Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Canadian Sperm Donor Father Denied Access to Son Being Raised by Lesbians
National Organization for Marriage (NOM) Blog ^ | Aug 18 2012 | Brian Brown

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 child’s young age, it is impossible to know what disclosure of [the father’s] 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 boy’s 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 Lavigne’s 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 Tyler’s 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


TOPICS: Society
KEYWORDS: homosexualadoption; homosexualagenda; paternity; spermbank

1 posted on 08/20/2012 1:35:28 PM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

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?”


2 posted on 08/20/2012 1:41:08 PM PDT by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

The child’s life is screwed up enough having lesbian parents. Introducing this wacko man into his life will not make anything better.


3 posted on 08/20/2012 1:41:39 PM PDT by Onelifetogive (I tweet, too... @Onelifetogive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

All is lost


4 posted on 08/20/2012 1:47:32 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (Tantaros: "Plainly put, Romney and Ryan can't push granny off the cliff. Obama beat them to it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

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.


5 posted on 08/20/2012 1:52:20 PM PDT by rbg81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rbg81

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.


6 posted on 08/20/2012 1:54:00 PM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
Citing arguments that introducing the child to his father would cause the boy confusion and insecurity

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.

7 posted on 08/20/2012 1:55:02 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

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.


8 posted on 08/20/2012 1:56:21 PM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

You said it. I think the poor kid has a lot of trouble ahead, created for him by 3 adults and a crazy society.


9 posted on 08/20/2012 1:57:26 PM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan

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”


10 posted on 08/20/2012 2:00:53 PM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

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.


11 posted on 08/20/2012 2:02:24 PM PDT by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
I agree. The statement, "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'," shows him as a wimp who knew what he was signing and didn't have the backbone to protest if he even cared at the time. A biological, genetic connection should not confer parental rights on someone who has chosen to relinquish those rights. How is this guy going to provide a firm male role model for a teenager if he can't stand up to 'duress' in making arrangements for the conception (i.e., he was horny and would agree to anything).
12 posted on 08/20/2012 2:08:00 PM PDT by Pollster1 (Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

Yes, all very true. And it has indeed been proven: Something must be done to stop this global run-away train now.


13 posted on 08/20/2012 2:15:27 PM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rbg81

Quite....the key word is “donor”.


14 posted on 08/20/2012 2:19:16 PM PDT by Churchillspirit (9/11/2001. NEVER FORGET.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
The children had no say in this unnatural arrangement of conception.

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.

15 posted on 08/20/2012 2:25:41 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

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.


16 posted on 08/20/2012 2:37:58 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

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.


17 posted on 08/20/2012 2:38:30 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

You’re right. And that goes for anonymous sperm donation too.


18 posted on 08/20/2012 2:44:11 PM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

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.


19 posted on 08/20/2012 2:45:52 PM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

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.


20 posted on 08/20/2012 3:11:37 PM PDT by MacMattico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
In regards to changing their mind, the surrogate mothers yes, sperm donors no. I see a big difference between carrying a baby to term and masturbating into a test tube.
21 posted on 08/20/2012 4:53:46 PM PDT by gusty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gusty

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.


22 posted on 08/20/2012 5:15:50 PM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

“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?


23 posted on 08/20/2012 5:19:33 PM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan
the guy sounds like a gay blade......what a bunch of losers.....

this is not loving a child....this is "having" a piece of property.....

there are consequences to every single act.....

24 posted on 08/20/2012 9:16:43 PM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
there are so many things I find immoral and disgusting, but my views are definately out of the mainstream.....

where will it all end?....

25 posted on 08/20/2012 9:22:01 PM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
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?

Even within that framework, it is still not the child's choice to be conceived. If only the child did have that choice...

26 posted on 08/20/2012 9:43:23 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

True. Not the choice, but at least better chances than in other frameworks for a reasonable foundation.


27 posted on 08/21/2012 5:12:41 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cherry

It should never have begun. Let’s hope it will end somewhere, and the sooner the better.


28 posted on 08/21/2012 5:13:42 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

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.


29 posted on 08/21/2012 6:03:43 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

Good point.


30 posted on 08/21/2012 6:18:10 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson