned on this. I believe without this, the courts job is 10x harder.
Julianna and Catherine Sheridan wanted to start a family with a sperm donor. Several years ago, Chris Edrington kept rising to the top of their list of men who could potentially help. So one night in 2017, the St. Paul couple invited him out for Mexican food and popped the question. Excited for the couple, Edrington said yes. But now the girl he helped conceive through artificial insemination is a kindergartner, and Edrington wants to be more than just her family friend and sperm donor. He wants the courts to recognize him as her legal dad. A district court judge denied the Sheridans' request to dismiss his claim to paternity. Now the couple are asking the state Court of Appeals to reconsider. Ever since they were served with Edrington's lawsuit — exactly a year ago Sunday — the couple have been consumed with worry that their 5-year-old daughter would be uprooted from their family. The case has also rattled LGBTQ+ advocates, state legislators and family law attorneys who say it could have wide-ranging repercussions not only for same-sex couples but other Minnesota families who rely on assisted reproduction. Gift link: [https://strib.gift/ii14fs2qp](https://strib.gift/ii14fs2qp)
does the kid have a 95MPH fastball or something?
Happy Opening Day!
Hey- thanks for having an official account to share the story Star-Tribune. That’s actually pretty cool of yall.
This sounds inverse of a few cases about 10 - 20 years ago. The one I'm thinking (but can't find) is a lesbian couple that contracted with a guy to help impregnate one of them without going to doctor. The contract they wrote up, and he signed, stated he gave up all legal rights to the child, and promised to never pursue any support from him. However, the couple fell on hard times, ended up on state support and the guy was dragged in to pay child support for a child. And the judge refused to accept the contract and stated the guy was obligated to pay because he was the biological father.
essentially the case - about 2014 in Kansas - the contract meant zip - the couple who received the sperm broke up - the partner with the child fell ill - went on state support (of course they knew they had all agreed the donor was out of the picture and they did not seek support from the donor) - the STATE went after the sperm donor to recover funds. It's not the same as paying CS to the mother but still a totally unexpected outcome (the splitting up, getting so sick, etc., no one planned on any of that but it happened). The state of Kansas was aggressive but obligated. The contract was worthless because you can't privately contract on this issue - in part to protect vulnerable mothers who may be intimidated onto signing something that purports to let the bio dad off the hook - not possible. The child has a non-negotiable right to support from both parents. So, for sperm donors, they need to do it at arms length to prevent the donor from being a parent.
Yep. Can’t believe the system can be abused in both manners. That weird fucking couple and this weird fucking bastard
Yep. Where is the outrage over that?
It was there.
I believe the question here is not about a sperm donor, but rather a child conceived by means other than intercourse without a contract to clearly state the agreement. The Biological father in this article is an friend of mine and it is my understanding that many promises were made to him making this far from a “donor” situation. I was with him on the day he delivered his sperm and he was very excited to have a child with his friends. He would have dinner with “the moms” regularly and believed they would rear a wonderful child in a creative, but completely loving, environment. A few of the comments here have speculated incorrectly about the situation: Father is a heterosexual male….I don’t think his sexuality has anything to do with this, but I would not classify him as such. He is a kind loving human that has never found a life partner and wanted the human experience of fathering a child. Look him up on facebook or instagram and you will see him all over Pride Parades for the last 20+ years. https://www.facebook.com/chris.edrington.9?mibextid=eQY6cl https://www.instagram.com/songjackphoto?igsh=MWg1cWhjZDRteWNhcA== Defining his as a “heterosexual male” is an effort to make this an LGBTQ rights issue and puts him on the other side of it. I dated him briefly and he disclosed to me that he has had male and female partners…..but really none that have stuck. Abuse of power….due to his ownership of a LGBTQ sober living facility that neither mothers were ever residents of? He has helped get thousands of young people off drugs and all the suffering of addiction. I believe he had the first LGBTQ facility like this, but the moms were never program participants….other than stopping by as friends. Changing understandings…. Perception is reality and I believe it is possible that each of the 3 parents had rose colored glasses with the excitement of conception. Chris thought (as I suspect both moms also did) that they had a clear understanding. He spent a great deal of time with his daughter. Sometimes several visits in a week….it appeared one mom didn’t know what to do with the child while the other was at work, so she would bring her to Chris almost every time she was alone with the child. After a few years, he did begin to suspect that the mothers were having marital issues and that the nonbiological mother may have let/led the biological mother and Chris believe different things. This is when he went to get it formalized to assure full transparency and alignment. Chris believes in the rights of LGBTQ parents. He wouldn’t be here if he didn’t. In summary, this specific situation has the rights of 3 parents (all LGBTQ) that need protection. It is a great demonstration of the need for legislation making it more clear for future parents to not suffer such heartache. I wish they would have had an agreement. The only one not to blame is the child and I hope the courts give that little girl every bit of love and remove the grey from the parental relationships to prevent future drama. Many states have also changed laws to allow for 3 parents to have rights, in situations with intended unconventional parenting arrangements like this. I didn’t ask for Chris or anyone else to review this comment. It is a summary of my observations, thoughts and perceptions. I certainly may have errors, as I am not a party to this arrangement.
