is this justifiable?

so a man in germany has to pay Alimony to 3 kids he didnt want to have.

i know, if he had the fun he has to pay for it, but in this case, its kind of different.

the man met his girlfriend in 2001 during the famous carneval in germany.
the couple lived in seperated houses but overall lived together.

in 2004 the man goes to a fertility center with his girlfriend to let some sperm cells be frozen and stored, due of his fear he may not be able to have kids in the future due illness.

he signs a contract that his sperm should be kept there for a year.(only one year)

a year later he suprisingly gets a message from his girlfriend stateing that he will become a father.

the problem is, he did not want to have kids at that time (used contraceptions) so the only explanation was that she had used some of the sperms stored in the fertility center to get pregnant.

but he didnt sign anything that his sperm should be used in an artificial insemination at all.
he confronts her and she admits that she forged one or two signatures to get this artificial insemination done.

the guy is upset but in the end, gives in and recognizes the child as one of his own.the relationship goes bitter after a while and they break up. he keeps the contact to his child up and pays alimony for it.

2007 the man lives with a new girlfriend and suddenly gets a SMS stateing that his ex recieved twins.

he responds with "congratulations to the father", he then recieves a call from his ex that these twins are his and later on gets an sms that asks if he wants to contribute to buying things for them now or if he wants to wait for a test to confirm him as the father and pay up later.

the man sues the fertility center to pay alimony for the twins.

he states that he never gave consent to any of the procedures done to his now EX girlfriend and that he didnt even pay or signed to upkeep his sperms in the fertility center besides that first single year.

furthermore she hired someone else to impersonate him since she went to this fertility center with an unknown man and managed to convince them to keep the sperms cells stored and alive.
the most noteworthy thing about it is that the "imposter" finagled to upkeep the mans sperm in cryostasis with only a call saying that he will sign the needed forms later.

The district Court of Dortmund gives the man the right in the first instance.
the feritily center has to pay 100.000 euros to the the mother of 3 and the man has to pay for any costs which may arise in the future after these 100.000 euros are spend before the kids reach adulthood.

The doctors now get the Federal Court of Justice involved and the court now stands behind the mother of 3 and the doctors. they reject the lawsuit of the man.

they state that 16 of the 19 signatures revolving about the upkeep of the sperm and fertilisation of the woman are not forged, even after the graphological expert that was hired to verify the signatures stated that she made a mistake vertifying 1 signature as genuine.

the man defends himself, saying that he didnt sign anything and that all these papers can be filled out at home, giving her enough time to practise forging his signature.

the Federal Court of Justice says that the mans version is plausable but still stand behind the mother of 3 and the doctors and he alone should pay allimony for the 3 children.

they say that all the other signatures (15 out of 19) are to 99% probability his and enough prove that he was willing to let his ex girlfriend undergo the second artificial fertilisation procedure.

sources in german:
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/kuenstliche-befruchtung-olg-hamm-weist-klage-eines-vaters-ab-a-881353.html

so my questions are:

1) is the decision of the Federal Court justifiable? did they adjudicate too quickly?
2) what would you do if you were caught in the situation?

.
.
.
.
.
.

i just cant but strangely sympathise with the man.

for me, i think that it is highly pausable that she forged a huge share of these signatures since the expert had a hard time to identify one of these signatures as genuine or bogus.

and i am having a hard time to think that the Federal Court wasnt bias towards the mother for, well, being a mother of 3.

if i was the court, i would still make the fertilisation center pay a huge part of the costs incurred to raise these children since even 4 of this signatures shouldnt had happened.

other than that, i dont know what i would do.(recognize the children as your own. i know it sound silly since they are genetically yours but i am sure you know what i mean)

all i know is that i will try to avoid meeting "future girlfriends" during the carneval in germany.

edited for better understanding, i hope

here is a source in english of the first verdict after the man sued the doctors:
http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20120420-42059.html#.URGKJh3uCLo
http://www.germania.com.ro/2012/04/20/doctors-must-pay-for-stolen-sperm-babies/

I'd say the fertility clinic is the father and should have to pay to support the children.

they state that 16 of the 19 signatures revolving about the upkeep of the sperm and fertilisation of the woman are not forged, even after the graphological expert that was hired to verify the signatures stated that she made a mistake vertifying 1 signature as genuine.

