Tweet
Sperm donor must pay child support
A Swedish man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple will have to pay child support, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The man, from Örebro, is biological father to three children with the couple. The Supreme Court has now confirmed rulings by two lower courts that he is liable to support them.
The 39-year old man donated his sperm to the lesbian couple at the beginning of the nineties. Three sons were born between 1992 and 1996.
The man claims that it was never intended that he should take reponsibility for the children, but rather that the women would be their parents and he would meet them occasionally.
Under pressure from the women he signed a document admitting paternity, and on this basis the court decided that he had the financial duties of a father.
Shortly after he had signed this document, the women separated. The mother of the children then claimed maintenance payments.
The man?s main argument in the Supreme Court was that his admission of paternity was invalid as the mother had become pregnant through artificial insemination rather than through sexual intercourse.
But the court ruled that this was irrelevant, and that he was still the children?s legal father. Judges said it was irrelevant whether or not he had been tricked into admitting paternity.
A Swedish man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple will have to pay child support, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The man, from Örebro, is biological father to three children with the couple. The Supreme Court has now confirmed rulings by two lower courts that he is liable to support them.
The 39-year old man donated his sperm to the lesbian couple at the beginning of the nineties. Three sons were born between 1992 and 1996.
The man claims that it was never intended that he should take reponsibility for the children, but rather that the women would be their parents and he would meet them occasionally.
Under pressure from the women he signed a document admitting paternity, and on this basis the court decided that he had the financial duties of a father.
Shortly after he had signed this document, the women separated. The mother of the children then claimed maintenance payments.
The man?s main argument in the Supreme Court was that his admission of paternity was invalid as the mother had become pregnant through artificial insemination rather than through sexual intercourse.
But the court ruled that this was irrelevant, and that he was still the children?s legal father. Judges said it was irrelevant whether or not he had been tricked into admitting paternity.
Comment