Man fcuked over by his Ex

Roger Hassenforder

Interesting case:

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/06/man-loses-damages-claim-against-ivf-clinic-over-forged-consent

Wealthy man's xgirlfriend, forged his signature, and uses a frozen embryo to get pregnant after they broke up. He sues the clinic for negligence but loses despite the judge remarking;

"Although [the father] has lost this case, my judgment must be seen as a complete personal and moral vindication. The same, of course, cannot be said for the mother" ...accusing her of " mendacious embellishment”...and making up evidence "as she went along.”

He seems well healed, so can probably afford to provide "private education, nannies, her wedding, university education, skiing trips, refurbishing her bedroom and a Land Rover Discovery used to transport the girl and his eight-year-old son."

What a bitch though, looks like she has totally gotten away with it.

readyletsgo

Ultimate in 'spermjacker'.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

This was a civil case. The act of forging someone's signature would/will be most likely delt with seperately in a criminal case.

BrokenArrows

Its quite crazy that a signature is still used to verify identity for important things.

The case wasnt about what his ex did but was a lawsuit against the company for the cost of raising the child.
Its a bit mad that nothing was awarded to him.

thee glitz

The clinic has changed its practices so that if both parties are not available for the signing of the forms, written consent is followed up with a phone call.

Watertight. Wtf is wrong with this company..?

rejects claim as parents cannot be compensated for birth of healthy child

and that country.

B.A._Baracus

He got stung pretty bad.
It's one thing to be foolish and knock someone up that you should never have went near in the first place (many a person has made that mistake) But going behind your back to get sperm? that's a new one!

She's crazy in any case.

Saruhashi

Do people who do this stuff not stop to think of how it might affect their kid when they grow up?

Can you imagine being 16 years old and discovering that your mother forged your fathers signature and went behind his back, a year after they had broken up, to have you without his consent.

That's going to mess with your head. That you may have been born out of your mothers desire for "revenge" on your father.

"Kid, your mum was really angry with your dad and really upset after their break up so she had you to get back at him. Good luck."

Pero_Bueno

What a crazy kunt ! , I feel so sorry for the daughter having a lunatic like that for a mother!

Roger Hassenforder

begbysback wrote: »

There should be a girlfriend suitability test. She should have to score highly on both emotional and mental tests - then a 6 - 12 month cooling off period, call it the practical test - only at this point after acceptance test is satisfactory can she then be considered "girlfriend"

Wives could be sent back to some repository / authority as well for periodical reassessment.
If a significant alteration/malfunction as occurred to the one you were issued with, a replacement is sent out.

Gone Drinking

He's obviously worth a few quid, given the description of the damages he's looking for (damages, that he wasn't awarded so he'll be expected to pay from his own pocket).

This woman did it, knowing that she would be entitled to have him put money towards the childcare, a significant amount of money by the sounds of it.

Sad times when the court and experts agrees with everything the guys saying but he still comes out worse off. She should be locked up and the treatment centre should be paying some sort of compensation to him for their complete mess up.

the_pen_turner

child should be taken from the mother and given to the father with him with full custody

Nabber

Feel sorry for the child. Created simply to be a pawn.

begbysback

Nabber wrote: »

Feel sorry for the child. Created simply to be a pawn.

Would it really matter? You could argue most of us were created just because someone was having a bit of craic

Roger Hassenforder

begbysback wrote: »

Would it really matter? You could argue most of us were created just because someone was having a bit of craic

literally

Capt'n Midnight

Does he still have to pay child support ?

myshirt

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Does he still have to pay child support ?

Yes. That was the whole point. He was suing them for the cost they imposed upon him.

This woman is a disgrace to the decent broads out there.

Shemale

Unreal they did not witness the signatures before making a baby.

One thing weird about this is they had his sperm so he must have given it to them, if not surely they would have mentioned it in the article.

Shemale

Shemale wrote: »

Unreal they did not witness the signatures before making a baby.

One thing weird about this is they had his sperm so he must have given it to them, if not surely they would have mentioned it in the article.

I presume the issue is not that the whole event was a fraud, or it was taken without his knowledge. He participated in it, so it's not like he's completely a victim. It just seems that, having given his sperm, he didn't trigger the go ahead.

You'd think there'd also be some onus on him to signal that he no longer wanted them to use his sperm or the embryos. Did he forget about it once they broke up, or rely wholly on their ability to deduce his handwriting?

beefburrito

Waiting for the militant feminist's to defend the harlot.......

beefburrito

beefburrito wrote: »

Waiting for the militant feminist's to defend the harlot.......