I am normally all for subtlety and such, but signatures are not a game of horseshoes. If even one signature is forged, fraud has been committed. Now I'd normally recommend punishing the mother, but that would only be indirectly punishing the kids. So punish the clinic that didn't exercise due oversight. My bank sends me a text message if I spend more than $120 on a purchase in order to verify that it was actually me that did it. Surely a fertility clinic can manage the same for something as important as creating another life.

I don't really trust the man. I mean, if we're so ready to jump at the throat of the woman to demonise her for this, why don't we do the same thing to the man? After all, there's evidence pointing both ways. It could be that the man made two decisions that he later regretted (even with 3 years of separation, talk about tripping over the same stone twice) and he's lying his ass off to avoid having to maintain children he clearly doesn't care about.

Assuming he's telling the truth, let's not demonise the woman too much, kay? Having to raise three children on her own, with the kind of negative publicity this would raise about her, is probably punishment enough. I vote for punishing the fertility clinic for being a terrible, terrible business, and making them pay any alimony and expenses. And implementing safer practices for the fertility business.

Sorry, the text on this is kind of confusing.

rhizhim:
s

in 2004 the man goes to a fertility center with his girlfriend to let some sperm cells be frozen, due of his fear he may not be able to have kids because of illness.
he signs a contract that his sperm should be kept there for a year.(only one year)

a year later he suddenly gets a message stating that he has become a father.
the problem is, he didnt sign anything that his sperm should be used in a artificial insemination at all.

she admits that she forged one or two signatures to get this artificial insemination done.
the guy is upset but in the end, give in and recognizes the child as one of his own.
he keeps the contact to his child up and pays alemony for it, even after he breaks up with her.

Particularly this bit.
So... he broke up with his girlfriend and then after they broke up she got pregnant?
It kind of sounds like he was with her and she impregnated herself and he didn't even notice until he got a message about it.

And if they say the majority of the signatures are not forged... I don't know about this.
Obviously if he hasn't signed up to it, it's messed up.
But the kids are there now, so everyone's gotta sort it out.

If this were in the US, the answer would be simple -- a man is strictly responsible for his sperm, and is also responsible for any children he was led to believe are his long enough to get his name on the birth certificate (regardless of whose children they are biologically). So if this were in the US, it would all be on him, even in the case that he had specifically signed a waiver when donating the sperm indemnifying him from child support if/when those sperm are used to father a child.

Is it justifiable? Fuck no. Of course, I'm one of those evil misogynist bastards who thinks that men should have a window to refuse parenthood in order to have equitable reproductive rights (specifically I think that window should be shorter than the abortion window or a set number of days after being informed of paternity, whichever is later so that both parents have a reasonable opportunity to make an informed decision without being able to screw the other over). So you can take everything I say with the appropriate amount of salt.

Katatori-kun:
I'd say the fertility clinic is the father and should have to pay to support the children.

Frankly, I think the mother is effectively a single parent and is solely responsible in this case. I think she should be charged with fraud. I think that, in the case that the clinic is made to support the kids for not sufficiently preventing fraud, that she should be sued for the damages (the amount paid plus the interest it would have accrued), to be repaid beginning on the child's 18th birthday. I just plain don't see why we should be rewarding a woman for committing fraud (I feel the same way about those cases where a woman commits statutory rape and sues her victim for child support).

Katatori-kun:
I am normally all for subtlety and such, but signatures are not a game of horseshoes. If even one signature is forged, fraud has been committed.

With you so far...

Katatori-kun:
Now I'd normally recommend punishing the mother, but that would only be indirectly punishing the kids.

Can't punish a mother for choosing to commit fraud, because it might hurt the children, huh? Couldn't you either put them up for adoption/foster care (should having children through fraud be sufficient to prove one an unsuitable parent?), or simply delay punishment and force her to pay her debt for her crime in full once the children reach the age of majority if for some reason mothers are supposed to be immune to criminal punishment?

Katatori-kun:
So punish the clinic that didn't exercise due oversight.

So, we should punish someone for being lied to and not catching it, because we can't punish the liar because she's a mother and thus immune to the law. That makes sense.

