"I feel like we can breathe for the first time in a year and a half," one of the women said. The Star Tribune article noted Edrington "seemed to not fully appreciate how a married couple would be devastated by the prospect of redefining their family and being ordered by a court to share custody of their child."
Yeah, the mistake was allowing the donor to be in the child’s life. I can understand him bonding with a baby girl in that scenario. He was babysitting and watching her grow up to look and act like him. This is exactly why professional donor services keep things anonymous. I agree with you that he shouldn’t have parental rights, as he gave those up as part of the donation. But I also understand how an unreasonable person reaches the conclusion that he should sue for parental rights.
Thank you for the clarification!
If you donate sperm, you ought to have no rights or responsibility to the child. That’s why it’s a donation
Yeah, the mistake was allowing the donor to be in the child’s life. I can understand him bonding with a baby girl in that scenario. He was babysitting and watching her grow up to look and act like him. This is exactly why professional donor services keep things anonymous. I agree with you that he shouldn’t have parental rights, as he gave those up as part of the donation. But I also understand how an unreasonable person reaches the conclusion that he should sue for parental rights.