Man fcuked over by his Ex

Omackeral

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh true. But on the other hand, if you go with someone else and jointly participate in the purchase, agreeing everything all along, you can't complain when they didn't hire handwriting experts to analyse the documents to conclude the purchase.

I surely can. The signee should have to be present for something as huge as that and there should be witness(es). Is that the clinic's fault? I think maybe. Is the lady at fault? Absolutely. Is your man at fault... well you seem to think so. Anyway, let's bring in retina scans just to be sure.

KERSPLAT!

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Even from your multiple posts on the thread I'm struggling to understand what stance you're actually taking here Conor?

It was his fault, her fault, the clinics fault? Not black and white obviously, care to explain?

She committed a fraud.

He was an awful clown.

The clinic have no legal responsibility to either to save them from their criminality or stupidity.

He should pay for the child as it is his, and that child certainly isn't responsible for the mess.

Omackeral

Deleted User wrote: »

She committed a fraud.

He was an awful clown.

The clinic have no legal responsibility to either to save them from their criminality or stupidity.

He should pay for the child as it is his, and that child certainly isn't responsible for the mess.

How dare anyone change their mind.

Omackeral

Deleted User wrote: »

The clinic have no legal responsibility to either to save them from their criminality or stupidity.

.

Them. Nice. What criminal act they he carry out again? Save them from her criminality, is that what you mean?

KERSPLAT!

No responsibility on the clinic to confirm the legitimacy of the signature? By that I mean the person signing be present. This isn't signing for your dry cleaning or something else insignificant.

I believe very little, if any, blame lies with him.

Vojera

[Deleted User] wrote: »

when he volunteered his semen for a second child, when the embryo was frozen for later use

I doubt this is what happened. Normally in IVF they'll fertilise a number of eggs and let them develop for a few days. Then they'll implant several embryos and hope that at least one will take, and the rest will be frozen in case they are not successful and need to try again. I imagine the embryo used in this case was a "left-over" from the first time around.

Omackeral

Omackeral wrote: »

Them. Nice. What criminal act they he carry out again? Save them from her criminality, is that what you mean?

Her criminality. His stupidity.

Vojera wrote: »

I doubt this is what happened. Normally in IVF they'll fertilise a number of eggs and let them develop for a few days. Then they'll implant several embryos and hope that at least one will take, and the rest will be frozen in case they are not successful and need to try again. I imagine the embryo used in this case was a "left-over" from the first time around.

He went to a meeting about the thawing and use of the embryo at the centre of the dispute.

Omackeral

Deleted User wrote: »

Her criminality. His stupidity.

So he's not entitled to change his mind on the massive issue of having a child, no? As you said, he stupidly did it once, is he not allowed to reject it and refrain from making the same mistake again a second time. Fool me once shame on me type of rule?

KERSPLAT!

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

this isn't signing for your dry cleaning or something else insignificant.

It is indeed incredibly significant.

And I like your analogy.

If I changed my mind about dry cleaning after handing it in, I might phone them up or send them an email.

Apparently this didn't cross his mind about the use of an embryo he had helped create and following a discussion about its use with them...

Omackeral

Omackeral wrote: »

So he's not entitled to change his mind on the massive issue of having a child, no? As you said, he stupidly did it once, is he not allowed to reject it and refrain from making the same mistake again a second time. Fool me once shame on me type of rule?

Oh he is, absolutely.

Keeping it to himself was pretty stupid through, when by then the embryo was in the care of another with whom he had discussed its use.

KERSPLAT!

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It is indeed incredibly significant.

And I like your analogy.

If I changed my mind about dry cleaning after handing it in, I might phone them up or send them an email.

Apparently this didn't cross his mind about the use of an embryo he had helped create and following a discussion about its use with them...

It's far from the same. If he knew his signature was required to proceed then he would have no reason to call or email. Either way, he didnt give his consent and that's the bottom line. You want to blame him. He didn't do anything wrong.

PeterParker957

Deleted User wrote: »

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

this isn't signing for your dry cleaning or something else insignificant.

It is indeed incredibly significant.

And I like your analogy.

If I changed my mind about dry cleaning after handing it in, I might phone them up or send them an email.

Apparently this didn't cross his mind about the use of an embryo he had helped create and following a discussion about its use with them...

Answer this - you're a woman and you go home with a man. You agree to sex.