Schadrach:
So, we should punish someone for being lied to and not catching it, because we can't punish the liar because she's a mother and thus immune to the law. That makes sense.

Your strawman argument does nothing but reveal your bias in this discussion.

At no point did I ever say that mothers are immune to the law. I merely offered a pragmatic alternative that solves the problem.

Get over your agenda.

Phasmal:
Sorry, the text on this is kind of confusing.

rhizhim:
s

in 2004 the man goes to a fertility center with his girlfriend to let some sperm cells be frozen, due of his fear he may not be able to have kids because of illness.
he signs a contract that his sperm should be kept there for a year.(only one year)

a year later he suddenly gets a message stating that he has become a father.
the problem is, he didnt sign anything that his sperm should be used in a artificial insemination at all.

she admits that she forged one or two signatures to get this artificial insemination done.
the guy is upset but in the end, give in and recognizes the child as one of his own.
he keeps the contact to his child up and pays alemony for it, even after he breaks up with her.

Particularly this bit.
So... he broke up with his girlfriend and then after they broke up she got pregnant?
It kind of sounds like he was with her and she impregnated herself and he didn't even notice until he got a message about it.

And if they say the majority of the signatures are not forged... I don't know about this.
Obviously if he hasn't signed up to it, it's messed up.
But the kids are there now, so everyone's gotta sort it out.

sorry was kind in a hurry when i wrote this.

they were together when the first pregnancy happened.

both went to the fertility center to conserve/freeze some sperms for later use.
this requires a contract and signature to store the sperm cells for a year and must be paid and every year to upkeep.

she just went without his consent to the fertility center, got all the forms needed to use the stored sperm cells, forged the required signatures (she admited it), had an artificial insermination and thus got pregnant.

he was informed when the pregnancy was confirmed. stayed with her for a while and broke up with her later while maintaining the contact to his child.

the thing is that all the forms needed can be taken home giving her enough time to forge them.
and the paperwork that were signed for the first artificial insemination were forged. she even admited it.

all the paperwork for the second artificial insemination is kind of dubious.
it appears as he had signed it, despite the fact that he didnt pay a dime to keep his sperm cells alive in the fertility center and he was in another relationship at that time.

one court said that he was in the right, but the whole situation was taken to a higher court and they chose that the mother was right.

and thats a pretty fishy situation...

also it is to a minor extend his fault for not going to the clinic and state that all his remaining stored sperm cell should be destroyed after the first incident that clearly showed that she was kind of a psycho (now ex-)girlfriend.

Katatori-kun:

Schadrach:
So, we should punish someone for being lied to and not catching it, because we can't punish the liar because she's a mother and thus immune to the law. That makes sense.

Your strawman argument does nothing but reveal your bias in this discussion.

At no point did I ever say that mothers are immune to the law. I merely offered a pragmatic alternative that solves the problem.

Get over your agenda.

Katatori-kun:
Now I'd normally recommend punishing the mother, but that would only be indirectly punishing the kids. So punish the clinic that didn't exercise due oversight.

Punishing her is only indirectly punishing the kids because she is a single mother, correct?

So where is my strawman here: You are saying that we should punish the clinic for failing to detect fraud, rather than punishing the person who committed fraud, because she is a single mother and thus punishing her would indirectly punish her kids and is therefore wrong. Effectively rendering her immune to punishment for her crime because she is a single mother.

So, I guess I left out the word "single" in front of mother? And used a bit of hyperbole by referring to her as "immune to the law" instead of "immune to punishment for fraud", although in the context of this case they are effectively the same thing?

Schadrach:
You are saying that we should punish the clinic for failing to detect fraud, rather than punishing the person who committed fraud,

I didn't say "rather than".

Effectively rendering her immune to punishment for her crime because she is a single mother.

Incorrect.

Now, I wrote imprecisely- when I wrote the word "punish" I exclusively thought of monetary punishment. And it's pointless to expect the mother (meaning this particular mother, as your last posts had the unfortunate tendency to suggest this should be a general principle) to pay a fine because that would just hurt her children. Something like jail time or community service could be appropriate.

