IVF – baby without ex’s consent
Discussion
Anyone read about this in the paper. Aparently a couple were trying for a baby and the woman Natallie Evans is seeking the permission of the courts to continue her IVF treatment after the couple split. Could be an interesting case for the CSA
[quote=BBC] Natallie Evans is seeking the permission of the courts to continue her IVF treatment.
Ms Evans, 30, from Wiltshire, was diagnosed with ovarian cancer last year and is now unable to have a child naturally.
She started IVF treatment last year with her then partner, Howard Johnston. Six embryos have been fertilised with his sperm.
However, Mr Johnston has since withdrawn his consent for the procedure to go ahead. Under current law, the embryos cannot be used and must be destroyed if one of the parties objects to the procedure.
Cancer diagnosed
"In September of last year, me and my ex were undergoing fertility treatment because we were trying for a baby and I hadn't fallen pregnant," Ms Evans told the BBC.
"[Doctors] started to do some tests. They did a laparoscopy, which is a camera into the belly button, and they found abnormalities on my ovaries.
"I was taken back into hospital for a laparotomy, which is a slice across the stomach, and they found that I had ovarian cancer.
"The only way I could go forward was to have IVF because they wanted my ovaries removed as soon as possible. My ovaries were removed in November."
Ms Evans says Mr Johnston agreed to allow the IVF treatment to continue even after their relationship ended.
"Three weeks after our relationship broke down Howard and myself discussed what would happen to the embryos.
"He said I was still able to use them but he wanted a legal binding contract drawn up to say I wouldn't take him for maintenance or he wouldn't be named as the father so he would have no responsibility.
"We were both happy with that. I said I was not ready to have them implanted yet so when the time is near we will discuss it more in detail and go to a solicitor.
"This is how it was left until I received the letter on the 30 July."
She says she does not know why he has decided to withdraw his consent to the procedure.
Ms Evan's was informed of that decision by letter on 30 July.
"I haven't had any contact with Howard since I received the letter from the clinic so I don't know his reasoning." [/quote]
[quote=BBC] Natallie Evans is seeking the permission of the courts to continue her IVF treatment.
Ms Evans, 30, from Wiltshire, was diagnosed with ovarian cancer last year and is now unable to have a child naturally.
She started IVF treatment last year with her then partner, Howard Johnston. Six embryos have been fertilised with his sperm.
However, Mr Johnston has since withdrawn his consent for the procedure to go ahead. Under current law, the embryos cannot be used and must be destroyed if one of the parties objects to the procedure.
Cancer diagnosed
"In September of last year, me and my ex were undergoing fertility treatment because we were trying for a baby and I hadn't fallen pregnant," Ms Evans told the BBC.
"[Doctors] started to do some tests. They did a laparoscopy, which is a camera into the belly button, and they found abnormalities on my ovaries.
"I was taken back into hospital for a laparotomy, which is a slice across the stomach, and they found that I had ovarian cancer.
"The only way I could go forward was to have IVF because they wanted my ovaries removed as soon as possible. My ovaries were removed in November."
Ms Evans says Mr Johnston agreed to allow the IVF treatment to continue even after their relationship ended.
"Three weeks after our relationship broke down Howard and myself discussed what would happen to the embryos.
"He said I was still able to use them but he wanted a legal binding contract drawn up to say I wouldn't take him for maintenance or he wouldn't be named as the father so he would have no responsibility.
"We were both happy with that. I said I was not ready to have them implanted yet so when the time is near we will discuss it more in detail and go to a solicitor.
"This is how it was left until I received the letter on the 30 July."
She says she does not know why he has decided to withdraw his consent to the procedure.
Ms Evan's was informed of that decision by letter on 30 July.
"I haven't had any contact with Howard since I received the letter from the clinic so I don't know his reasoning." [/quote]
Tragic circumstance for the woman, but I have to say that parenthood is a two part process and if one party is not consenting then it should not be. Even if a document is drawn up saying that he has no responsibilities, what is there to say that she will not contest it later on? On the flip side what is there to say that he may want contact and parental duties in the future?
And the implications of on the child (if it were to be born) to find out that the father washed his hands of it before conception?
And the implications of on the child (if it were to be born) to find out that the father washed his hands of it before conception?
