Pride Angel

Several months ago I consulted with a woman and her same-sex partner. I'll refer to them as "Sue" and "Sally." They had a 3-year-old son who was conceived using sperm donated directly to the couple by a close friend named "Stan." Donation and conception took place under friendly circumstances at the women's home. Stan did his part in the privacy of their bathroom, and they promptly used his sperm to create a baby. Voilà, the conception of "Baby X" was confirmed in a matter of weeks.

I asked Sue and Sally why they never hired lawyers, and why they asked Stan to donate his sperm in their home. The answer was the same I hear every time I ask this question: They had wanted to keep the relationship and the process "natural" and "informal" so as not to scare Stan.

Fast-forwarding three years to the reason Sue and Sally were in my office, it turns out they were not enjoying the friendship they once had with Stan. Instead, they were exchanging heated emails and text messages with him. Stan had fallen in love with Baby X, and Sue and Sally had become uncomfortable with Stan's expectations regarding his role and time spent with the child. Stan had mentioned possible legal action to obtain parental rights.

Sue and Sally wanted to know if Stan could file for legal rights and, heaven forbid, obtain a formal custody order. Sue was angry with Sally for refusing to hire an attorney or use a physician for the sperm donation in the first place. Sally's mind was blown that Stan could potentially have legal rights to her child. The thought had never crossed her mind. We had a mess on our hands.

Our nation presents a very complicated state-by-state legal quilt on donor insemination. But one thing is consistent throughout the country: No matter where you live, the informal, friendly, at-home donation method is a bad idea. The casual use of a friend's sperm almost always leads to unwanted legal consequences.

New parents often tell me they want to avoid formality because it feels wrong -- somehow it defeats the entire purpose of becoming parents. Why hire physicians and attorneys for something that should be natural and organic? The answer is simple: Becoming a parent is one of the most important things you will do in this lifetime, and it needs to be done right.

Choosing to use a friend as your sperm donor is a big decision. Do not shy away from formality and transparency! You likely chose your donor for more than his pretty face -- you probably share a deep emotional connection with him. This makes transparency and formality that much more important. A contract ensures that you, your partner, and your sperm donor have a complete meeting of the minds regarding expectations, roles, legal rights, etc. The same holds true for involving a physician; it not only ensures medical safety but protects your donor legally.

If you are using a known donor whom you do not want to have parental rights, the safe approach is to formalize -- anything less is asking for trouble. This is a two-step process: First, hire an attorney to explain the process and draft the necessary contracts for you. Second, have the donor provide his sperm through a licensed physician. The clarity and transparency that comes with the formal approach is not only shrewd planning; it's respectful to the donor.

Article: 10th June 2013 www.huffingtonpost.com

Read more about known sperm donation and home insemination at www.prideangel.com

There are many issues to consider for parents considering conceiving with a known donor or co-parent. With a minefield of information to navigate, parents can be left asking: what do we need to know? How do we set things up? How do we avoid problems in the future?

Where conception takes place at a fertility clinic, counsellors can play a key role in answering these questions. In the light of the recent landmark decision on known sperm donation, BICA – the association for UK fertility counsellors – asked NatalieGambleAssociates (NGA) to give some guidance on what fertility counsellors need to know about the law on known donation, to help them do their job effectively.

Nicola Scott's recent article in the BICA journal gives an overview of UK law and the implications of the case, and explains how early intervention by fertility counsellors can shape known donor arrangements positively by encouraging parents and donors to iron out potential issues and mismatched expectations at an early stage. You can read the full article here

NatalieGambleAssociates advise parents on a wide spectrum of arrangements by clarifying not only the legal issues but also the practical aspects which are all too often overshadowed. Please see our donor conception pages for more information, or contact us to discuss your arrangement and options here

Article: www.nataliegambleassiciates.co.uk

Read more about co-parenting and finding a known donor at www.prideangel.com

A sperm donor and lesbian couple from Ontario Canada who have been fighting over custody of their two year old son, have suddenly settled their case, after months of litigation and shortly before a scheduled trial.

The man had signed an agreement that he would have nothing to do with his genetic offspring. But he had second thoughts after the baby was born, felt the biological mother had reneged on her part of their deal and asked the courts to recognize him as the father, providing liberal access. The suit, whose parties cannot be named under the terms of a publication ban, has now been effectively withdrawn.

