Whilst admirable in intent, if you relegate any ongoing relationship to the base absurdity that the creation of life within that could be reduced to some legal transfer of living cells without any ongoing rights or responsibility resting on the donor party, then what on earth is the point of the ‘father’ seeking any sort of permanence of relationship in the first place

And what with proposals such as the following….

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27315418

…..why should men bother taking the risk?

If things carry on at this rate, in a number of generations time we will land up with

– A small number of women thinking that they have everything that they could ever have wished for
– A large number of women never being able to have what they might have wished for and would give everything to have

But maybe I’m old and fuddy duddy

Reply

He is the father. They were in a relationship. That’s the end of it. Silly lawyers games which should get very short shrift from any court and wouldnt trouble me for 2 minutes. Then it is for the court to set up and regulate as best it can a sensible regime of contact until the young man is at least 16 at which point he can decide what he wants.
Ain’t life simple!

Reply

What you’ve set out here Anna is an interesting twist on a growing and very serious problem: that of depriving a child of a parent who loves him and wants to be involved in his life and the almost complete lack of thought for that child (on the part of the parent who does that, and also on the part of the many courts left to resolve things).

The paramountcy principle – that a child’s best interest comes first – is widely acknowledged but in practice it’s often poorly applied.

In most jurisdictions that should mean the most important point is not the right of a parent to withhold or exercise contact, but the child’s fundamental right that both parents maintain for him a relationship with both his parents post separation.

Somehow – probably through 40+ years of (radical) feminist-led policy making – we’ve ended up in a situation now where courts accept as a valid starting point to proceedings: that one parent has unilaterally interfered with the child’s ability to maintain an ongoing relationship with both parents; instead of demanding they explain that conduct and answer any questions it may pose about their suitability to parent.

That parent should have to lead with evidence to justify their action – already taken – rather than the excluded parent having to lead evidence to justify being allowed to return to be a part of the child’s life. (We’re back once again – very close – to the issue of presumption of innocence.)

This lack of thought for the child often indicates a very self-absorbed personality and parenting style which can have serious long term consequences for a child. The most determined (to erase the other parent from their lives completely) of these parents convey a three-part message to the child: (1) I’m the only parent who loves you and you need me to feel good about yourself; (2) the other parent is dangerous and unavailable; and (3) pursuing a relationship with that parent jeopardizes your relationship with me. In essence the child receives the message that he is worthless and unloved and only of value for meeting the needs of others. (The core experience of emotional abuse.) Many of these children move on quite swiftly to voice vehement opposition to having anything to do with their excluded parent and describe their relationship with the parent they continue to live with as one of blissful happiness.

Interestingly – in the context of this case – American jurisdictions are more likely to afford considerable weight (especially when it comes to determining residence) to which parent is more willing to promote an ongoing and meaningful relationship with the other parent. And – for obvious reasons – antagonistic parenting is more likely to lead some of the same North American courts to consider a change in residence rather than allow antagonistic parental behaviour to somehow justify acceptance of the status quo.

The interesting twist in this case – the circumstances & procedures surrounding the IVF treatment necessary to conceive Gus – seem to support at least some of the above, but add a gendered dimension.

The father’s apparent error (everything relayed here suggests he only ever intended to be treated as the ‘natural father’) in thinking the inclusion of ‘intended parent’ on the form he signed was nothing to be concerned about, contrasts sharply with the mother’s declaration that she knew exactly what she was doing at that point. That strikes me as cynical and manipulative if not coercive, controlling behaviour (frequently a fundamental part of emotionally abusive relationships).

I’m afraid – despite my fervent support of equality – attitudes to and assessment of feminism may need recalibration if this wider problem is to be addressed. Reluctance to criticise the feminist movement; for fear of causing offence or coming under attack as supporters of patriarchy seems to have allowed much of this to take root.

I wonder if anyone else here might think there are direct parallels in Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s April 2013 challenge to her Sydney Opera House audience with questions relating to multiculturalism:

“Multiculturalism is no longer a model of racial, religious and cultural harmony, if it ever was that. Multiculturalism is indifference disguised as tolerance. It allows the free and affluent person to turn his back on those whose freedoms and rights are compromised; on the poor and the most vulnerable. It gives people an excuse to claim tolerance in the face of intolerance. Multiculturalism is moral racism disguised as broad-mindedness.”

However, I must answer to your question: “Does Gus have any rights in this, should he have any rights?” Anna. My view is he’s the one whose rights must come first. Unlike his parents, he has rights without obligations; his parents rights exist first and foremost to enable them to carry out their obligations to Gus.

Reply