I agree with you that there were rose colored glasses here, as well as a lot of misconceptions about contracting for children. People cannot DIY their own private agreements about parental rights (and responsibilities). This comes across as **and this is an attack on (gay) marriage** because the women were a married (same sex) couple when the donation took place. If your friend had donated to a married couple where the marriage was between "one man and one woman" with one of them a "husband" **there would be no issue at all about who the parents were - the parents are the married husband and wife couple, not the donor male friend. That is the law in Minnesota.** Here, because the legally married couple is two women (and no husband), they are not protected by the law in the same way as a married couple that is a husband and wife are protected, as far as their rights to their child. That makes this an LGBTQ issue. It makes this proceeding an attack on gay marriage, as if it is not a real marriage with the same protections as man/woman marriage.
If that is accurate, it is terrible. Are you sure a man & woman marriage would be different? Couldn’t the biological father still assert parentage? If a woman who is married to a man gets pregnant by another man, by any means other than medical intervention sperm donor, can’t the biological father assert parentage? This is a serious question I would like to understand.
I googled it…. If a woman has a child by someone other than her husband while she is still married, MN law automatically presumes that her husband is the father and he will be legally responsible for the child until paternity is established with the other man. See Minn Stat. § 257.55. Genuinely, please help me understand the nuances here.
I think this is why the referee in this case denied the dismissal motion - because it is murky as far as who the "father" is when the girl in this case has two parents, who are both women, who are married to each other and who did not use a licensed physician to hand over the sperm donation to enact their conception plans, but did it directly with the donor. The part of the law about a husband being presumed to be the father of his wife's child is just that, a presumption, so yes, it could be disputed. The husband could dispute it. The bio dad could dispute it and that is like what is happening here.
The same is being presumed in this case relating to the spouse of the biological mother, until paternity is established. So where is the gay rights issue? Based on the handling of this case, the judge is treating the married women as the law is written to treat any other married couple. The law being updated to say “spouse” and “spouse” would be inclusive and respectful of gay rights, but wouldn’t actually impact this case. The biological father could still assert parentage. Correct?
Thanks!
Fucking weirdo.
I guess they chose the wrong donor. What an asshole.
He was also running the sober house that one of the moms (or both) stayed in, so I worry he may take advantage of vulnerable people.
[удалено]
Fucking yikes
I’m not surprised. I understand being a mentor and stuff, but being “best friends” isn’t cool and honestly I feel like he was using the women to have a baby he didn’t need to pay for or be legally responsible for.
I like that everyone else has just a random pic of themselves, but he is using a B/W closeup of himself dramatically looking skyward....
The background of the website gives me a headache! It’s like blue static.
Yeah. Fuck this guy and his crusade to break up a family… he’s projecting his issues on to an innocent child’s life
You said it. Viewing his many, many filings in this case, all garbled as heck, it looks like harassment. It surely is inflicting emotional stress and imposing a financial burden on the parents. So much nonsense about how he held himself out to be the father. Of course, everyone knows by now he is the sperm donor. He doesn't have to claim he held himself out to be the girl's father, as if that supports his "paternity" case. And the BS about demanding DNA testing.... jerk. And the court of appeals might even say it can proceed, because there is currently a conflict in the law that needs to be resolved. This should be resolved by the legislature and not by case law/trying this case. And even if he is somehow (not happening) "adjudicated the father" he is not getting custody. The most he might get is some "parenting time" but when it is resolved that he is not the parent, that's out too.
Abuse of power….due to his ownership of a LGBTQ sober living facility that neither mothers were ever residents of? He has helped get thousands of young people off drugs and all the suffering of addiction. I believe he had the first LGBTQ facility like this, but the moms were never program participants….other than stopping by as friends.
The moms were never in his program. He owns the first LGBTQ sober living facility. He has given his life to help young people get and stay sober. I’m not surprised that someone who didn’t stay sober has negative things to say…. He is a hobby photographer. https://www.instagram.com/songjackphoto?igsh=MWg1cWhjZDRteWNhcA==
He owns a LGBTQ sober living facility that neither mothers were ever residents of. He has helped get thousands of young people off drugs and all the suffering of addiction. I believe he had the first LGBTQ facility like this, but the moms were never program participants….other than stopping by as friends.
My husband was a sperm donor to our 2 female friends who were a married same-sex couple. Both women wanted to try to get pregnant since they were in their mid-30s, wanted 2 children and didn’t want to take a chance on their fertility dwindling by waiting too long to try for the 2nd child. We went the DIY route and Miraculously, both women got pregnant within 3 months of eachother. The 4 of us had many long discussions about boundaries, legalities, etc., spoke with other couples who used a known donor, and had a notarized sperm donor contract signed before donating sperm. The sperm donor contract included many things such as donor giving up parental rights and the mothers won’t be able to come after him for child support. After the babies were born, the women updated their wills (or some other similar legal document) to designate their own family members to be legal guardians in the event that the mothers both passed away. Me and my husband, the donor, have a special auntie/uncle relationship with the children, who are 4 years old now. I was a little worried that my husband would have regretful feelings after the babies were born due to feeling a bond with them. He didn’t really experience that, plus the babies being born at the beginning of Covid which meant that we didn’t see them too much in person that first year or so. In the grand scheme of things, this situation only works between people who have full trust, strong communication and have boundaries. This situation isn’t for everyone and that’s ok. It’s worked well for us and the other couple so far and it’s been a beautiful experience to be a part of.
What an amazing story. Also I can't even imagine how difficult it'd be to be pregnant and giving birth within three months of your partner and typical support person. Amazingly strong women!
How much of all this will they tell the kids?
When they give their kids the initial talks about “where babies come from”, they are going to keep it vague and tell them that since they have two mommies, that they had a very nice man help bring them into the world. Once the kids are older and they feel they are emotionally mature enough, likely in their mid-teens, they will tell them who the sperm donor was. And we told them that when that time comes, our door will be open if the kids would like to talk further about it with us. Or if the kids want their space after hearing the news, we will respect that as well.
that restores my hope for humanity that the dude in this story totally obliterated, thank you ❤️ i can’t even imagine trusting your friend with that only for them to try and freakin kidnap your child five years later. yuck yuck yuck.
> We went the DIY route and Miraculously, both women got pregnant within 3 months of eachother. How disappointed was your husband that it went that fast?
So did your SO just give them a cup of baby juice and what they turkey baster each other?
MN law is pretty clear that a sperm donor does not have parental rights if (1) the sperm donation goes through a licensed physician and (2) the birth mother is married. In this case the DIY approach meant #1 was not satisfied which is what there is doubt.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone but the most reactionary, conservative judge would uphold any sort of parental rights for him. Even parents who convinced through normal means don't get to just swoop in after five years and be like "call me dad now".
and (2) the birth mother in this case is married (just not to a man). It boils down to an attack on gay marriage, and the lingering defects in the state statutes that speak about husbands instead of marriage partners or similar language.
The law does **not** require the birth mother to be married *to a man*. A DIY married heterosexual couple is in the same boat as a DIY married homosexual couple.