‘It is always better for litigants to come to a resolution on their own’

“This is certainly the right outcome for this loving, bonded and stable family,” Michelle Flowerday, the couple’s lawyer, said in an emailed statement. “It is always better for litigants to come to a resolution on their own, as opposed to having one imposed upon them by the court.” The fact that the courts will not rule on the dispute, however, leaves a gap in the law in Ontario and other provinces, she said. There is a growing national movement to make clear that donating sperm does not equate to being a parent, but only B.C., Alberta and Quebec have enshrined the idea in their legislation, said Ms. Flowerday.

The donor and his lawyer could not be reached for comment.

Growing numbers of children are being born in Canada as a result of in-vitro fertilization and other forms of “assisted” reproduction. When donations are obtained anonymously from sperm banks, and in the few provinces with laws that directly address the issue, parenthood is generally uncontested.

Where couples and single people make arrangements with sperm donors they know, however, the rights of the various parties remain largely unresolved. The northern Ontario dispute boasted the most clear-cut set of facts of any to reach the courts, making it an ideal legal testing ground. A trial was scheduled for this summer.

The donor was a high-school acquaintance of the biological mother, and initially agreed to bear a child for him, as well, if he agreed to provide his sperm. The actual agreement he signed, though, did not mention that part of their arrangement.

He went to court after the boy was born, saying that he had felt pressured by the mother and that she now appeared unwilling to have a baby for him. But then, at a meeting last week, the parties agreed to a declaration that the two women are the child’s parents and the donor is not his father, according to an order issued by Justice Gregory Ellies of the Ontario Superior Court.

‘I don’t think anybody wants to be a test case’

The document also includes a restraining order preventing him from having contact with the child or the two women. In exchange, though, he and his parents have the right to one meeting of at least an hour in a public place, with an agreed-upon third party observing. The donor and his parents “may not initiate physical contact” with the boy, and cannot take photographs or video. As well, the man and his parents are barred from identifying themselves as the child’s father or grandparents, said the order.

“I don’t think anybody wants to be a test case,” noted Fiona Kelly, a University of British Columbia law professor who studies the field, about the settlement.

The lack of a ruling, however, means continued ambiguity in the majority of provinces that lack laws like one recently enacted in B.C., she said. That legislation says being a sperm donor does not in itself make someone a father.

Article: 13th April 2013 www.news.nationalpost.com

Read more about using a known sperm donor in the UK at www.prideangel.com

Natalie gamble Associates (NGA) has been contacted by UK patient organisations trying to clarify the implications of the High Court’s ruling, which has allowed two sperm donors to argue in court that they should have rights of contact with their biological children. NGA has been representing the lesbian mothers in this case.

The ruling received a lot of press attention yesterday (including on the front page of the Daily Mail, and in the Guardian, Telegraph, Independent and BBC). Natalie spoke to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the British Fertility Society, the National Gamete Donation Trust and the Donor Conception Network – all seeking further information about what to say to patients, donors and donor conceived families who were contacting them.

The HFEA and the BFS have issued press statements in response to the ruling. We thought it would be helpful to provide a clear summary of what the ruling means for these organisations and others concerned about this:

- The ruling only gave the two donors the right to argue their case in court. It is not yet know whether they will be given any rights of contact with the children.

- The reason for the decision was very fact specific, a result of the fact that the donors were known to the lesbian mothers and had contact with the children in their early months before relationships broke down. The court was satisfied, on the facts, that the donors had sufficient connection with the children to at least justify their cases being heard in court.

- The ruling is therefore exceptionally unlikely to apply to donors who have had no contact with the child – for example unknown donors through licensed clinics.

- However, the ruling could apply to other types of known donors, including known sperm or egg donors who have donated through a licensed clinic, if they can demonstrate sufficient connection with the child in practice. Although in this case conception took place outside a licensed clinic, the law which provided that these men were ‘not to be treated as the father for any purpose’ is the same law which excludes the status of other types of egg and sperm donors.

- The ruling does not in any way affect donors’ responsibilities – it does not make it possible to hold a donor legally or financially responsible for a child they help conceive.

Article: 3rd February 2013 www.nataliegambleassociates.co.uk

Read more about becoming a known sperm donor and the legal rights at www.prideangel.com

A Separated lesbian couple have both been summoned to testify on behalf of a sperm donor, with whom they had made a written agreement, but who was ordered to pay child support after they split up.
A Kansas judge recently ordered William Marotta, a sperm donor to a lesbian couple, to pay child support after they split up, raising questions of how the law protects sperm donors.

Mr Marotta and the couple he donated to did not use official channels, and instead met up using a website, and wrote up their own agreement.
Because the US state of Kansas did not have a legal way for same-sex couples to marry, when the couple split up, the Kansas Department of Children and Families sought out the biological father of the child, Mr Marotta, for child support.

The court clerk’s office at Shawnee County District Court issued subpoenas on Wednesday for Angela Bauer and Jennifer L Schreiner.
Reports suggest that the women have been ordered to appear on 15 February, in order to give depositions to an attorney for William Marotta, HutchNews reports.

Laws in other states, such as New Jersey are similar to those in Kansas, said Bari Weinberger, a leading family law attorney, and managing partner of Weinberger Law Group.
He said that the judge could legitimately rule that the contract written up by Mr Marotta, and the former couple was void, because they did not use official channels to complete the agreement.
Mr Weinberger said that these definitions, and the liability of people in relationships with children in their care to pay child support, needed to be updated and clearly laid out.

Article: 25th January 2013 www.pinknews.co.uk

Read more about lesbian parenting and finding a sperm donor at www.prideangel.com

Kansas sperm donor being sued by the state for child support put himself in a precarious legal position by donating to a lesbian couple using artificial insemination at home. Kansas law states that a sperm donor is not the father of a child if a doctor handles the artificial insemination. But the law does not specifically address the donor's rights and obligations when no doctor was involved.

That was the case in 2009, when William Marotta answered an online ad for a sperm donation for Angela Bauer and her then-partner, Jennifer Schreiner. The three signed an agreement they believed severed Marotta's parental rights, and Schreiner became pregnant. But because they didn't go through a doctor, the state argues, Marotta is the legal father and should be responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance Schreiner received to help care for the child. The state also wants him to pay child support, though neither woman is asking for money.

Marotta's attorney said Thursday that the law is outdated. But legal experts agreed that Marotta and the women put themselves in the predicament.

"I don't fault the state for this," said Corey Whelan, who runs workshops for lesbian couples interested in having children through the New York-based American Fertility Association. "I don't think this is a homophobic issue. I think this is a financially driven issue." Whelan said her group has a long-standing practice of advising single women who want a child to work with doctors and attorneys. She said avoiding professionals is "a buyer-beware proposition."

But money can be a factor. Artificial insemination generally isn't covered by health insurance and usually costs between $2,000 and $3,000, said Steve Snyder, a Minnesota-based attorney and chairman of the American Bar Association's group on assisted reproduction technology. "It is happening a lot," Snyder said. " A lot of LGBT couples use home insemination kits. I have a lot of cases involving those types of kits or people who intend to use them."

That sets up a tricky legal situation, said Dr. Ajay Nangia, the former ethics chairman of the American Society of Andrology, a national medical group for male reproductive health. "The problem is the guy exposed himself to a situation that made him potentially liable because he had no legal protection," said Nangia, an associate professor of urology at the University of Kansas Hospital.

Still, Ben Swinnen, one of Marotta's attorneys, said his 46-year-old client cannot be declared the father of Schreiner's now 3-year-old daughter because of the written agreement with the two women. He pointed to laws in nine states that say a sperm or egg donor is not the parent of a child conceived through artificial reproduction.

"The state of Kansas is lagging behind in following the trend," he said. "It is a freeze, in my opinion, on artificial insemination and alternative family settings."

He also believes state officials' pursuit of Marotta's case in Kansas, where voters approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in 2005, is designed to reinforce the definition of a family as a married man and woman, and their children. He said the state is trying to send a message that, "anything else is no good."

But the Kansas Department for Children and Families, which started pursuing Marotta in October, argued in a court filing Wednesday that at least 10 other states require a doctor's involvement in artificial insemination for a sperm donor to be protected from having to pay child support. "It's a commonsense law," said Washington state-based attorney Mark Demaray, a past president of an organization for attorneys who handle assisted reproduction legal issues. "It's very common for them to have to go through a doctor's office and get a sworn statement from the doctor that he or she performed this procedure."

Marotta is trying to get the case dismissed. A hearing is scheduled in April in Shawnee County District Court.