But the clinic is not immune from blame here. Once again, if someone tries to defraud my bank account, my bank offers basic protections to verify their identity. If someone showed up with a paper saying "Katatori-Kun hereby wants to let me have all his money, see he signed below," they'd be suspicious. Why isn't a sperm bank applying at least the same basic level of security as a money bank?

Wow...

Reading this severely pissed me off. I despise women who manipulate as she appears to have done.

Stupid Higher court.

If I were the guy, the very first thing I'd have done if possible would be to work on signing away all possible parental rights. If not with kid one, then especially with the twins.

Or at least I'd try. I gather if this woman could be such a bitch enough to basically steal his sperm, she'd probably fight all the way as far as that little action. Fuck, I'd try anyway.

We'd probably wind up hating each other in the end of it all.

You know what they call it when a man produces a child without the woman's consent? Rape. They call it rape.

and they don't force the woman to pay the man for the privilege.

BeeGeenie:
You know what they call it when a man produces a child without the woman's consent? Rape. They call it rape.

and they don't force the woman to pay the man for the privilege.

You have absolutely no idea what rape means. If sex was not involved whatsoever (as is this case), it's not rape. By definition. You wouldn't call it rape if a man stole a woman's frozen eggs and mixed them with his sperm on a surrogate uterus, would you?

This was fraud and definitely illegal (assuming the man is indeed right and not lying through his teeth), but this was in no way rape.

BeeGeenie:
You know what they call it when a man produces a child without the woman's consent? Rape. They call it rape.

and they don't force the woman to pay the man for the privilege.

What the hell? No, producing a child without her consent is not called rape. Having sex with her without her consent is called rape. Get some perspective.

Darken12:
I don't really trust the man. I mean, if we're so ready to jump at the throat of the woman to demonise her for this, why don't we do the same thing to the man? After all, there's evidence pointing both ways. It could be that the man made two decisions that he later regretted (even with 3 years of separation, talk about tripping over the same stone twice) and he's lying his ass off to avoid having to maintain children he clearly doesn't care about.

I'd agree that I wouldn't be so quick to jump at the woman, the OP's post is heavily slanted towards explaining the guy's position it feels like. I mean if 15 or 16 out of 19 seem to be correct with one error(unsure if that error was one of the 3 false ones now), it is fairly relevant which were deemed false, which isn't mentioned. I wouldn't just quickly toss out the signatures, perhaps he's only telling part of the truth.

Assuming he's telling the truth, let's not demonise the woman too much, kay? Having to raise three children on her own, with the kind of negative publicity this would raise about her, is probably punishment enough. I vote for punishing the fertility clinic for being a terrible, terrible business, and making them pay any alimony and expenses. And implementing safer practices for the fertility business.

Um... If he's telling the truth raising 3 kids on her own is her own fault. Not only that it's the result of her being an insufferable asshole and committing fraud. What she brought upon herself isn't punishment enough. The only damage the clinic did is towards the father, the mother did it to herself. Though if they failed this badly they should certainly be penalized, just not for her sake in regards to alimony.

Darken12:
I don't really trust the man. I mean, if we're so ready to jump at the throat of the woman to demonise her for this, why don't we do the same thing to the man? After all, there's evidence pointing both ways. It could be that the man made two decisions that he later regretted (even with 3 years of separation, talk about tripping over the same stone twice) and he's lying his ass off to avoid having to maintain children he clearly doesn't care about.

ok. but why would someone want to get his ex girlfriend pregnant when you are already in another relationship?

also he is not a deadbeat dad since he took responsibility for the first child even when he didnt agree on having him.
and its not a "sex accident" like pulling out to late that you can blame him on.

this is kind of what i mean when i said that the federal court/ higher regional court was bias towards the mother.
and thinking about it is just uncomfortable. you just cant let fraud pass because she is just a mother/woman.
she admited she forged some signatures. that is evidence you cant just push aside or ignore.