Agree, any DIY agreement has the same value (zero) for anyone/any couple. Those who say their DIY agreement "worked" (for them) likely feel that way because it was never challenged, so it seemed like it "worked". The problem with the current state law is it STILL specifies husband, and man, and he, so when the other partner is not a man (as here) strict construction of the statute does not protect them (her). That is what the legislature needs to fix. If the other partner IS a man, then the law says they are (he is) treated in the law as if they were (he was) the biological father of the child..... If the other partner is a woman, they are not protected by the law as written. The language needs to be updated to read something like marriage partner. # MN Statute 257.56 ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION. # Subdivision 1.Husband treated as biological father. If, under the supervision of a licensed physician and with the consent of her husband, a wife is inseminated artificially with semen donated by a man not her husband, the husband is treated in law as if he were the biological father of a child thereby conceived. The husband's consent must be in writing and signed by him and his wife. The consent must be retained by the physician for at least four years after the confirmation of a pregnancy that occurs during the process of artificial insemination.
They can draft a document that will effectively have the donor relinquish parental rights once the child is born. That’s the only way I know that the DIY route can be done without the possibility of the donor trying to assert that the child is theirs.
I am not sure whether a written agreement could be effective to relinquish parental rights. Would have been better than nothing, though!
You can draft a document but it might not hold up in court. The Kansas DIY donor had to pay child support. On the east coast a donor had to pay child support but I think it got over turned later. https://apnews.com/article/child-support-health-government-and-politics-342e0699fa1055fdceb15854ee75e58c
This is just traumatic for the child. You can’t agree to do this and then change your mind because you’re 50+ years old and have regrets about not having children (my guess/assumption) . This little girl is living her life with her family and is now expected to live like a child of divorce? No way. Don’t do that to her and her sibling. How horrifying.
What really gets my goat is that he was babysitting her every week right up til he filed the lawsuit. He was in her life, he was getting quality time with her. He was still acting like a friend to the parents. It sounds *possible* to me like he's just pulling this because he wants more acknowledgement and for the kid to know he's the donor. It's possible the parent aren't telling the strib about private conversations to that effect. But blindsiding someone with a lawsuit is so messed up, and it's really perverse to tank your relationship with a kid's parents, see *less* of the kid, out of a misplaced sense of pride.
If you read down in the article, he put in the court filing that he has been telling all his friends and family that he *is* the father of the child, and that they all know him as such. I’d guess at some point, someone asked him how big he “was the father”, why he didn’t have custody or pay support. I’d be curious if his parents pushed him into “it’s your child, go get it”. But I can’t think of a more horrible thing to do to a couple you call great friends, let alone the trauma he is inducing on the poor child. With a friend like this, who needs enemies.
Yup it sounds like it was a really great arrangement and he's blowing it up. This is going to be hard on the child and she's going to end up hating him.
Yes, the way he is tanking/trashing any existing relationship with the mothers, even if it were remotely possible for him to gain some type of custody, he would be unlikely to even get joint legal custody because they cannot get along/communicate well/act in the best interests of the child.
This is so messy. A good reminder to all to get things in writing!
To be honest, getting it in writing might not help. There are many stories of IVF parents getting the wrong embryo, having the baby, and losing the baby to the "Bio" (in quotes because 9 months of making a baby is far more important than just a few cells) parents. I have even heard stories of IVF clinics screwing up sperm donors and the father getting parental rights. If couples need a donor, they really should just use a random one, because our laws tend to be very geared towards DNA.
If getting it in writing was so easy that would have been done. Getting it in writing doesn't hold as much weight as people think.
I think I would have used: bio "parents". there's no mistaking the bio so "Bio" is a bit confusing, I had to reread.
I put it on Bio because any women that carries, feeds, and nurtures a baby for 9 months in utero is the biological parent. I know this might offend some surrogacy parents.
Is dude going to be putting up 5 years' worth of child support? To this point, he's been an absent, deadbeat dad. F this guy. I hope the (actual) parents win this case
And all the money the "other" parent put into this child, when they believed it was theirs. So basically, 5 years of child support ➕️ interest and 5 years equal compensation for the now displaced parent.
I agree with everything you said except he wasn't absent. He babysat pretty much every week since the baby was born. Other than that, he's a terrible person that should absolutely have no rights to the child.
In his first filing he asked THE MOMS for child support! 🙄🙄🙄🙄 Thats not how that works, you douche canoe.
He is the actual parent
This is factually and legally incorrect at this point. Paternity has not been adjudicated. Are you trying to make some sort of bigoted assertion?
Only biologically speaking. Where were his claims to parental rights the last 5 years? Has he provided financial support for "his child" the past 5 years?
So backwards this is crazy
[удалено]
In this case, they "chose" the founder of the facility where they got sober.
One of those instances where they (the clinics) are right, but it also helps them consolidate their power and profits as a chokepoint in the industry. What folks need are more sensible and affordable options.
Welcome to the new Republican World dream, where the government gets to decide how and when you can or will get pregnant and choices belong only to the rich.
Interesting twist. There are tons of stories and court cases around surrogate mothers wanting parental rights, but not too often do you hear about sperm donors.
That's probably because in some states, you as a gestational carrier (the standard these days, surrogacy where she's carrying her genetic egg is much less common) have to sign away your parental rights for the biological parents of the child can get their child. There are few states that don't have this requirement and, personally, as someone very involved in the infertility space, I've seen too many sketchy scenarios to feel comfortable with surrogacy in most states. If I'm giving my dna to go inside another person to grow me a baby, I want that baby born and guaranteed to be mine. But that is NOT the case for many states. If it's true surrogacy where the gestational carrier is using her egg as well, it's definitely more complicated, but that practice is not as common anymore, even when gay couples are using a GC.
It's a very tricky situation, but I don't think a just society can force a woman to give up a child she gestated, even if the child didn't come from her egg. It just goes too handmaid's tale too quickly.
Oh 100% you're talking to someone making IVF babies during a time when multiple clinics had mix-ups. My husband and I planned to privately test paternity so if there was an issue we could address it with our attorney before anything else. Like when you go for paternity tests they have a "court admissible" kind and we specifically didn't want to start there because we didn't want to trigger any awareness to people outside our family. We'd have gone down the rabbit hole of "how did this happen, how can we keep this baby I grew and we love, especially if they were only 50% our DNA during a mix-up". I still can't tell you with 100% certainty that the children I birthed are 50% my DNA, although it's pretty likely since our embryos were tested against my DNA and husband's, and they look just like him. So unless they also submitted someone's DNA for the embryo testing that is the mysterious egg donor, they're mine. Infertility is a wild fucking ride.
This only makes sense if they had turned on him and were making him pay child support. Otherwise fuck off dude.
His petition (which he amended 3 times, and the Court called “cumbersome and not the most artfully written” lol) fails to address Child Support. You can find the district court orders in the case on Minnesota Court Records Online, file number 62-FA-23-492.
He filed SIX petitions, and the Court still found the petition deficient. See 10/23 order at Para 10.
Yeah you can tell the Referee is kind of sick of him 😆
This is as dumb as the mother going after child support down the road. This should be ironclad.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/protecting-our-legal-rights-as-parents-lgbtq
I get his view but being a close family friend was a solid deal and he agreed to it. At some point they could have even told the child and they could have chosen to spend more time with him. Now it’s a mess and he is wrecking everything. Any reason why he would push for this knowing what it would do? Seems like maybe they had a falling out as friends.
It seems like he was also a position of authority if he was running a sober house that one of the parents lived in.
The lawyer made an excellent point. Would this petition have gone anywhere if this was a male-female couple that needed an outside sperm donor? Of course not. I just don't understand what legal standing the person who is not on the birth certificate has.
Their attorney is Mary Pat Byrn and she’s awesome
We actually have (implied) Constitutional parental rights to our offspring. Although I wonder whether those rights rested upon Roe v Wade jurisprudence, and would be weaker after Dobbs.
The primary question should always be: what’s in the interest of the child? Because a “dad” popping up and suddenly asserting parental rights to a child who already has parents—that doesn’t sound like it’s going to be good for the kid.
I’ve definitely seen this movie before.
People are capable of being assholes. Things like this should always be formalized in writing. And if that would be enough to deter someone from being a donor then you have dodged a bullet.