Article: 4th January 2013 www.news.yahoo.com

Erika from Pride Angel stated 'The law regarding sperm donation varies from country to country and within different states.' 'It's really important to seek legal advice when choosing a known donor and to consider taking the donor to a licensed fertility clinic for treatment.' 'In the UK married couples and lesbian couples in civil partnerships are considered the legal parents, regardless of whether the insemination is carried out within a clinic or at home using an artificial insemination kit'.

Erika continues....
'However it is more tricky for single women choosing to have a child with a known donor. The sperm donor would be seen as the legal parent in the eyes of the law, unless they conceived through a clinic'

Natalie was interviewed on BBC Radio 4 Woman’s Hour on Thursday on the topic of private sperm donation. The programme feature NGA client Mark Langridge (the donor who has been pursued for child support by the CSA twelve years after donating his sperm to a lesbian couple) and Laura Witjens, Chief Executive of the National Gamete Donation Trust, with Jenni Murray asking ‘what makes a father’?

You can listen to Natalie on Woman’s Hour here.

At NGA, we advise many prospective parents (and donors) considering a known donation arrangement, helping them to set things up with the strongest foundations.

We sadly also help people whose known donation arrangements have broken down, both representing donors pursued for child support and lesbian and solo parents whose donors seek more involvement than they want.

You can find out more about known donation and about known donor disputes.

Article: 20th November 2012 www.nataliegambleassociates.co.uk

Become a known sperm donor or find your donor at www.prideangel.com

A British woman is campaigning for the legal right to veto her husband's choice to donate sperm, it has emerged.

The unidentified complainant says her partner volunteered samples of his semen to a registered clinic after becoming stressed by the birth of their child, reported MailOnline. Disgruntled, the mother-of-one from Surrey has contacted the Human Fertilisation And Embryology Authority, arguing that women across the UK should be able to deny their spouse's free will on the matter - because sperm is a 'marital asset'.

She's wrong.

As a men's rights activist and someone whose mother was a counsellor in Liverpool's British Pregnancy Advisory Service, where I spent considerable time as a boy, I value the importance of choice massively. But it cuts both ways. The old maxim of 'my body, my choice' is one that applies to both genders, not just women.

Whatever a man chooses to do with his sperm - his lineage, DNA and personification of reproductive liberty - is his decision and his alone, regardless of marital status. And given that a man's permission isn't needed for the termination of a pregnancy, I find this woman's plea particularly offensive.

'What a terrible reason to deny somebody the chance of legitimately fathering children: inconvenience' Yes, he probably had a moral obligation to inform his wife, but he certainly didn't have a legal one - and never should he. After all, a woman should never need a man's approval to donate her eggs, whether she is married to him or not.

This man clearly made his decision freely and within the medical world's rigid guidelines. He also never retracted his consent, which is precisely what this issue boils down to. Well, that and spousal control.

This woman claims she's concerned about the psychological effect any children fathered by her husband will have on her. She's equally worried that they might 'disrupt' her family life. But what a terrible reason to deny somebody the chance of legitimately fathering children: inconvenience. Personally, I suspect this woman is angry because she cannot trap her partner. Forever, getting pregnant has been a trump card used by some women in the so-called gender war. But suddenly there's a loophole.

I'm sorry, this is not a reason to change the law; to compromise a patient's right to confidentiality or to deny infertile couples the opportunity to have a family. Not least because men already suffer from insufficient rights when it comes to paternity. Men are regularly denied access to their children (but forced to financially support them), yet - even when they obtain visitation orders via the courts - they rarely get them enforced. Likewise, look at the scores of men who are victims of paternity fraud. The same men who request DNA testing for a newborn, only to be denied it unless the mother consents. Where is there fairness in that?

Last year, in Australia, a man's name was taken off the birth certificate of his daughter - simply because the mother and her female partner wanted to erase any trace of his (crucial) involvement. Stripping men of any more paternal rights would be inhumane. Yes, women face issues over parenthood too - but nobody is trying to marginalise their rights.

Personally, I suspect this woman wants to limit her husband's choice for the sake of control, when - really - she should be asking why he suffered post-traumatic stress in the first place. If this woman is successful in changing the law, where would it end? What other body parts could a partner claim to co-own? Could a man stop a woman from becoming a surrogate mother? Could a woman stop a man from having a vasectomy?