Maybe she just wanted children? She is now in her 40s, she had embryos available from a partner who had participated in providing them but was no longer around to give consent to the go ahead or likely to give it, I think one could have some sympathy. Does the article say she had pursued him for a lot of money, or he was suing for anticipated payments.

Omackeral

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Maybe she just wanted children? She is now in her 40s, she had embryos available from a partner who had participated in providing them but was no longer around to give consent to the go ahead or likely to give it, I think one could have some sympathy. Does the article say she had pursued him for a lot of money, or he was suing for anticipated payments.

Bolded part should be what matters IMO

suicide_circus

"I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability"

Samaris

begbysback wrote: »

There should be a girlfriend suitability test. She should have to score highly on both emotional and mental tests - then a 6 - 12 month cooling off period, call it the practical test - only at this point after acceptance test is satisfactory can she then be considered "girlfriend"

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Wives could be sent back to some repository / authority as well for periodical reassessment.
If a significant alteration/malfunction as occurred to the one you were issued with, a replacement is sent out.

begbysback wrote: »

Excellent call - only after a few comparisons can a man really be satisfied that he has made the right decision.

suicide_circus wrote: »

"I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability"

Mod: Enough of the misogynistic rubbish (and kindly remember that plenty of women use boards too). Discuss the story, not your views on half the population please. People will start getting thread-banned for this sort of thing.

beefburrito

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Maybe she just wanted children? She is now in her 40s, she had embryos available from a partner who had participated in providing them but was no longer around to give consent to the go ahead or likely to give it, I think one could have some sympathy. Does the article say she had pursued him for a lot of money, or he was suing for anticipated payments.

As a man I've no sympathy for her.

If a guy decided to rob a woman's egg's and it was possible to fertilize them and bring them through gestation artificially, would you be feeling sympathy for him,fck no...

But I'm sure a few feminist's will applaud your comment and maybe send you a pm looking for your phone number, because your such an amazing guy.

julyjane

Wasn't there a case in Ireland a few years back where a couple had separated or divorced and the ex wife wanted to become pregnant with their remaining frozen embryos but her ex husband wouldn't consent so she brought him to court? I think our ever precious right to life of the unborn was a big factor in the woman's side of the argument.

beefburrito

beefburrito wrote: »

As a man I've no sympathy for her.

If a guy decided to rob a woman's egg's and it was possible to fertilize them and bring them through gestation artificially, would you be feeling sympathy for him,fck no...

But I'm sure a few feminist's will applaud your comment and maybe send you a pm looking for your phone number, because your such an amazing guy.

There is no suggestion the semen was robbed.

Try to stick to the facts. And relax a little with the whole feminist fixation and the ravings about me being an amazing guy. She did not steal the semen.

Do you want to try a better analogy that works with the story in the OP and drop the angry stuff?

Omackeral

Simply put, if the man didn't give consent for his sperm to be used then it's a disgrace. The fact she forged his signature is really insult to injury.

The bloke is entitled to have his sperm in a facility for later use if he so chooses much the same way as the lady would have that same right with her eggs.

There should be no defending this.

suicide_circus

In a way, I suppose she played a blinder.

Omackeral

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There is no suggestion the semen was robbed.

Try to stick to the facts.

Did she not obtain the sample by forging his signature without his consent? That's fraudulently acquiring it without the owner's permission. More or less stealing you could say.

beefburrito

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There is no suggestion the semen was robbed.

Try to stick to the facts. And relax a little with the whole feminist fixation and the ravings about me being an amazing guy. She did not steal the semen.

Do you want to try a better analogy that works with the story in the OP and drop the angry stuff?

She obtained the semen through corruption, forgery, dishonesty and without out the consent of the owner.

But she did not steal the semen.

Surly if I used your MasterCard to buy diesel without your consent it wouldn't be stealing.

Come on now Conor stop hanging out with the lefties.

begbysback

Samaris wrote: »

Mod: Enough of the misogynistic rubbish (and kindly remember that plenty of women use boards too). Discuss the story, not your views on half the population please. People will start getting thread-banned for this sort of thing.

Sorry - thought this was AH

beefburrito

beefburrito wrote: »

She obtained the semen through corruption, forgery, dishonesty and without out the consent of the owner.

But she did not steal the semen.