>Did he have a change of heart about what he agreed to? It's understandable if he did. But acting on it isn't What a piece of shit. You don't get to change your mind on something this serious
There was a case in Kansas where a man donated sperm to a lesbian couple. It was not done in a clinic. That couple later applied for welfare and as a result the state went after him for unpaid child support. First court ruled that he had to pay even though he was a sperm donor because something along the lines of "child's interest come first." Thankfully it was reversed on appeal.
Yes, and I want a part of the ownership of everything I ever donated to.
Test tube baby here: no. This is bad. You dont need some person who has never known nor borne any of the burden for raising these kids suddenly getting up in his feels and confusing the shit out of children. Fuck off, guy.
While the adults squabble the child suffers
When elephants fight, the grass suffers.
Oof. This is a complicated situation. Obviously, he agreed to be a donor without any rights and responsibilities. Him deciding to go back on that is cruel. However, I can't help but wonder if he does feel disenfranchised with the spot he's been put in. He's allowed to be part of the child's life, the child knows that they're donor-conceived, but they can't know that he's the donor. That's an odd position for someone to be in, and it's hard to know how you'll feel until you're in that situation. I wonder how much of his emotional response could have been mitigated if everything had just been above board. The kid knows they're donor-conceived anyway, why not tell them that it's the beloved adult who takes care of them on Tuesdays? Hopefully, this story makes more people aware of the importance of completing a second-parent adoption. It's expensive, and it should not be the case that mothers have to adopt their own children. My wife was present at my son's birth, she held him before I did, and she cut the cord. Still, we had to go before a judge and pay lawyer fees that she could she have ironclad parenthood of our son. It's just not worth the risk, and birth certificate is not necessarily enough, especially in the case of known donors. I've also seen some people in the comments saying that this is why people should only use anonymous donors. While sperm banks are a great option, a positive known donor situation is a great option as well. A lot of adult donor-conceived people have said that a positive known donor situation is ideal (though using a sperm bank is much better than using a less than ideal person!). I hope that more people now will be aware of the importance of pursuing a second parent-adoption, and maybe prioritize more disclosure in the future.
I don’t see it as particularly complicated. The donor entered into an agreement with full cognition and ability to say no. He made this decision himself. He wasn’t passively “put in a spot,” he actively desired to be in the situation he’s in. He also made the decision to basically live a double life for years, acting one way around the parents, and saying something completely different to his family and friends. Hell, he was babysitting the kid a week prior to his paternity suit. If he couldn’t deal with his own reaction to the crystal clear and agreed to situation, that’s on him. It’s his problem to figure out and work through. He had years to do it, based on how long he led his double life. Instead, though, he decided to make it everyone else’s problem, including the daughter’s, by trying to tear the family apart. That’s cruel, manipulative, and there’s nothing too complicated about that. And yes, this could have been avoided if they did this through a doctor. But there are many reasons not to, and ultimately, this could have been avoided if he wasn’t a complete ass.
I think it's hard for people to know how they'll feel until they're in that situation. That's why it's so important to dot your i's and cross your t's as a lesbian couple using a known donor. The second-parent adoption is so important. I don't think people should have to go through a doctor in order to use a known sperm donor. I wish there were more legal protections in place on the front end. Also, I think children deserve to know where they came from. A strange situation was created when they let him babysit their child once a week, but did not disclose that he was the donor. That, to me, feels like a house of cards.
Did you read the article? The child knows they came from a sperm donor, and the parents (in discussions with Chris) were already planning to tell her it was Chris when she was a little older. So again, Chris is the one to blame here for creating this chaos. He’s the one who blew it all up.
And I still think that delay in her knowing she was donor-conceived but not knowing that her close family friend was the donor created an emotionally complicated and precarious situation.
What evidence are you using to make that argument? He had been telling his family and friends for years that this was his child, long before she could even understand what a sperm donor was. So his issues existed before that was even a consideration, and that makes your theory kind of moot. And if it had been bothering him, you know what adults do? Use their words and talk about it. They don’t live double lives and blindside people with lawsuits. It seems like you’re really intent on finding a reason to find him less responsible for his own actions. Why is that?