Either marriage is about ownership or it isn't. Personally, I believe it's about partnership. But I'm not sure she does. She has been quoted several times explaining how this situation affected her, but never her husband. That's a bad sign. Yes, it may have repercussions on her - but she chose to marry him, for better and for worse.

I sympathise that his decision may emotionally affect her, but that's life. It doesn't mean we should go changing the law. More importantly, the truth remains the same: a man's body is a man's choice. And I'll throw myself in front of the (future) king's horse if that ever changes.

Article: by Peter Lloyd 28th August 2012 www.dailymail.co.uk

Comment by Erika - Pride Angel:
It is understandable that this lady has her own concerns and fears regarding the unknown possible implications of her husband’s donations. Her fears may reflect her own feeling regarding her husband not wanting more children with his wife, but being prepared to help others.

It is also her concern that the donor children may threaten her own family life if they were to make contact in the future. However in reality this may not affect her family’s life or her children’s, if her husband’s donations are explained to her children in a positive and open manner.

The HFEA have stated that counseling was offered but cannot always be enforced. The key issue here is that men choosing to donate do need to consider the implications and feelings of their family and that good communication in of paramount importance.

However we cannot surely enforce a situation whereby consent from a partner, wife or husband needs to be achieved before donations can be given. It is after all an individual’s choice to give the gift of life.

The potential risk of introducing a Northern Ontario toddler to his genetic father at this point in his life is too major to be ignored, a judge has ruled in turning down a sperm donor’s bid for interim access to the boy, now being raised by his biological mother and her lesbian partner. The decision marks the first round in a key test case of the uncertain law around exchanges of human sperm and egg, as increasing numbers of Canadian children are born by “assisted” reproduction.

A full trial is scheduled for this October to consider the man’s demand for paternity rights – and add some clarity to the tangled issue – but Rene deBlois had requested access to the boy pending the final wrap-up of the case. The two women had argued that Tyler Lavigne, who has never met Mr. deBlois, might become confused and insecure if the 22-month-old encountered the donor now, noted Justice Norman Karam of the Ontario Superior Court in Cochrane, Ont.

“Despite the child’s young age, it is impossible to know what disclosure of [Mr. deBlois’s] status as his parent might mean,” said the judge. “All circumstances considered, the risk of there being an adverse effect to the child is too great to ignore.” Justice Karam said he considered imposing limitations on the access to deal with those concerns, but decided the restrictions would be virtually impossible to enforce. He said he also found “very convincing” the couple’s argument that by allowing access to the child now, he could inadvertently affect the outcome of the trial, expected to be closely watched by legal analysts, parent groups and others.

Selena Kazimierski and Nicole Lavigne say the donor – a former high-school acquaintance of Ms. Lavigne – signed an agreement that he would never contact the baby born in October, 2010, with the help of his artificially inseminated sperm. They fear the family life they have built for their son would be unduly disrupted if he that changed. The donor says he no longer honours the deal, partly because Ms. Lavigne failed to follow through on her verbal commitment to have a baby for him, too.

It is common sense to delay creating a relationship between a child and a stranger unless there is a guarantee that the relationship will continue Legal experts say the case offers up a relatively straightforward set of facts, allowing the court to directly tackle a question overhanging many such arrangements.

Growing numbers of children are being born in Canada as a result of in-vitro fertilization and other forms of assisted reproduction, often to same-sex couples. When donations are obtained anonymously from sperm banks, and in the few provinces with relevant laws, parenthood is generally uncontested.

In situations where couples and single people make arrangements with sperm donors they know, however – especially in provinces that lack such legislation – the rights of the various parties remain largely unresolved. A smattering of mostly lower-court rulings have addressed the question, but most of the cases have had complicating factors, such as a past relationship between the donor and recipient.

Lucia Mendonca, Mr. deBlois’s lawyer, could not be reached for comment Wednesday. Ms. Lavigne voiced relief at the ruling on interim access, saying it would have been too disruptive for everyone to allow the genetic father and son to meet, when the trial might rule Mr. deBlois has no paternity rights. “It would …. just cause pain on all sides,” she said. “It would be hard on him, if he got attached, and now ‘You’re never going to see him again.’ ”

The decision correctly analyzed the law – and applied pure common sense to the situation, said Michelle Flowerday, the Toronto-based fertility and family-law lawyer representing the couple. “It is common sense to delay creating a relationship between a child and a stranger unless there is a guarantee that the relationship will continue,” she said. “There is no guarantee here. We may well succeed at trial.”

The judge also said that he would not consider a legal motion by the couple to reverse an earlier decision, made when the women were represented by a different lawyer, to essentially void the sperm-donation contract. It is expected that issue will be considered at the trial, due to start Oct. 21. Justice Karam also rejected a request by Mr. deBlois for an investigation by Ontario’s Office of the Children’s Lawyer – which represents the interests of children in custody disputes – saying such a probe would be “of little value.”

Article: 8th August 2012 www.nationalpost.com

Read more about finding a known sperm donor or egg donor at www.prideangel.com

Lesbian parents in Canada say they had an agreement: Rene deBlois would donate his sperm for artificial insemination and play no role in the life of any child that resulted.

Mr. deBlois says he signed that deal “under duress,” had second thoughts when Tyler Lavigne was born and is now demanding that the courts recognize him as a father with liberal access rights.

The resulting dispute in the Northern Ontario town of Cochrane is headed for a potentially precedent-setting trial, tackling head on the legal murkiness that often surrounds the increasingly common exchange of donated eggs and semen.

“We’re doing what we think is best for our child. He’s being raised in a happy and healthy environment,” Nicole Lavigne, one of Tyler’s mothers, said in an interview Tuesday. “His family is complete…. I think it’s very important that people be secure that the family they’ve created won’t be disrupted.”

The donor, on the other hand, said in his Ontario Superior Court application that Ms. Lavigne, an acquaintance from elementary school days, has failed to respond with her part of their original bargain, by carrying a child for him.

“[Ms. Lavigne] threatens and intimidates [Mr. deBlois] with the existence of the contract,” the document said. “He is no longer comfortable with the arrangement, and would like the contract voided.”

Growing numbers of children are being born in Canada as a result of in-vitro fertilization and other forms of “assisted” reproduction, often to same-sex couples. When donations are obtained anonymously from sperm banks, and in the few provinces with laws that directly address the issue, parenthood is generally uncontested.

In situations where couples and single people make arrangements with sperm donors they know, however — especially in provinces that lack such legislation — the rights of the various parties remain largely unresolved. A smattering of mostly lower-court rulings have addressed the question, but most of the cases have had complicating factors, such as a past relationship between the donor and recipient.

The Cochrane dispute, however, boasts the most clear-cut set of facts of any to reach the courts, making it an ideal legal testing ground, said Fiona Kelly, a University of British Columbia law professor who studies the issue.

Same-sex and other advocacy groups are planning to request intervenor status in the trial, expected to begin this fall, though the issue is important to single people and heterosexual couples, as well, said Michelle Flowerday, a Toronto lawyer representing Ms. Lavigne and her partner of 15 years, Selena Kazimierski.

“It raises so many important issues,” she said. “The issues are really close to the heart of parenting.”

According to Mr. deBlois’s application, filed a few months after Tyler’s birth in October, 2010, he remembers Ms. Lavigne as a “bully” from their time at Commando Senior Public School with whom he had not been in contact since 1992 when she approached him in 2008 about donating sperm.

She initially offered to carry a second child for him, but the agreement that he eventually signed did not touch on that part of their discussion, saying only that he would relinquish rights to the first child, the donor’s application says.

As Mr. deBlois supplied sperm on a sometimes daily basis, Ms. Lavigne performed artificial insemination at home, conceiving in 2010. Feeling he had been coerced into the deal, he asked the court after Tyler was born to require that he be officially recognized as the father and given “general and liberal” access to the boy, the application says.

Mr. deBlois was not available to comment, but Ms. Lavigne said the court action came out of the blue and left the couple “shocked,” the tension exacerbated by a small-town culture that is not always tolerant of same-sex parenting.

“It’s been very stressful,” she said.

Prof. Kelly said judges in similar cases have tended to side with the sperm donor, but argued the Cochrane case, involving a stable couple and a child they have raised from birth, should offer the court a clear choice.

“To decide in favour of the donor in this case, with these facts, would suggest that a lesbian couple in Canada can never be the sole legal parents of a child conceived with a known donor,” said Prof Kelly. “This would be an extremely troubling outcome.”

Article: 5th June 2012 www.news.nationalpost.com

Read more about fertility and parenting law in the UK.