Skip to comments.Canadian Sperm Donor Father Denied Access to Son Being Raised by Lesbians
Posted on 08/20/2012 1:35:23 PM PDT by scottjewell
Canada, which has redefined marriage and therefore parenthood, is facing growing cases like this one:
A judge in this small northern Ontario town has ruled that allowing a biological father access to his 22-month-old son, who is being raised by his biological mother and her lesbian partner, is not in the best interests of the child because of the risk of there being an adverse affect to the child.
Citing arguments that introducing the child to his father would cause the boy confusion and insecurity, Justice Norman Karam of the Ontario Superior Court in Cochrane said, Despite the childs young age, it is impossible to know what disclosure of [the fathers] status as his parent might mean. All circumstances considered, the risk of there being an adverse affect to the child is too great to ignore.
Justice Karam said he considered allowing access, but imposing limitations on what the child was told about his father, but decided that, attempting to enforce such limitations would be virtually impossible.
... Rene deBlois, the biological father of the boy, had requested interim access to his son in January, 2011 pending the outcome of the trial scheduled for October 22, 2012. That trial will look into the paternity rights muddle created when deBlois and the boys lesbian mother, Nicole Lavigne, entered into a home-made written agreement that deBlois, who had known Lavigne since childhood, would provide sperm so she could artificially inseminate herself, with the understanding that he agreed to relinquish his paternity rights.
According to a National Post report, part of deBlois and Lavignes agreement was that Lavigne would provide deBlois with a child of his own using his sperm following the birth of the first child. deBlois alleges that Lavigne reneged on her offer to carry a second child for him because it was not part of the written Donor Agreement that he signed.
In his application to the court for paternity rights, filed three months after his son Tylers birth in October, 2010, deBlois stated that he had been coerced into signing the Donor Agreement by Lavigne, who he described as a bully who forced him to sign under duress. -- LifeSiteNews
I’ve always wanted to put up a billboard across from a sperm clinic that reads “Do You Really Want Your Sons To Be Raised By Lesbians?”
The child’s life is screwed up enough having lesbian parents. Introducing this wacko man into his life will not make anything better.
All is lost
Don’t have a lot of sympathy for this guy. The whole point of being a sperm donor is that you’re being paid to be disconnected from....the final outcome. If he wasn’t okay with that, he shouldn’t have donated in the first place.
Who I do feel sorry for is the kid being raised by the Lesbians.
I agree. For children’s sake, I believe sperm donation and the use of surrogate wombs should be outlawed for gay couples and for single mothers, as it is in various countries. It is unethical and even an evil practice.
Yes, because having 2 dykes playing house as one's family is as stable as Ozzie and Harriet, and you wouldn't want to screw that up.
No, but 2 things:
1. I believe sperm donors and surrogate mothers have a right to change their minds, being the biological parents of the children.
2. I believe both practices should be outlawed. The children had no say in this unnatural arrangement of conception.
You said it. I think the poor kid has a lot of trouble ahead, created for him by 3 adults and a crazy society.
That would be a great billboard for such a location. And I would add another one: “ Think of the Children: Outlaw Sperm Donation and Surrogacy. Children need a biological Mom and Dad for Life”
Yep-—it denies the child their natural right of a biological mother and father so it actually dehumanizes them-—reduces the person to an object (no natural rights) to be sold or bartered. It is evil and should be unconstitutional....it is like slavery.
The Catholic Church has always been right on the slippery slope in dehumanizing “life”—embryos, etc.. Can’t be used as “a means to and end”-—otherwise it will be the slippery slope to gas chambers. History proves it.
Yes, all very true. And it has indeed been proven: Something must be done to stop this global run-away train now.
Quite....the key word is “donor”.
Actually, no child ever has a say in his/her conception.
But I do agree with the overall sentiment. It is in no child's best interest to place them by whatever means in non-traditional families. Doing so reduces children to the status of property, and that is just plain wrong.
What passes for Canadian jurisprudence makes me blanch.
They’ve got UK little brother syndrome. OK, they haven’t tossed the entire country over to Sharia and committed themsleves to the wholesale slaughter of their population through the Murder Inc. called NIH like Britain has, but in the mean time, to keep up they’ve found such perverse judicial and regulatory ways to violate their citizen’s civil rights that they have Satan simultaneously scratching his head in puzlement and laughing so hard he spews coke out of his nose.
Any man who would give his sperm to a Bull Dyke to be used to grow kids with her lesbian partner doesn’t deserve to ever see the child. He should be horsewhipped.
He is probably a fag anyway.
You’re right. And that goes for anonymous sperm donation too.
Addendum: The 2 dykes need to be horse whipped as well. They hate sex with men, but want babies. And they are now raising a son, it is disgusting.
Does the judge not think the boy will eventually learn about the birds and the bees and wonder where his father is/was? The judge acts like it should be kept secret that two lesbians can’t create a child, yet it will end up with another warped child that doesn’t know his father (who wanted to know him) and hates his “mothers” for keeping him away. They’re all nuts and have insured the poor baby follow in their footsteps.
I see your point. But it is not the act which I am thinking of. I knew a case of a man (not gay) who had acted as a sperm donor, and later had a complete change of philosophy. He knew his progeny, carrying his bloodline, was out there.
In any case, I think sperm donation and surrogacy both are immoral and should be illegal as well.
“Actually, no child ever has a say in his/her conception.”
In a Christian purview, they actually do. For within this framework children conceived are done so within a sanctified union of man and woman, who create him or her naturally, in a state of love and commitment to eachother and to God. Isn’t this why up until about the 1960s marriage was considered binding for a lifetime, meant to be entered into with grave and somber regard, with children as God’s gift, to be lovingly guided and nurtured? Has the Pill, no-fault divorce, recreational sex, and gay rights not torn this asunder?
this is not loving a child....this is "having" a piece of property.....
there are consequences to every single act.....
where will it all end?....
Even within that framework, it is still not the child's choice to be conceived. If only the child did have that choice...
True. Not the choice, but at least better chances than in other frameworks for a reasonable foundation.
It should never have begun. Let’s hope it will end somewhere, and the sooner the better.
And when this kid has a son he will walk away because men are bad for children and it will confuse them if he’s there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.