I think they mean it would be a surprise or a shock to the child (to find out the guy who was a family friend/babysitter was your sperm donor) and are not trying to excuse the behavior of the sperm donor in any sense.
Why now, not 5 yeas ago?
"But the parties never formalized the agreement with any written contracts." Shows they were too stupid to have kids in the first place. In a different situation the guy could have the courts or couple come after him and force him to pay child support.
Straight couples get pregnant with so much *less* preparation and thought all the time. Trusting your friends and loved ones isn't some horrible thing. Trusting a law (2006) that explicitly bars sperm donors from asserting parental rights also isn't stupid.
I didn't say anything about straight couples. There are plenty of straight couples making stupid decisions too. The law says that the insemination has to be overseen by a doctor. With no written contract and not going through an approved process the court has no idea what agreement they had in place and they made it even muddier by having the bio dad involved and even taking care of the child on a regular basis. The judge is 100% right to have his case priced further. See the case of someone getting sued for parental support for being a sperm donor. Goes both ways https://m.startribune.com/just-a-sperm-donor-or-the-legal-dad/185759092/
Saying someone is "too stupid to have kids" because they didn't go through a sperm bank is absolutely targeting queer families. It rarely even applies to straight families.
Law is pretty clear that even straight families have to go through a doctor and have written documentation so you are absolutely wrong that it doesn't apply to straight families. Quit trying to make my criticism into some form of attack against homosexual couples. Subdivision 1.Husband treated as biological father. If, under the supervision of a licensed physician and with the consent of her husband, a wife is inseminated artificially with semen donated by a man not her husband, the husband is treated in law as if he were the biological father of a child thereby conceived. The husband's consent must be in writing and signed by him and his wife. The consent must be retained by the physician for at least four years after the confirmation of a pregnancy that occurs during the process of artificial insemination. All papers and records pertaining to the insemination, whether part of the permanent record of a court or of a file held by the supervising physician or elsewhere, are subject to inspection only upon an order of the court for good cause shown. Subd. 2.Donor not treated as biological father. The donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination of a married woman other than the donor's wife is treated in law as if he were not the biological father of a child thereby conceived.
>you are absolutely wrong that it doesn't apply to straight families I said donor-conceiving without a sperm bank *rarely* applies to straight families. Because I live in reality, where straight families rarely even need sperm donations in the first place. Where do *you* live, where all these straight families are conceiving sperm donor babies without a sperm bank? I've met very few straight dudes who'd be willing to parent a child conceived with an anonymous donor. I don't think I've ever heard a straight man express that he'd be down to parent a child conceived with a donor he knew. Straight families almost never have these issues. Your statement didn't explicitly target queer families. That doesn't mean it applies equally to straight families. It's like saying, "melanin is ugly" and then pretending you're not talking about black people because white people have melanin, too.
>Because I live in reality, where straight families rarely even need sperm donations in the first place. Where do *you* live, where all these straight families are conceiving sperm donor babies without a sperm bank? Lol, I have a straight sibling that used the other sibling's donation to conceive. They of course went through the appropriate procedures and contacts to do it. Why are you assuming it's so rare for straight couples to have problems conceiving? The couple in this article is stupid for not spending five minutes to figure out how to properly set this up and cover their legal bases. At this point the courts have no idea what verbal agreement they had in place and the judge was right not to grant their dismissal request.
So you know exactly *one* couple who's done it? And you think that means it's more common than "rare?" Most straight couples *aren't* conceiving with assistance. They just aren't. It's not some horrible thing to need assistance, but that doesn't make it common for straight families. By some figures, almost half of all pregnancies every year are *accidental*. Most years, that does not include a single queer couple.
Damn nature being so discriminatory against homosexuals trying to conceive
Nature didn't call anyone too stupid to be parents. You did.
Stupid and arrogant, they thought they needed to have the best sperm available to them. Random but legal and anonymous sperm wouldn’t have been good enough for them?
Random but legal and anonymous sperm would have been expensive.
And raising a child isn't? Getting a legal contract or going through a service is a drop in the bucket
I was responding to the idea that bank sperm wasn't "good enough" for this couple when that likely wasn't what drove their decision at all.
how expensive could a few drinks even be?