On leaving the next morning and he comes on to you again. You say no and he does it anyway.

You'd agree shed gone so far and couldn't change her mind?

Omackeral

Deleted User wrote: »

If I changed my mind about dry cleaning after handing it in, I might phone them up or send them an email.

Apparently this didn't cross his mind about the use of an embryo he had helped create and following a discussion about its use with them...

He was required to sign a further document if the treatment was to go further. There was no onus on him to call them. If any more action was to be taken regarding use of said embryos, that's when he was required to get in touch.

He did nothing wrong. Nothing criminal. He decided he didn't wanna go ahead with it so didn't sign the papers to get that motion started. She underhandedly did that. You still blame him partly. He was wronged. You're blaming a wronged person, a victim in other words. You're literally victim blaming.

Omackeral

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh he is, absolutely.

Keeping it to himself was pretty stupid through, when by then the embryo was in the care of another with whom he had discussed its use.

Discussed does not equate to giving consent for it to be used. The only players at fault were her for fraudulently signing his name and maybe the carers of the embryo for facilitating that. He clearly didn't sign off on it to trigger the action. C'mon, you're a smart guy, you know this.

KERSPLAT!

Thr fact that a signature was required to proceed seems to escape you Conor. Why should he have to do anything like call or email if the only way to proceed requires him to consent and sign?

PeterParker957

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Thr fact that a signature was required to proceed seems to escape you Conor. Why should he have to do anything like call or email if the only way to proceed requires him to consent and sign?

You also can't amend a written agreement by phone or email. Only in writing. With a signature.

Roger Hassenforder

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But the meeting was about thawing and use. He went. There is no evidence whatsoever that he objected or raised any issue at all at it. His line that he wanted to avoid a shouting match suggests something very different.

You are certainly correct as to when the fraud occurred. The utter stupidity on his part occurred long before that, when he had a child with a woman with whom he was in a volatile relationship, when he volunteered his semen for a second child, when the embryo was frozen for later use, when he attended the meeting anticipating its use, and when he forgot to go back and tell them he had changed his position.

There was fraud on her part, there may well have been negligence if not downright reckless behaviour by other participants. I agree with the Court, it wasn't the clinic.

surprising to see you of all people holding such a position Conor, some serious 'George Hookesque' victim blaming there; "negligence and reckless behaviour"?

As is your want to extol contentious judgments where the court is privy to more information, let's remind ourselves of the judges' utterance "my judgment must be seen as a complete personal and moral vindication" of the father.

It doesn't matter what the meeting was about, she forged his signature to thaw an embryo, grow a baby and claim maintenance.

At worst he's guilty of being a muppet in not ordering a note put on the file/record 'Not for thawing. Ever'. But he did nothing wrong.

We don't know the circumstances of the relationship, maybe they were very happy at one stage, the embryos were probably fertilised from the one "load" of sperm he happily provided at the time. A batch of embryos were produced, some (at least one) planted and a baby was produced. The relationship broke down some time after that batch of embryos were frozen. She forged his signature and had the entire batch / some embryos thawed.

whoopsadoodles

Jesus over the years I've met with lots of banks about mortgages and I've expressed my interest in taking a loan out with them.

Nice to know that I implied consent for someone to draw down a loan without my signature based on my attendance to those meetings.

dr.fuzzenstein

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It is indeed incredibly significant.

And I like your analogy.

If I changed my mind about dry cleaning after handing it in, I might phone them up or send them an email.

Apparently this didn't cross his mind about the use of an embryo he had helped create and following a discussion about its use with them...

He didn't consent

dr.fuzzenstein

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh he is, absolutely.

Keeping it to himself was pretty stupid through, when by then the embryo was in the care of another with whom he had discussed its use.

He didn't consent

dr.fuzzenstein

[Deleted User] wrote: »

See above. He attended the consultation about thawing and use.

He didn't consent

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

You're entitled to think he did nothing whatsoever to contribute to his position.

I disagree.

"She shouldn't have been wearing those clothes in a dark alleyway your honour..."

dr.fuzzenstein

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So the child should be punished because Daddy changed his mind after he provided the semen?

Maintenance works on the basis of the needs of the child, not whether Mom was good or not.

He didn't consent

dr.fuzzenstein

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yet again going for the ad hominem...yaaaaaaaaawn.

I think the snowflake generation are known for their sensitivity. Ironically you seem far more upset about the issue than any other poster on the thread.

Anyway, you have learned the difference between sperm and an embryo. You should welcome any day when you learn something new.

He didn't consent

dr.fuzzenstein

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This bit...



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.

He didn't consent

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It is indeed incredibly significant.

And I like your analogy.

If I changed my mind about dry cleaning after handing it in, I might phone them up or send them an email.

Apparently this didn't cross his mind about the use of an embryo he had helped create and following a discussion about its use with them...

If someone forged your signature on a consent form for your cleaning to be done, then it would have been done against your wishes, you'd have been the victim of fraud, and the blame is with the fraudster.

He wasn't to know that the checks and balances weren't stringent enough when establishing consent, he wasn't to know she'd fraudently access the embryos, and while in hindsight we can all say what he should have done, he's the victim here.

He didn't collude with the fraudster and bears no portion of blame.

dr.fuzzenstein

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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?

He didn't consent

Backstreet Moyes

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

He didn't consent

Tell us what you really think:D

beefburrito

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yet again going for the ad hominem...yaaaaaaaaawn.

I think the snowflake generation are known for their sensitivity. Ironically you seem far more upset about the issue than any other poster on the thread.

Anyway, you have learned the difference between sperm and an embryo. You should welcome any day when you learn something new.

I'm not really upset Connor my good man.

I'm just saying he didn't consent,and he was fcked over.

By the way,did I tell you I think he was fcked over.

I also appreciate you telling me I should welcome the day I learn something new thanks bud

Carlos Orange

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He went to a meeting about the thawing and use of the embryo at the centre of the dispute.

Meeting someone isnt a recognised form of consent. The signature was forged because he did not agree to the procedure. Repeating that he went to a meeting is pointless.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

"She shouldn't have been wearing those clothes in a dark alleyway your honour..."

You may see rape and fraud as kinda the same.

I don't.

Barry Badrinath

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You may see rape and fraud as kinda the same.

I don't.

He is referencing 'victim blaming' Conor and also applying the same rationale to a different scenario.

Also, I cant believe you are holding this guy as partialy responsible for the situation.

Anyway Lional, I mean Conor, im sure you know better than us.

tomwaterford

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You may see rape and fraud as kinda the same.

I don't.

Surely the example of blaming and holding someone reponsible for the actions of someone else is comparable?

dr.fuzzenstein

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You may see rape and fraud as kinda the same.

I don't.

He didn't consent

the_pen_turner

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

He didn't consent

could you repeat that again , there is an awful echo in here :D

PeterParker957

the_pen_turner wrote: »

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

He didn't consent

could you repeat that again , there is an awful echo in here :D

Sadly there's still someone who doesn't get it though.....

Ken.

Mod-Ok Dr. Fuzz, we get the point. Drop it now please.

Sand

It's clear he never consented to have a second child with this woman. He may have consented to the embryos being frozen, but that isnt consent to actually have a child. She wouldn't have needed to forge his signature if that was the case. Only a very clever fool could argue otherwise. But there's always one. Usually the same one.

I feel terrible for the daughter. She is going to read what the "father" said (I get the impression the mother will love making her read it) and that will deeply hurt her.

Senor Fancy Pants

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

Also, I cant believe you are holding this guy as partialy responsible for the situation.

He has no responsibility for the forged document.

He was pretty heavily involved in donating the semen, creating the embryo, discussing its thaw and use, and failing to signal he did not want to proceed. In this day and age, with emails, the last one is really hard one to figure.

One thing that is not clear from the article is what he thought after the meeting where they discussed the use and he went along with it...because he hated shouting. Did he forget about it or did he realise a further document was needed and assume that his position was watertight because of that final piece of paper?

Either way, nothing like the written word of an email to clear things up.

Sand

Sand wrote: »

I feel terrible for the daughter. She is going to read what the "father" said (I get the impression the mother will love making her read it) and that will deeply hurt her.

You are correct. His decision to take the case did highlight his utter disregard for the life he created and she will presumably find out about it.

bee06

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He has no responsibility for the forged document.

He was pretty heavily involved in donating the semen, creating the embryo, discussing its thaw and use, and failing to signal he did not want to proceed. In this day and age, with emails, the last one is really hard one to figure.