Surly if I used your MasterCard to buy diesel without your consent it wouldn't be stealing.

Come on now Conor stop hanging out with the lefties.

She didn't.

Read the article and stop making stuff up.

Omackeral wrote: »

Did she not obtain the sample by forging his signature without his consent? That's fraudulently acquiring it without the owner's permission. More or less stealing you could say.

Nope.

He provided the semen sample willingly, a point completely lost on beefburrito. In fact, they'd had a child. He didn't give the consent to thaw a second embryo. Although he did attend a consultation about it.

Nothing to do with theft of semen. He had willingly provided it. He had not formally consented to thawing an embryo.

pwurple

beefburrito wrote: »

She obtained the semen through corruption, forgery, dishonesty and without out the consent of the owner.

But she did not steal the semen.

Surly if I used your MasterCard to buy diesel without your consent it wouldn't be stealing.

Come on now Conor stop hanging out with the lefties.

You don’t actually know the difference between semen and an embryo?

pwurple

pwurple wrote: »

You don’t actually know the difference between semen and an embryo?

You can only laugh.

Let's rave about feminists first...and then we'll go read up on biology!

He should be blushing, but bet he'll try to dig out!

beefburrito

[Deleted User] wrote: »

She didn't.

Read the article and stop making stuff up.



Nope.

He provided the semen sample willingly, a point completely lost on beefburrito. In fact, they'd had a child. He didn't give the consent to thaw a second embryo.

Nothing to do with theft of semen. He had willingly provided it. He had not consented to thawing an embryo.

Quite the barrister you'd make ol' boy.

Your evidence is complete rubbish.

Read the op again, slowly this time ol'chaps.

bee06

Did anyone actually read the article? The forged signature was used to give permission to implant an embryo which had been frozen following IVF treatment they both agreed to when they had their earlier child. Obviously completely wrong still but all this talk of stolen sperm is inaccurate.

Sofia Vergara (Modern Family actress) was actually involved in a court case (which she won) this year where her ex partner wanted to use embryos they had frozen during their relationship to implant a surrogate. He then would have been able to claim child support off her.

The whole thing is very sad for the little girl though. The fathers description of her an not part of the family and like an alien was hard to read. None of what happened was any of her fault. With the increase in fertility treatment it sounds like more laws need to be put in place to deal with the "custody" of frozen embryos etc.

Omackeral

Sorry I missed that it was an embryo rather than the semen. Forging signatures is not right though. Going against consent is most certainly wrong. Just because you've given consent at an earlier date, you have the right to revoke it further along if situations change and once you do, that's all that should matter.

bee06

beefburrito wrote: »

Quite the barrister you'd make ol' boy.

Your evidence is complete rubbish.

Read the op again, slowly this time ol'chaps.

I think you missed this bit in the article

"The couple then returned to the clinic in 2010 to discuss thawing a frozen embryo. The man later said the relationship was already broken beyond repair at this point and he had only attended to “avoid another shouting match”. The judge found he “persuaded himself that the purpose of the consultation with [the consultant] was not to discuss the use of the frozen embryos in the context of R having another baby”."

beefburrito

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You can only laugh.

Let's rave about feminists first...and then we'll go read up on biology!

He should be blushing, but bet he'll try to dig out!

I'm quite capable of digging myself out Connor.

Where did I quote I don't know the difference between sperm and an embryo ?

I'll make it more clear.

The guy was fcked over and I've no sympathy for the woman.

The guy was fcked over and I've no sympathy for the woman.

It's quite clear you're trying to do my thinking for me which is insanely silly.

Samaris

Hard to know what the next step is - should frozen embryos be destroyed if the parents separate?

Hyperbole aside, what she did was absolutely wrong and she should have gotten some sort of punishment for it (unless the fraudulent action is being dealt with in a separate case). Poor kid though. Imagine reading that article when she's old enough to understand her father is talking about her.

December2012

That woman did a horrible thing.

Manipulative and deceptive.

I wonder if he is suing her

beefburrito

bee06 wrote: »

I think you missed this bit in the article

"The couple then returned to the clinic in 2010 to discuss thawing a frozen embryo. The man later said the relationship was already broken beyond repair at this point and he had only attended to “avoid another shouting match”. The judge found he “persuaded himself that the purpose of the consultation with [the consultant] was not to discuss the use of the frozen embryos in the context of R having another baby”."

I understand that,but I'm really taking up the argument about the man being fcked over.

I should have read it more clearly.