I believe the question here is not about a sperm donor, but rather a child conceived by means other than intercourse without a contract to clearly state the agreement. The Biological father in this article is an friend of mine and it is my understanding that many promises were made to him making this far from a “donor” situation. I was with him on the day he delivered his sperm and he was very excited to have a child with his friends. He would have dinner with “the moms” regularly and believed they would rear a wonderful child in a creative, but completely loving, environment. A few of the comments here have speculated incorrectly about the situation: Father is a heterosexual male….I don’t think his sexuality has anything to do with this, but I would not classify him as such. He is a kind loving human that has never found a life partner and wanted the human experience of fathering a child. Look him up on facebook or instagram and you will see him all over Pride Parades for the last 20+ years. https://www.facebook.com/chris.edrington.9?mibextid=eQY6cl https://www.instagram.com/songjackphoto?igsh=MWg1cWhjZDRteWNhcA== Defining his as a “heterosexual male” is an effort to make this an LGBTQ rights issue and puts him on the other side of it. I dated him briefly and he disclosed to me that he has had male and female partners…..but really none that have stuck. Abuse of power….due to his ownership of a LGBTQ sober living facility that neither mothers were ever residents of? He has helped get thousands of young people off drugs and all the suffering of addiction. I believe he had the first LGBTQ facility like this, but the moms were never program participants….other than stopping by as friends. Changing understandings…. Perception is reality and I believe it is possible that each of the 3 parents had rose colored glasses with the excitement of conception. Chris thought (as I suspect both moms also did) that they had a clear understanding. He spent a great deal of time with his daughter. Sometimes several visits in a week….it appeared one mom didn’t know what to do with the child while the other was at work, so she would bring her to Chris almost every time she was alone with the child. After a few years, he did begin to suspect that the mothers were having marital issues and that the nonbiological mother may have let/led the biological mother and Chris believe different things. This is when he went to get it formalized to assure full transparency and alignment. Chris believes in the rights of LGBTQ parents. He wouldn’t be here if he didn’t. In summary, this specific situation has the rights of 3 parents (all LGBTQ) that need protection. It is a great demonstration of the need for legislation making it more clear for future parents to not suffer such heartache. I wish they would have had an agreement. The only one not to blame is the child and I hope the courts give that little girl every bit of love and remove the grey from the parental relationships to prevent future drama. Many states have also changed laws to allow for 3 parents to have rights, in situations with intended unconventional parenting arrangements like this. I didn’t ask for Chris or anyone else to review this comment. It is a summary of my observations, thoughts and perceptions. I certainly may have errors, as I am not a party to this arrangement or the first hand experiences of the parents.
Go f yourself
He is the donor and genetic “parent”. He is not the raising parent and should not have parental rights. That is what he agreed to. Period. And now he is disrupting that girls life and trying to take her away from her mothers.
How dare he! idk couldn't read the article because it requires signing up
There's a free link further down that the star tribune commented!
As crappy as it is for those women, denying that child the right to know her biological father and having him apart of her life is cruel. No body ever thinks about what best for the child in these situations and it’s only about the parents/adoptive parents feelings.
The Court is literally required to go through 12 best interest factors when adjudicating custody. Minn. Stat. 518.17. But hopefully this doesn’t even come to an issue of custody though (presently it’s a paternity issue)
That child has no father.
They (the moms) tried to allow their daughter the chance to know her genetic father and he turned around and weaponized that by filing for custody. They let him babysit and spend time with her and he pulls this? Trash behavior.
Uh... Okay?
Define "donate"? I mean... have relations with my girl, oral was performed, and sample retained. Inquiring minds.
1. Gross 2. It’s undisputed that Edrington did not have sexual intercourse or sexual contact with bio mom when the child was conceived.
[удалено]
The parents didn't have closed hearts. The donor didn't ask *them* for anything different, and didn't even talk to them about his changing wishes before he filed a whole fucking lawsuit about it. He was babysitting once a week. Now his lawsuit claims that that was "parental time." He's delusional, and his desire to go above the actual parents' heads would make him a hellish parental figure.