Woman must repay $150,000 to ex-husband as IVF baby wasn't his

An unidentified UK businesswoman visited a IVF clinic in 2002, with her then-husband. A few months later, there was no pregnancy and the marriage was in trouble because the husband - a university professor - didn't want to go back to the clinic and had asked his wife to sign a 'disclaimer' saying he wouldn't have the normal financial responsibility for any child they had together.

So the wife went back to the clinic a few months later with an ex-boyfriend, and gave birth to his baby boy. She didn't tell her husband though, and, despite his disclaimer, he continued to pay maintenance and care for him until the boy was five (she and husband split when the child was six months old), when they got into a custody dispute. At this point, the wife told him the child wasn't his.

The child is now nine and the husband was refused contact with him in a separate court case.

He was today awarded £40,000 in damages at the Central London County Court, while his wife was also ordered to cover his legal costs, believed to be around £60,000.

It also emerged that the husband had earlier agreed to drop the case for a comparatively moderate payout of £12,500.*

After the hearing the man revealed that, despite years of caring for the boy, he has now lost almost all contact with him.*

He said: 'I have sometimes felt, "I think I am in the wrong film". I can't imagine what my then-son must have felt to have had a loving father substituted by another man.'

Click to expand...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3003998/Man-wins-baby-deceit-damages-bid.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31981961

What's with that husband asking his wife to sign a document saying he'll have no financial responsibility for their child, before they've even had one? I don't get it.

zwiebel said:

What's with that husband asking his wife to sign a document saying he'll have no financial responsibility for their child, before they've even had one? I don't get it.

Click to expand...

Me neither, I had to re-read it just in case I misunderstood.

That can't be right, surely. What a messy story. Feel soŕry for that poor child.

zwiebel said:

What's with that husband asking his wife to sign a document saying he'll have no financial responsibility for their child, before they've even had one? I don't get it.

Click to expand...

It sounds like the relationship was already in trouble, and he thought she might have another IVF treatment using someone else's sperm. That's all I got.

zwiebel said:

What's with that husband asking his wife to sign a document saying he'll have no financial responsibility for their child, before they've even had one? I don't get it.

Click to expand...

Sounds like the marriage was already in trouble and he changed his mind about having children.

Or the IVF clinic already had his sperm and he was concerned she would go back without his knowledge.
It's even possible they had other embryos stored there and he was concerned she'd use them.
It sounds like he didn't want to be married to her but was afraid she'd screw him over.
Which is exactly what she did... so clearly he was right to be concerned.
That poor little boy. :tears:

MsFacetious said:

Or the IVF clinic already had his sperm and he was concerned she would go back without his knowledge.

Click to expand...

At least in the US his tactic of having her sign papers would not worked if she became impregnated by his sperm. The father is required to pay support for the benefit of his biological child, therefore the mother cannot sign away the rights of the child.

This has come up many times in courts often when lesbian couples talk a male friend into donating sperm to father a child and then signs paperwork promising he won't be financially responsible; in virtually every case the sperm doner has been forced to pay if the matter ends up in court (only mentioning lesbian couples because they are far more likely to get doners with a written agreement).

Only a truly over-educated, university living, working person would think signing that contract would excuse him from financial responsibility for a child. Gotta have that test!!