I think when they split he thought he could do the right thing and let her carry on with the IVF treatment as it would be her only way of having a baby. The drawing up of a contract to say he would have no responsibility for the child was agreed by both.
But probably after consulting a lawyer they would not be able to draw up such a contract and he, worried about maintenance etc, withdrew his consent
But probably after consulting a lawyer they would not be able to draw up such a contract and he, worried about maintenance etc, withdrew his consent
timmy30 said:
Is it possible that he's been advised that the CSA will take absolutely no notice of the agreement of non-paternal responsibility that they had drawn up together?
Exactly what I Was thinking.
Couldn't they have just frozen her eggs raw, if you will, and then fertilised them at a later date or does it not work like that?
Put it the other way round. If he had no other chance to have children, would it be reasonable for him to take possession of the eggs and have them implanted in his new bird? I don't think so, so I don't think that this woman should be allowed to have IVF when the bloke has withdrawn his consent. It's an awful situation but if one party doesn't consent then I can't see how it can possibly be right to go ahead.
wolves_wanderer said:
Put it the other way round. If he had no other chance to have children, would it be reasonable for him to take possession of the eggs and have them implanted in his new bird? I don't think so, so I don't think that this woman should be allowed to have IVF when the bloke has withdrawn his consent. It's an awful situation but if one party doesn't consent then I can't see how it can possibly be right to go ahead.
If several other posters suspicions and my own are correct it is also a case of blind interference by the state in the private affairs of two individuals.
If they sign and agreement in which she waves the right to get either support payments from him via the CSA or the Tax payer via the benefits system then I don't see the problem, except of course that the state won't recognise their individual right to choose.
dieseljohn said:
Couldn't they have just frozen her eggs raw, if you will, and then fertilised them at a later date or does it not work like that?
In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF)
I think they fertilise the eggs before they store them.
More here www.ein.org/treatments.htm#2
timmy30 said:
Put it the other way round. If he had no other chance to have children, would it be reasonable for him to take possession of the eggs and have them implanted in his new bird? I don't think so, so I don't think that this woman should be allowed to have IVF when the bloke has withdrawn his consent. It's an awful situation but if one party doesn't consent then I can't see how it can possibly be right to go ahead.
If several other posters suspicions and my own are correct it is also a case of blind interference by the state in the private affairs of two individuals.
If they sign and agreement in which she waves the right to get either support payments from him via the CSA or the Tax payer via the benefits system then I don't see the problem, except of course that the state won't recognise their individual right to choose.
But don't you think that this chap is exercising his right to choose and she is trying to disregard his choice and go ahead anyway?
timmy30 said:
If they sign and agreement in which she waves the right to get either support payments from him via the CSA or the Tax payer via the benefits system then I don't see the problem, except of course that the state won't recognise their individual right to choose.
The problem comes if one changes their mind, lawyers get involved and the whole kit and caboodle ends up in court. I can imagine the opening statement.
"my client was under considerable duress, this being her only chance to have a baby and would have signed anything for that oppertunity"
You can imagine the rest.
It would also set a precident (?) if you could seperate yourself completely from an unborn child
A truly awful situation, but a bad as it is, it's his genetic code, as Plotloss said.
Also, the CSA are not known for their kind, understanding ways. If I understand correctly, they already have the power to set aside settlement agreements drawn up in court if it suits them - so I can't see this being any different.
Also, the CSA are not known for their kind, understanding ways. If I understand correctly, they already have the power to set aside settlement agreements drawn up in court if it suits them - so I can't see this being any different.
It is indeed tragic for the lady involved, but she only has this 'chance' because of her prior relations with this chap and their mutual desire to have a child together. However this mutual desire no longer exists and I dont think that he should be 'forced ' to be a father.
I am sure that many people here have hit the nail on the head when assuming that consent has been withdrawn as he has been told that there is no way for him to legally dismiss any future responsibility for the child.
Sorry for her, sorry for him, sometimes the law is an ass
I am sure that many people here have hit the nail on the head when assuming that consent has been withdrawn as he has been told that there is no way for him to legally dismiss any future responsibility for the child.
Sorry for her, sorry for him, sometimes the law is an ass
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff