A woman who faked her ex's signature to inseminate herself has successfully sued for child support

qp0n · 2018-05-03T18:23:22+00:00

Same story but in english - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/05/03/german-man-child-support-ivf/576077002/

TLDR; while young and fertile, man and woman have mans sperm fertilize womans egg and have them frozen in case they decide to later have a child. If they do, consent from both is required. Man and woman break up, woman forges mans signature, has baby, federal law says he must pay CS, he sues woman to be released of the obligation, and the woman fucking wins.

Female privilege at its finest.

JimmyLongnWider · 2018-05-03T16:12:46+00:00

The article can be translated on the Chrome browser at least. The part that bothers me is no one is bringing up the fact that she forged his signature, just that he originally consented to IVF. The medical people are acting like the fact that he originally wanted to use IVF with her makes all further actions, like forgery and deceit, justified once she is pregnant. I would be hopping mad at this if it were me.

Wsing1974 · 2018-05-04T00:02:31+00:00

From the USA Today article:

The decision, made by the court's medical malpractice section, is not legally binding.

Thank God. At least he has a shot in legal court.

kaazsssz · 2018-05-03T18:56:18+00:00

I wonder, if he woke up tied to the bed with a viagra fueled hard on, and she literally raped him for his cum, would he still have to pay child support? Probably.

Sinner12180 · 2018-05-03T22:24:59+00:00

In the US, boys who were raped by older women have been ordered to pay child support once they turned 18 to their rapists.

WelcomeToTheMatriarchy

Splatriarchy · 2018-05-03T17:12:24+00:00

Wow, some *people can be scary hungry for money.

Edited: changed “women” to “people.” If men gave birth they’d probably try to extort their impregnator too.

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2018-05-03T20:59:31+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Greg_W_Allan · 2018-05-04T05:49:17+00:00

Women CAN commit virtually any crimes they wish, including rape, in order to become pregnant. Even if the male targeted is a kid that woman can expect to be granted a stream of income from the victim of that crime.

unbent_unbowed · 2018-05-03T20:34:59+00:00

I don't see what the big deal is. If he didn't want to be responsible for having kids why did he let his body produce so much semen? Seems pretty irresponsible of you ask me.

Throwaway_Old_Guy · 2018-05-03T16:40:14+00:00

I guess the lesson here would be to make sure you present a written withdrawal of consent to the company that is in possession of said fertilized eggs at the time the separation begins and it be mentioned in the final divorce decree.

RandyDanderson · 2018-05-04T02:59:14+00:00

TIL forgery is legal and all future damages from said forgery are responsibility of the victim.

Blutarg · 2018-05-03T22:50:07+00:00

Gosh, our modern world sure hates women.

notbigtony · 2018-05-04T03:26:28+00:00

If someone forges my signature on a check and the bank pays it, the bank is still responsible for paying me as long as I reported it in a reasonable amount of time. Similarly, the sperm bank should be liable for accepting the forged signature and pay the cost of the child support. The woman should be charged with forgery and perhaps rape.

OgreAllOver · 2018-05-03T21:07:45+00:00

New rule. No frozen sperm. No frozen embryos. If you're dead set on making a person, you use fresh ingredients.

svenskbitch · 2018-05-03T15:24:41+00:00

The link is in German, but the title sums it up - and I am sure there are similar cases.

Rather than engaging in righteous indignation at this outrage, perhaps we can also discuss the underlying issue: how important is the principle that a child, regardless of the actions of his parents, should have the right to support from both of them? What principles should trump this principle, and why? Where do we draw the line.

(Child support in Germany is much skimpier than in the US and capped at modest levels, starting at a few hundred and seldom more than 1,000 USD a month, even for high-income non-custodial parents. But in the Anglosphere, where amounts are more arbitrary, this of course leaves room open for egregious abuse.)

2018-05-03T21:37:39+00:00

Neva trust dem hoes

(In all seriousness, this is incredibly fucked up.)

