You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > More unfairness for males
April 26 2024 11.58pm

More unfairness for males

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 3 of 21 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

 

View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 06 Oct 17 2.54pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Harry Beever's Profile Harry Beever Flag Newbury 06 Oct 17 2.58pm Send a Private Message to Harry Beever Add Harry Beever as a friend

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 06 Oct 17 3.10pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 06 Oct 17 3.36pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View npn's Profile npn Flag Crowborough 06 Oct 17 3.40pm Send a Private Message to npn Add npn as a friend

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View becky's Profile becky Flag over the moon 06 Oct 17 4.25pm Send a Private Message to becky Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add becky as a friend

Originally posted by Kermit8


I did.

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 Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Kermit8's Profile Kermit8 Flag Hevon 06 Oct 17 4.44pm Send a Private Message to Kermit8 Add Kermit8 as a friend

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.
"We have been clear throughout that we have always adhered to the highest industry standards and met all statutory and regulatory obligations."

 


Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]


Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Kermit8's Profile Kermit8 Flag Hevon 06 Oct 17 4.46pm Send a Private Message to Kermit8 Add Kermit8 as a friend

...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

[Link]


Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 06 Oct 17 4.52pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Kermit8's Profile Kermit8 Flag Hevon 06 Oct 17 5.02pm Send a Private Message to Kermit8 Add Kermit8 as a friend

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

[Link]


Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 06 Oct 17 5.16pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View PALACE FOR EVER's Profile PALACE FOR EVER Flag London 06 Oct 17 7.58pm Send a Private Message to PALACE FOR EVER Add PALACE FOR EVER as a friend

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.'

[Link]

 


The pyramid to beat all pyramids!!

[Link]

Find out what team is in which division, eg which division is Coppull United in?

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 3 of 21 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > More unfairness for males