One thing that is not clear from the article is what he thought after the meeting where they discussed the use and he went along with it...because he hated shouting. Did he forget about it or did he realise a further document was needed and assume that his position was watertight because of that final piece of paper?

Either way, nothing like the written word of an email to clear things up.

He was also going through a breakup with the mother of his child. I assume there was living arrangements, maintenance, visitation to be sorted etc. He had a lot going on ... I can very much understand why his first thought wasn't "oh, I better send an email to that fertility clinic in case my ex decides for forge my signature and get herself impregnated with my child".

bee06

bee06 wrote: »

He was also going through a breakup with the mother of his child. I assume there was living arrangements, maintenance, visitation to be sorted etc. He had a lot going on ... I can very much understand why his first thought wasn't "oh, I better send an email to that fertility clinic in case my ex decides for forge my signature and get herself impregnated with my child".

So you think he forgot about that whole business of the child he had planned and the embryo he had participated in creating?

I don't disagree. That was pretty stupid though.

Hindsight is always 20:20. It's not something you have the luxury of until you're looking back on the shoulda woulda couldas.

He's hardly to blame because a fraudulently signed document was submitted to a clinic with less than robust verification practices.

KERSPLAT!

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He has no responsibility for the forged document.

He was pretty heavily involved in donating the semen, creating the embryo, discussing its thaw and use, and failing to signal he did not want to proceed. In this day and age, with emails, the last one is really hard one to figure.

One thing that is not clear from the article is what he thought after the meeting where they discussed the use and he went along with it...because he hated shouting. Did he forget about it or did he realise a further document was needed and assume that his position was watertight because of that final piece of paper?

Either way, nothing like the written word of an email to clear things up.

Horse****. I can only take from your posts that you're on a windup.

He didn't need to signal his withdrawal of consent. His lack of signature on the necessary documentation was him not giving consent.

KERSPLAT!

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Horse****. I can only take from your posts that you're on a windup...

First if all, less swearing. You may disagree with me, that is your prerogative, but try to keep your temper in check and remain civil. Either engage in debate or don't.

And no, me saying a fellow who has a child, goes to family planning for another child, donates semen, discusses the thaw and use of the embryo - but only because he doesn't liked raised voices - and subsequently changes his mind could at least drop a one liner to signal that change is an awful eejit is not a windup at all.

whoopsadoodles

Conor, I'm trying to be respectful with this question but it's a difficult one to pose......

Have you ever been through fertility treatment?

I.e. do you know what it or those meetings entail?

whoopsadoodles

whoopsadoodles wrote: »

Conor, I'm trying to be respectful with this question but it's a difficult one to pose......

Have you ever been through fertility treatment?

I.e. do you know what it or those meetings entail?

No, but close friends have. They describe a very serious and deliberate process, apparently not one to be waded into just to avoid raised voices anyway, or one where a person might take it all the way to the last document after an embryo was created, before strolling off without so much as an email to say they changed their mind.

whoopsadoodles

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No, but close friends have. They describe a very serious and deliberate process, apparently not one to be waded into just to avoid raised voices anyway, or one where a person might take it all the way to the last document after an embryo was created, before strolling off without so much as an email to say they changed their mind.

And they're right.

For the first cycle.

He of course agreed to have those embryos frozen, that is the reason they had a son.

It's normal for a number of embryos to be frozen. It's also normal for both people to attend to discuss the future of the remaining embryos.

What's not normal is either party taking the final matters into their own hands to decide the fate of any remaining embryos.

It's not his fault in any way, shape, or form that someone took that final decision out of his hands. He is in absolutely no way responsible for the fraud of his ex.

KERSPLAT!

whoopsadoodles wrote: »

And they're right.

For the first cycle.

He of course agreed to have those embryos frozen, that is the reason they had a son.

It's normal for a number of embryos to be frozen. It's also normal for both people to attend to discuss the future of the remaining embryos.

What's not normal is either party taking the final matters into their own hands to decide the fate of any remaining embryos.

It's not his fault in any way, shape, or form that someone took that final decision out of his hands. He is in absolutely no way responsible for the fraud of his ex.

And how anyone could possibly dispute this is beyond me.

Roger Hassenforder

We don't know exactly what was discussed at the meeting, maybe he asked what is required to proceed to the next step (I.e. thawing/transplant) , and felt somewhat satisfied being told that his signature and consent was required to progress