Darken12:

Assuming he's telling the truth, let's not demonise the woman too much, kay? Having to raise three children on her own, with the kind of negative publicity this would raise about her, is probably punishment enough. I vote for punishing the fertility clinic for being a terrible, terrible business, and making them pay any alimony and expenses. And implementing safer practices for the fertility business.

demonise the woman too much?

first off, they never tell the public their real names. so you cant just send your angry mob on them.
second, she commited fraud and to some extend admitted it.
third, its something only she gave consent to. she wanted to have 3 kids. you cant just shove responsibility and consequences on someone else for the decisions/actions you made/make. (ok, you can but thats a big dick move...)

yes, the fertility center should have handled such delicate papers better and do some double checks, make the people sign in front of a third person/doctor/notary but she did something that no one really expected.
and you can only adapt and add rules and safety procedures accordingly after something happens.

Darken12:

I'd agree that I wouldn't be so quick to jump at the woman, the OP's post is heavily slanted towards explaining the guy's position it feels like. I mean if 15 or 16 out of 19 seem to be correct with one error(unsure if that error was one of the 3 false ones now), it is fairly relevant which were deemed false, which isn't mentioned. I wouldn't just quickly toss out the signatures, perhaps he's only telling part of the truth.

of the 16 (16/19) signatures that were approved as genuine/true, one was withdraw and declared forged.
that makes 15 genuine signatures allergedly filled by the man to upkeep his sperm cells and use it for insermination.
and the majority of them, signed after they split up.

that doesnt make much sense for a "sane" person.

btw i will post an english source of the second verdict if i find it.
for the time, here is a source of the first verdict in english:
http://www.germania.com.ro/2012/04/20/doctors-must-pay-for-stolen-sperm-babies/

I think the decision is disgusting. (I'm obviously assuming that it's all as he tells)

If I were caught in that situation, I'd stop work altogether and give away everything I owned- ideally to a roommate (so that nothing would really change for me in terms of life experience) but certainly to a local friend. I live in England, so from there I pass Go straight to living off the state.

I wouldn't have my life usurped that way. It'd go worse for her if the state somehow forced me to continue working or threatened me with prison, because I'd kill her.

rhizhim:

Dijkstra:

I'd agree that I wouldn't be so quick to jump at the woman, the OP's post is heavily slanted towards explaining the guy's position it feels like. I mean if 15 or 16 out of 19 seem to be correct with one error(unsure if that error was one of the 3 false ones now), it is fairly relevant which were deemed false, which isn't mentioned. I wouldn't just quickly toss out the signatures, perhaps he's only telling part of the truth.

of the 16 (16/19) signatures that were approved as genuine/true, one was withdraw and declared forged.
that makes 15 genuine signatures allergedly filled by the man to upkeep his sperm cells and use it for insermination.
and the majority of them, signed after they split up.

that doesnt make much sense for a "sane" person.

btw i will post an english source of the second verdict if i find it.
for the time, here is a source of the first verdict in english:
http://www.germania.com.ro/2012/04/20/doctors-must-pay-for-stolen-sperm-babies/

You quoted the wrong guy, should have been me. Anyway...

True, it doesn't make too much sense. But people can act weird about their exes. Maybe he was doing her a favor up to a certain point. It's not like we have both sides of the story presented.

And thanks for that source, may want to edit it into your first post. Of course the second verdict is the more relevant one now.

Dijkstra:

rhizhim:

Dijkstra:

I'd agree that I wouldn't be so quick to jump at the woman, the OP's post is heavily slanted towards explaining the guy's position it feels like. I mean if 15 or 16 out of 19 seem to be correct with one error(unsure if that error was one of the 3 false ones now), it is fairly relevant which were deemed false, which isn't mentioned. I wouldn't just quickly toss out the signatures, perhaps he's only telling part of the truth.

of the 16 (16/19) signatures that were approved as genuine/true, one was withdraw and declared forged.
that makes 15 genuine signatures allergedly filled by the man to upkeep his sperm cells and use it for insermination.
and the majority of them, signed after they split up.

that doesnt make much sense for a "sane" person.

btw i will post an english source of the second verdict if i find it.
for the time, here is a source of the first verdict in english:
http://www.germania.com.ro/2012/04/20/doctors-must-pay-for-stolen-sperm-babies/

You quoted the wrong guy, should have been me. Anyway...

True, it doesn't make too much sense. But people can act weird about their exes. Maybe he was doing her a favor up to a certain point. It's not like we have both sides of the story presented.