BladeSplitter12 · 2018-05-04T02:23:09+00:00

Could the father sue the company that accepted the false signature?

Their careless security protocol led to the premature, unexpected, and unwelcomed birth of a child, thus forcing this unwilling man to pay X-hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of the next 18 years in child support that he had no means nor intention of spending.

Who was responsible for verifying those signatures?

2018-05-04T03:33:56+00:00

This must be an example of that male privilege I keep hearing so much about.

Cant_Ban_All_MRAs · 2018-05-03T17:15:46+00:00

From Google Translate:

Dispute over maintenance

Father has to pay for unwanted child

A woman faked the signature of her ex-husband to be artificially fertilized. The man then wanted to be released from the maintenance obligations - and failed in court.

A man whose ex-wife, without his consent, has had fertilized eggs and became pregnant must pay for the unwanted child. This has decided the medical liability of the district court Munich I and dismissed the complaint of the man who had to be exempted from the maintenance obligations. The judgment is not yet final (Az .: 9 O 7697/17).

About five years ago, the couple had taken ova from the woman in a practice, fertilize and freeze. The man had agreed to the procedure in writing. Shortly thereafter, however, the couple separated because of relationship problems. The woman stuck to her desire to conceive and faked the man's signature to have her eggs implanted.

A first attempt was unsuccessful, a second several months later - again with a fake signature - led to the pregnancy and the birth of a son. The man did not want to pay for the child - instead, he wanted to see the practice obliged to take over the maintenance.

However, according to the judges, he had not revoked his initially given consent clearly enough. The doctors would have had no reason to doubt the authenticity of the signature - especially since the initial written consent had been present.

According to the court, the plaintiff had alleged in the process that he had revoked his original consent for the transfer of the ova on the phone to a practice employee even before the first attempt. The telephone call, argues the court, had however no clear content. The man did not revoke his consent in the following time either in writing or again verbally.

duganaok · 2018-05-04T01:24:43+00:00

Oh, not America. I was like... WUT?!?!??

buffyangel808 · 2018-05-03T21:21:29+00:00

This is so sad. Hopefully he can appeal the decision.

2018-05-04T03:44:09+00:00

What a complete nightmare.

kwinz · 2018-05-03T21:18:02+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Why_the_hate_ · 2018-05-04T03:52:37+00:00

I don’t understand what calling in to remove consent has to do with anything if he has to sign to provide it and she forged his signature. None of that should matter.

human_not_robot · 2018-05-04T05:48:23+00:00

It's difficult because the well being the child - who had nothing to do with the parents' decisions - really is important (though it is also fair to question how far this really is the guiding principle of the courts and legislators in practice) and they should not be punished for the reprehensible behaviour of, in this case, the mother.

For this particular case and others like it (like the above mentioned one about the woman successfully suing the boy she raped for child support when he reached the age of majority, or women fishing out used condoms from the trash and inseminating themselves and then suing for support from their victims) I've mostly settled on the position that, setting aside arguments about these decisions mostly being about the mother's interests (which I find somewhat persuasive), that it is generally in the interests of broader society that the child be supported and that being the case, broader society should be footing the bill. The fitness of the mothers to be a parents given the kind of behaviour engaged in to achieve pregnancy in such cases should also be separately examined.

As far as I can tell from the story, the unwilling father, who is the victim here, ultimately had about as much control over the decision this woman made to commit fraud and become pregnant via deceit as anybody else in society: little to none. He should not be held especially responsible simply because it was his genetic material that was misused. His only mistakes were earnest belief that his relationship with this woman would go better than it obviously has and placing trust in this institution to actually fulfill their obligation to seek his consent for the use of his reproductive material. He has been abused by this woman and I find any outcome that includes the state participating in and compounding his abuse to be unconscionable. Assuming he does not, despite the circumstances of the conception, want to be (and is permitted to be) a father to this child, he can make his contribution to the child's welfare by paying his taxes, same as everyone else.