Thanks for pointing it out.

myshirt

Samaris wrote: »

Hard to know what the next step is - should frozen embryos be destroyed if the parents separate?

Hyperbole aside, what she did was absolutely wrong and she should have gotten some sort of punishment for it (unless the fraudulent action is being dealt with in a separate case). Poor kid though. Imagine reading that article when she's old enough to understand her father is talking about her.

Look at it the other way around. He wanted a nice settlement that would have enhanced this girls life. Remember he didn't short change her or squirm about paying the maintenance. He paid.

If he had total disdain he would not have paid anything and fought tooth and nail to not pay anything unless the law compelled him, and at that he'd pay the minimum.

The scumbag who has no humanity is the female, and it's this dominant feminist agenda that facilitates her to chop down good men like this man.

Ulysses Gaze

beefburrito wrote: »

As a man I've no sympathy for her.

If a guy decided to rob a woman's egg's and it was possible to fertilize them and bring them through gestation artificially, would you be feeling sympathy for him,fck no...

But I'm sure a few feminist's will applaud your comment and maybe send you a pm looking for your phone number, because your such an amazing guy.

Militant Feminists generally don't go near internet White Knights. They are considered "useful idiots".

bee06

beefburrito wrote: »

I understand that,but I'm really taking up the argument about the man being fcked over.

I agree with you there.

I did find it strange that in his court case he wanted the clinic to pay for "private education, nannies, her wedding, university education, skiing trips, refurbishing her bedroom and a Land Rover Discovery used to transport the girl and his eight-year-old son."

Surely no court has obliged him to pay child support for those kinds of costs?

beefburrito

myshirt wrote: »

Look at it the other way around. He wanted a nice settlement that would have enhanced this girls life. Remember he didn't short change her or squirm about paying the maintenance. He paid.

If he had total disdain he would not have paid anything and fought tooth and nail to not pay anything unless the law compelled him, and at that he'd pay the minimum.

The scumbag who has no humanity is the female, and it's this dominant feminist agenda that facilitates her to chop down good men like this man.

Exactly my point.

You'll also get the snowflake men who'll join the dominant feminine movement.

Teyla Emmagan

I don't know. Maybe the woman was desperate for another baby. They already had one child together. It's not good, obviously, that she ploughed away without his permission but it doesn't sound like she did it for the child support. It wouldn't have been that much more above what he was already paying for one kid. As in, not worth the extra hassle. But he should have made sure any remaining embryos were destroyed when the relationship ended. He was right to take the case of course, the clinic sure fcked up.

Interesting times.

beefburrito

bee06 wrote: »

I agree with you there.

I did find it strange that in his court case he wanted the clinic to pay for "private education, nannies, her wedding, university education, skiing trips, refurbishing her bedroom and a Land Rover Discovery used to transport the girl and his eight-year-old son."

Surely no court has obliged him to pay child support for those kinds of costs?

I'd say those costs were fantasy really.

Roger Hassenforder

Although "unwanted", the child deserves to be supported by her father, even better if it can be done without the mother benifeting from her fraud. At least he says he loves her.


I wonder how all the pro choice (abortion) lobbyists feel if the father could seek an order for the termination of an (his) unwanted baby (although in this case he found out in the third trimester) , or indeed even apply for an order to stop a proposed termination?

Does a father have any "choice" in babies post-sperm deposition?

beefburrito

beefburrito wrote: »

I'm quite capable of digging myself out Connor.

Where did I quote I don't know the difference between sperm and an embryo ?

This bit...

beefburrito wrote: »

She obtained the semen through corruption, forgery, dishonesty and without out the consent of the owner...

She didn't.

He gave it voluntarily. He had a child with her. He attended a consultation about the second child, so he even participated in the talks about using the embryo.

It's not some legalistic point. Reaching for the ad hominem and going on about lefties and legalities doesn't change the simple biology.

The fraud was in signing a document. And a Court has held that the recipient of that document was not negligent in relying on it.

His child, he has to pay up. Not because of some duty to her, she doesn't deserve anything, she faked consent to the thawing and use of the embryo. But because the child is his, and obviously maintenance is based on the needs of his child.

Omackeral

But he didn't want a child did he? Didn't consent to the use of both of their "ingredients" at the time in question. He may have at one point in time but not at the relevant time. Her forgery was his implied consent. That's not on.

Same principle as if you agree to have sex one weekend it doesn't mean you're obliged to the next just because you did last week. Situations change.