This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
More unfairness for males
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Stirlingsays  06 Oct 17 2.54pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Harry Beever
The father sounds like a chancer. The mother like a criminal. He should bare no financial responsibility for this child but morally I'd imagine he feels duty bound to help and thought he'd try his luck with the clinic. The clinic weren't responsible for the mothers fraudulent behaviour. Buck stops with her though imagine there is an immensely complicated legal argument to be had. Mother should have the book thrown at her though I feel sorry for her kids. I think they were negligent. But it's just my view. I concur though....it's a horrible case.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Harry Beever Newbury 06 Oct 17 2.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I think they were negligent. But it's just my view. I concur though....it's a horrible case. No winners that's for sure, especially not the kid!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 06 Oct 17 3.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Harry Beever
No winners that's for sure, especially not the kid! Innocence comes into the world and gets this. It's not good.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 06 Oct 17 3.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
The law regarding these things is insufficient, the practices of the IVF clinic were grossly negligent and the woman involved is a psycho! He should get custody of both kids and she should pay maintenance to him for life, not just until the child reaches adulthood.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| npn Crowborough 06 Oct 17 3.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
The dad was interviewed on Radio 4 too - said something along the lines of how hard it is to have a relationship with the child, that he now loves, but she knows he never wanted! So it sounds like they have some sort of relationship and he sees her. Feel sorry for the father, feel sorry for the kid, pretty ambivalent towards the clininc, nothing but contempt for the mother
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 becky over the moon 06 Oct 17 4.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
He then went on to say - "This claim has never been about money; it is about justice." Yeah, right. With that previous list of demands of course it was. He does find himself in a dilemma though.... the article states that they already have a son through IVF from when they were together, now he also has an unplanned daughter whom it seems he will love because she is his child no matter what the circumstances of her birth. So how is he supposed to behave? Pay all the bills for the planned son and nothing for the daughter? Be forced to pay maintenance and for her private education (presumably the same as he does for the boy) the 'girly' things and the wedding? Expenses that he had neither planned for nor had any say in the creation of. Personally, I don't find this list of financial requirements either greedy or unjust. I agree that the fault lies principally with the mother, but the clinic were rather lax in accepting a consent form that was not signed in person for something with so many possible implications, and should, in my view, have to accept the consequences of their actions.
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
Kermit8  Hevon 06 Oct 17 4.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by becky
He does find himself in a dilemma though.... the article states that they already have a son through IVF from when they were together, now he also has an unplanned daughter whom it seems he will love because she is his child no matter what the circumstances of her birth. So how is he supposed to behave? Pay all the bills for the planned son and nothing for the daughter? Be forced to pay maintenance and for her private education (presumably the same as he does for the boy) the 'girly' things and the wedding? Expenses that he had neither planned for nor had any say in the creation of. Personally, I don't find this list of financial requirements either greedy or unjust. I agree that the fault lies principally with the mother, but the clinic were rather lax in accepting a consent form that was not signed in person for something with so many possible implications, and should, in my view, have to accept the consequences of their actions. The ex-is the fraudster and should be the one to pay. Maybe the system is at fault and not the clinic reading the words below. Looks like it could have happened at any of them. Legally as it stands the right decision has been arrived at. Jude Fleming of IVF Hammersmith welcomed the finding: "As a clinic, we place patient care at the heart of everything we do.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Kermit8 Hevon 06 Oct 17 4.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
...also why on earth did he not have the embryos destroyed as soon as the relationship went pear-shaped? Odd. More to this than meets the eye I reckon. Some couples are fvcking weird.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 06 Oct 17 4.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
...also why on earth did he not have the embryos destroyed as soon as the relationship went pear-shaped? Odd. More to this than meets the eye I reckon. Some couples are fvcking weird. I think, like the implantation of them should be, that it requires both parties to agree to it.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Kermit8 Hevon 06 Oct 17 5.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
I think, like the implantation of them should be, that it requires both parties to agree to it. Not so it seems after a bit of research. UK law says if the couple split up, if one party withdraws the consent, the other party can’t use it (embryo) at all. So he could have saved himself all this bother with one trip. Edited by Kermit8 (06 Oct 2017 5.03pm)
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 06 Oct 17 5.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
Not so it seems after a bit of research. UK law says if the couple split up, if one party withdraws the consent, the other party can’t use it (embryo) at all. So he could have saved himself all this bother with one trip. Edited by Kermit8 (06 Oct 2017 5.03pm) So it seems. Quite a thing to forget to do.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| PALACE FOR EVER London 06 Oct 17 7.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
There seems to be disagreement in whether he had told them that about their separation. 'The judge found the company had breached its contract in accepting a document that purported to give the man’s consent to using a frozen egg fertilised by his sperm, five months after he said he and his partner had parted ways after a “volatile and rancorous” relationship. The clinic said at no point had it been informed of the couple’s separation.'
The pyramid to beat all pyramids!! Find out what team is in which division, eg which division is Coppull United in? |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.