If one wants to hold another private party financially responsible for the child, it should be the institution that failed in its duty to confirm the father's consent for a decision that, as in every case of bringing a new human life into the world, would have monumental consequences for all parties. An easily forged scribble on a piece of paper should not be enough. Perhaps these institutions will be more scrupulous if they know that they might be on the hook if they cut corners.

We also need to be thinking about the future as well, in my opinion, and what precedents we are willing to set or reinforce. What if it wasn't a place where a fertilised egg was stored ready for implantation, but a place where a man had a sample of his sperm stored to hedge against future disease or injury that might render him sterile? What if a staffer or somebody who could convince a staffer that she was the partner of this man and he was consenting used that sperm to create a child and no relationship or sex act was involved? Do we hold the man responsible then? Or, what if, given the rapid advances made in IVF technology and the very real prospect of being able to create viable embryos by fertilising eggs with DNA that does not necessarily come from another gamete cell (ie. a sperm) in the near future - a man (or even a woman!) becomes an unwilling "father" through use of genetic material that is not even a sex cell? Are they on the hook for support simply because it's their DNA in the resulting offspring?

This entire case is already some real dystopian shit. I shudder to think what the future may hold for the reproductive rights of men.

biff64gc · 2018-05-04T12:54:36+00:00

Claims he wasn't clear enough to revoke the egg use and court is fine ignoring her forging a signature. Absolute bullshit.

Really he hope he tries again and sues her for identity theft and fraud.

Macheako · 2018-05-03T20:54:58+00:00

This shit just motivates me at this point;)

pipsname · 2018-05-04T10:42:24+00:00

Alternative conversation. Imagine growing up as that child knowing this. We often hear that kids were planned or not planned but never maliciously planned.

2018-05-04T11:18:11+00:00

This is utterly disgusting. what a repugnant human being.

matmannen · 2018-05-04T11:18:37+00:00

The complicated situation is that one doesn't want to punish the child, but how would one only punish the mother without punishing the child?

Perhaps taking the child from the mother (when its a baby and can't tell the difference) and adopting it to a law abiding couple would be a start.

Funcuz · 2018-05-04T12:08:45+00:00

You can rest assured that she'll get it and then probably be given alimony (even if they weren't married) on top. Because he's a man.

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2018-05-04T12:25:19+00:00

Men if you don't want to be forced in to parenthood just don't have sex!

Also don't not have sex.

Basically just don't be a man if you want reproductive Rights.

kinmeyy · 2018-05-04T05:32:30+00:00

Maybe he wasnt able to prive the fraudulent signature and that is the problem here,had he been able to do that..maybe things would have been different.

Remarkable_Mix · 2018-05-04T05:45:47+00:00

Not legally binding according to the article.

kwinz · 2018-05-04T06:17:56+00:00

can he try and get the money back from the laboratory?

Son0fSun · 2018-05-04T13:54:22+00:00

However, according to the judges, he had not revoked his initially given consent clearly enough.

This is what happens when Cuckoldry infiltrates government.

seraph85 · 2018-05-04T13:59:52+00:00

Think of the children! Why should they suffer!

nascarracer99316 · 2018-05-13T21:51:22+00:00

This is bullshit.

GreyTortoise · 2018-05-05T01:29:07+00:00

"Man loses IVF damages claim. Must now pay child support."

I keep seeing that, different countries, different stories, etc. It's absolutely insane that women have so much power yet western feminism can still somehow pretend women are oppressed.

Title	A woman who faked her ex's signature to inseminate herself has successfully sued for child support
Author	svenskbitch
Upvotes	3463
Comments	237
Date	May 3, 2018 3:20 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/8gr5i3/a_woman_who_faked_her_exs_signature_to_inseminate/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/a-woman-who-faked-her-exs-signature-to-inseminate.901846 https://theredarchive.com/post/901846

Comments

WelcomeToTheMatriarchy