And thanks for that source, may want to edit it into your first post. Of course the second verdict is the more relevant one now.

yeah, sorry.
i am searching for an english source of the second verdict.

it is also true that you tend to behave weird with your exes but only if your break up is "fresh".
but this doesnt make much sense when you got over your ex enough to enter into a partnership with someone else.

Dijkstra:
I'd agree that I wouldn't be so quick to jump at the woman, the OP's post is heavily slanted towards explaining the guy's position it feels like. I mean if 15 or 16 out of 19 seem to be correct with one error(unsure if that error was one of the 3 false ones now), it is fairly relevant which were deemed false, which isn't mentioned. I wouldn't just quickly toss out the signatures, perhaps he's only telling part of the truth.

Yeah, the guy clearly isn't telling the whole story.

Dijkstra:
Um... If he's telling the truth raising 3 kids on her own is her own fault. Not only that it's the result of her being an insufferable asshole and committing fraud. What she brought upon herself isn't punishment enough. The only damage the clinic did is towards the father, the mother did it to herself. Though if they failed this badly they should certainly be penalized, just not for her sake in regards to alimony.

Yes, if he's telling the truth, the children are her sole doing, but raising 3 children as a single parent is a very tough job, and if she doesn't get any child support from the father or the clinic, she's going to be in pretty dire straits. I'm pretty sure that will be punishment enough, though I suppose some manner of official record should exist if she indeed engaged in fraud (and if that kind of fraud is illegal, she should be punished as the law dictates and no further).

rhizhim:
ok. but why would someone want to get his ex girlfriend pregnant when you are already in another relationship?

Maybe his ex-girlfriend wanted to be a mother and got his consent to get impregnated with his sperm, but he later changed his mind and accused her of fraud to avoid paying child support or avoid a scandal with his current relationship.

rhizhim:
also he is not a deadbeat dad since he took responsibility for the first child even when he didnt agree on having him.
and its not a "sex accident" like pulling out to late that you can blame him on.

this is kind of what i mean when i said that the federal court/ higher regional court was bias towards the mother.
and thinking about it is just uncomfortable. you just cant let fraud pass because she is just a mother/woman.
she admited she forged some signatures. that is evidence you cant just push aside or ignore.

I am not blaming him for any of the things you're mentioning. I am saying that I don't trust him. And what mother bias are you talking about? Everyone's ready to jump at that woman's throat. I'm merely trying to stem the mob effect and get a second opinion going.

I am not advocating letting her go if she genuinely committed fraud. If she forged signatures and that is a crime in the place she's at, she should be punished by the law just like everyone else. But let's stop at that, shall we? I really don't want to see this turn into an outpour of misogyny.

rhizhim:
demonise the woman too much?

first off, they never tell the public their real names. so you cant just send your angry mob on them.
second, she commited fraud and to some extend admitted it.
third, its something only she gave consent to. she wanted to have 3 kids. you cant just shove responsibility and consequences on someone else for the decisions/actions you made/make. (ok, you can but thats a big dick move...)

yes, the fertility center should have handled such delicate papers better and do some double checks, make the people sign in front of a third person/doctor/notary but she did something that no one really expected.
and you can only adapt and add rules and safety procedures accordingly after something happens.

I'm not out to send an angry mob, I'm trying to prevent angry mobs from verbally lynching a woman, Sarkeesian-style.

If she committed fraud, she should be held accountable for that and punished by the law and nothing more. What I'm advocating is A) we're not sure if the man is telling the whole story, and B) let's try to be as impartial and emotionally detached as possible on this matter.

rhizhim:
of the 16 (16/19) signatures that were approved as genuine/true, one was withdraw and declared forged.
that makes 15 genuine signatures allergedly filled by the man to upkeep his sperm cells and use it for insermination.
and the majority of them, signed after they split up.

that doesnt make much sense for a "sane" person.

btw i will post an english source of the second verdict if i find it.
for the time, here is a source of the first verdict in english:
http://www.germania.com.ro/2012/04/20/doctors-must-pay-for-stolen-sperm-babies/

Yes, that's why I'm saying that we're not getting the whole story. I'm pretty sure the man went along with it for a significant length of the way and then changed his mind. That does not mean that the woman didn't commit fraud (as the forged signatures are evidence that she did), but it will hopefully make the issue less black-and-white.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked