Proud Parenting

LGBTQ Parents - Lesbian Moms & Gay Dads

The Mixing of Sperm and Embryos

By

The Sperm and the Embryo – Doesn’t quite sound right? Yes, I know, it is normally referred to as the sperm and the egg, but in these cases, we have mix-ups of a different sort.

In Connecticut, a clinic is being sued by a woman who alleges that her two fertilized embryos were mistakenly implanted into another woman. No word on the birth of any child.

Connecticut faces a $2 million potential lawsuit from a woman whose only two fertilized embryos were mistakenly implanted in another woman at a private clinic affiliated with the University of Connecticut Health Center.

The state has already paid a $45,000 settlement related to the April 2009 incident.

The clinic’s medical director – a state employee – received a $500,000 bonus last year despite the mistake.

Tammi Pavano, formerly known as Tammi Whipple, of Winsted, filed the $2 million claim with the Office of the Claims Commissioner on Feb. 22.

The claims commissioner granted permission to sue the state on July 6.

The woman who received the wrong embryos also filed a claim with the Office of the Claims Commissioner, but withdrew it July 6. Her lawyer, Vincent DeAngelo, declined to comment and requested that his client’s name not be included.

Pavano’s attorney, James Townsend, did not return calls for comment.

http://watchdog.org/6533/2-million-claim-pending-against-ct-in-embryo-mix-up/

And, over in Ottawa a fertility doctor is being sued for allegedly mixing up sperm samples and inseminating the wrong one into two of his patients.

According to Ms. Slinn’s statement of claim, Bridget’s father was supposed to be sperm donor number 3168. After Ms. Slinn learned that her daughter did not match him, she tested the vial of sperm that was used to inseminate her from Dr. Barwin’s clinic. The results showed that the vial from his clinic was contaminated with unidentified male DNA, the statement said.

In an interview, Ms. Slinn said she had no idea that there was even a risk of that kind of mistake when she went into her procedure nearly six years ago. “I carried on merrily thinking it was 3168,” she said.

Ms. Moore’s story is more complex. Now two-year-old Samantha was conceived through a surrogate, and the man she calls “daddy” is supposed to be her biological father. But due to the mix-up at Dr. Barwin’s clinic, her parents still don’t know who Samantha’s biological father is, the statement said.

“From Samantha’s perspective, we don’t know her medical history,” Ms. Moore said in an interview. “She may never care, but if she does I can’t fix that. As a parent we want the best for our children, we want to protect our children, we want to fix things for our children. This is something I will never be able to give her.”

DNA tests have ruled out the surrogate’s husband and other potential sperm donors.

Dr. Barwin is a member in good standing with the College of Physicians and Surgeons and is certified to practice as a general physician. He specializes in reproduction and has nearly 30 years of experience. In 1997, he received the Order of Canada for his contributions to women’s reproductive health.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/doctor-sued-over-allegedly-mixing-up-sperm-samples/article1703585/

Friday Legal Update – Sperm Donor Denied Custody Request

By

Sperm Donor & Child Custody – The Superior Court of California in Santa Monica has granted sole legal and physical custody to a lesbain women who gave birth to a child conceived via sperm donation. He later sought parental rights. Here is story as follows:

Trabolsi & Levy Represents Mother in Landmark Case
Affirming Protection for Mothers from Paternity Claims by Sperm Donors

September 8, 2010, Santa Monica, Calif. — The Superior Court of California in Santa Monica has granted sole legal and physical custody to a lesbian woman who gave birth to a child conceived using the sperm of an acquaintance who later sought parental rights.

In the case of Daniel C. vs. Karen B., the parties, who met through an online ad, had signed a layman’s agreement in which they agreed that the sperm donor could visit the child occasionally but that the child would always live with the mother who would make all decisions regarding the child’s upbringing, such as schooling, religion and health care. The parties also agreed that the mother’s partner could adopt the child.

When the woman became pregnant, the sperm donor began to refer to himself as the “father” and began to assert himself into the lives of the woman and her lesbian partner. The donor, who is gay, also told others, including the woman’s fertility doctor, that he was her husband.

When the mother refused the sperm donor’s request to register the child as a Brazilian citizen and obtain a passport for the child to travel to visit Brazil, the sperm donor’s native country, he sued the mother claiming he was entitled to joint legal and physical custody.

“Despite some complicated facts, it was a pure and simple case of the ‘sperm donor statute,'” said Santa Monica attorney Ilene Trabolsi, who represented the mother in association with attorney Stephanie Benincasa of Malibu.

The family code statute, FC 7613 (b), states, “The donor of semen provided to a licensed physician or surgeon … for use in artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization of a woman other than the donor’s wife is treated by law as if her were not the natural father of a child thereby conceived.”

In a preliminary order, the judge awarded full physical and legal custody to the mother. On the day of trial, July 8, 2010, the sperm donor and mother stipulated that she would maintain sole custody, but she would allow him to visit twice per month.

“The decision in this case upholds the law, which was put into effect to protect both sperm donors and recipients — whether they are married, unmarried, gay or straight. The law affords a statutory vehicle so that men are free to donate their sperm without fear of liability for child support and women can obtain semen for artificial insemination without the fear that the donor may claim paternity,” said Trabolsi.

In a similar case in 2005, Steven S v. Deborah D, the California Appellate court found that the statute applied to known donors as well as anonymous donors. In that case, the man had sexual relations with the woman, the mother admitted the man was the father and the mother allowed the man to celebrate in the child’s birth.

Opposing counsel had argued that because the mother signed a Voluntary Declaration of Paternity and the sperm donor’s name appeared on the birth certificate that the donor should be considered a father.

In a 13-page decision, Commissioner David J. Cowan set aside the Voluntary Declaration of Paternity, which the mother contended was signed when she was under the influence of narcotics following a difficult cesarean surgery and could not have understood what she was signing.

Furthermore, the judge stated in his decision that the Voluntary Declaration of Paternity, which primarily is designed to determine who is the father when more than one man claims paternity, was not relevant and did not have greater weight than the sperm donor statue.

“Clearly we feel the best interests of the child were served with this decision,” said Trabolsi. “If the sperm donor had custody and traveled with the child to Brazil he would be under no obligation to return the child to the United States.”

The case of David Goldman has brought to public attention the difficulties faced when an American child is taken to Brazil by a parent who is a Brazilian citizen. Goldman fought for five years for the return of his son after his wife took the child on a supposed two-week vacation and never came back. Even after the mother remarried and later died in childbirth, Goldman fought a five-year battle to regain custody of his son from the child’s stepfather.
[9/8/10]

http://www.outinsanjose.com/home/news.asp?articleid=34491

Australia Update-Adoption for Same Sex Couples & Stem Cell Research Ruling

By

The bill allowing same sex couples to adopt in New South Wales has been passed the NSW parliament.

The bill was amended by the lower house before it was passed. “The amendment, made by Planning Minister Frank Sartor, frees up adoption agencies to act on the wishes of parents regarding where their children are adopted.” The amendment was made in response to changes that that upper house made to the bill that narrowed the exception for faith based adoption agencies.

NSW is now the third state or territory in Australia that allows same sex couples to adopt. The ACT and Western Australia also allow these adoptions.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/nsw-adoption-bill-passed-20100909-1531o.html

However, Queensland’s MPs say that they are in no hurry to follow NSW’s lead and will keep the ban on same sex adoptions intact in Queensland.

“Queensland Premier Anna Bligh referred questions on the matter to Child Safety Minister Phil Reeves, who said the current arrangements would remain unchanged. ‘The government doesn’t have any intention of changing the laws to allow same-sex couples to adopt Australian-born children,’ he said in a statement.”

Same sex couples are allowed to act as foster parents in Queensland and, earlier this year, same sex couples were given the right to use altruistic surrogates as a means of having children.

The Bligh government’s stance on the issue has attracted criticism from equal rights groups and one MP who opposes the ban accused the government of hypocrisy since they allow same sex couples access to altruistic surrogates and allow them to be foster parents but will not allow them to adopt.

“Mr. Reeves said altruistic surrogacy was different from adoption because the biological mother made a personal choice about who the parents of her child would be. ‘This is an individual choice that the government does not seek to influence.’”

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/bligh-wont-follow-gay-adoption-move-20100903-14u6c.html

Update – A U.S. Appeals court on Thursday temporarily lifted a judge’s ban on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research until it rules on the merits of the Obama administration’s argument against the ban. The court ordered that briefs be filed by Sept. 20, when the three-judge panel will decide whether to extend or end the temporary stay. Read more here:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/09/appeals-court-puts-hold-ban-stem-cell-research-funding/

Friday Legal Updates – Australian Adoption Law & Same-Sex Couples

By

Surrogacy – No, it is not Friday yet! But, I am taking a much needed holiday, so Friday updates are today.

The debate on a bill that would allow same sex couples to adopt children in New South Wales has started in Australia. There should be a vote of the Legislative Assembly sometime this week.

The debates have led supporters and protestors of the bill to ramp up their lobbying. “As church groups held a fiery rally at Parliament House, it emerged that the head of Uniting Care NSW.ACT, Harry Herbert, had urged MPs to support the bill… ‘While due diligence should certainly be exercised to ensure the rights of the child are properly protected, the mere fact that prospective parents are in a same-sex relationship should not, of itself, be a barrier to adoption,’ he said.”

Mr. Herbert was joined in supporting the bill by The Benevolent Society and The Minister for Community Services and the Education Minister both stated that they would be voting for the bill.

“Discussion of the bill dominated caucus yesterday, with one MP describing it as ‘another stem cell debate’. The MP said that the Labor MLC Greg Donnelly spoke against the bill, ‘but the majority support it.’ Ms Moore, the independent MP for Sydney, will reintroduce the bill today – one day earlier than initially planned – to include an amendment that allows faith-based adoption agencies to refuse to provide services to gay and lesbian couples without breaching anti-discrimination laws.”

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/mps-to-debate-samesex-adoption-bill-20100831-14fn1.html

Friday Legal Updates: Marriage Equality – Let’s Talk About the Children

By

In the United States, we thrive on our individuality, our independence, our right to privacy, and our right to procreate. We even thrive on our state’s individual rights as a general premise, even though under the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, states are generally required to recognize and honor the public laws of other states.

And, that is where marriage equality comes in. While states have traditionally recognized marriages entered into legally in other states (even those that go against the marriage laws of that particular state), states by and large are not been will to do so in regards to same-sex marriage.

Now, we can go on for days on why marriage equality should or should not be permitted, including the issues surrounding Proposition 8 in California, but what is not being discussed are the children of these LGBT families. What about these children, you ask? First, let’s cut out all the religious, political and other hot button issues and stand directly into the reality that so many face:

*What happens if one of my parents dies?
*What happens if my parents separate or divorce?
*What happens to me?
*Why can’t both of my parents receive the same rights and responsibilities for us as so many other children have?

Well, for the children of LGBT couples, things are not so cut and dry – not that divorce is easy for any child, but why should these children have additional hurdles that are not faced by the children of heterosexual couples or unions? Why should they bear the burden of our stereotypes, our issues, our religious views, our hang ups? Why can’t we make the discussion about advocating for the children?

So, let’s get straight to the points as to why this issue is even important from a legal perspective:

* What about social security survivor benefits from my parent who has died but who is not legally considered my “parent?”
*What about my insurance benefits?
*What about my medical and education issues?
* What if my “non-recognized” parent is the stay-at-home parent and there is a medical emergency?
*Who can register me for school?
*What about my rights to my parent’s estate when my “non-recognized” parent dies?
* What about straight forward acknowledgement under the law that these two people (whether gay or straight) are my parents?

Let’s talk change, and let’s talk about the children. The desire to have a family, including children, is not going to just go away for those of you who do not agree with marriage equality – period. So, with that, let’s advocate for the children and make them realize how great America really is.

http://theafa.typepad.com/theafablog/

UK Reassessing Payments to Gamete Donors – Sperm and Egg Donors

By

The Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) will be holding a three month public consultation to possibly change its policies on egg and sperm donations in the United Kingdom.

The major topic under consideration in the public consultation will be changing the policies regarding egg and sperm donor compensation. “Women who donate eggs are currently paid £250, but this could rise considerably under moves to address egg and sperm shortages at IVF clinics. Many fertility clinics have long waiting lists, driving some childless couples abroad.”

Currently, HFEA regulations only allow sperm and egg donors to be compensated for “reasonable expenses” including travel and lost wages. “Some fertility experts say this is too low to attract donors, and they should be paid more for their time and efforts.”

Experts believe that allowing donors to be compensated at a higher rate will go a long way towards ending the egg and sperm shortage and long waiting lists at many clinics.

The public consultation is to begin in January 2011 and no decision will be made until after the three month consultation ends.

What do you think?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11057943

UK Group Catholic Care Requests Adoption to be Restricted to Heterosexual Couples

By

Last week in England the Charity Commission rejected a plea from Catholic Care, a Leeds based adoption group, to restrict adoption to only heterosexual couples. “Catholic Care sought an exclusion from the 2007 sexual orientation regulations and began legal action to change its constitution so it could continue helping married couples only. The commission initially refused to give its consent, but the charity won the right to appeal against its decision.”

In the appeal, Catholic Care relied on a statement of the Pope from 2003 which stated in part “… the absence of sexual complementarity in these (homosexual) unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such person … Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development,” to suggest that allowing same-sex couples to adopt children would conflict with “the tenets of the church”. However, the charity commission found that this statement was social commentary rather than doctrine.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/aug/19/catholic-gay-adoption-victory-vulnerable-children

Andrew Hind, the chief executive of the Charity Commission said “In certain circumstances, it is not against the law for charities to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. However, because the prohibition on such discrimination is a fundamental principle of human rights law, such discrimination can only be permitted in the most compelling circumstances. We have concluded that in this case the reasons Catholic Care have set out do not justify their wish to discriminate.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/aug/19/catholic-adoption-agency-gay-parents

Friday Legal Update – the AFA, Surrogacy & David Mixner of “Live from Hell’s Kitchen”

By

Surrogacy & LGBT Issues – Great article posted today written by the AFA’s own Ken Mosesian. In fact, it was posted on David Mixner’s site, Live from Hell’s Kitchen. In fact, David Mixner was once named the most powerful gay man in America by Newsweek, and his credits are extraordinary, as his site shows. With Prop 8 weighing heavy on our minds these days, it is important to remember how the lack of laws are affecting the children of LBGT couples – more to come on that next week.

http://www.theafa.org/

http://www.davidmixner.com/

Breaking News – Judge Lifts Temporary Stay on Same-Sex Marriages – Weddings May Be Permitted as of August 18th

By

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/12/federal-judge-allow-gay-marriages-resume-week-california/

“A federal judge has ruled that gay marriages in California should remain on hold until at least Aug. 18.

Judge Vaughn Walker set the deadline Thursday to give gay marriage opponents time to appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the appeals court fails to act by 5 p.m. local time next Wednesday, then gay marriages can go forward.

Walker struck down the state’s voter-approved gay marriage ban last week in a case many believe is destined for the Supreme Court.

But he moved to suspend gay weddings until he could consider arguments from both sides on whether the marriages should be allowed during an appeal of his ruling.

Dozens of gay couples gathered outside City Hall in San Francisco on Thursday awaiting the judge’s ruling.”

Cancer Treatment and Fertility

By

Generally, people who are diagnosed with cancer need to undergo chemotherapy or radiation which often results in premature infertility. “The trend toward delaying childbearing means that many patients will not have had children when they are diagnosed. While there is recognition that cancer therapy can affect a patient’s fertility, less than 25% of oncologists inform their patients about their risks and options.”

For women, two options are in vitro fertilization and egg or embryo cryopreservation. Both of these procedures “will allow a woman to delay conception until she has completed her treatment, and deemed in remission.” There are several steps to both in vitro fertilization and egg or embryo freezing including: hormone therapy, egg retrieval, fertilization, laboratory development of the embryo, and freezing.

Another option for women is using an egg donor to conceive once they are through treatment and in remission. “The process is similar to in vitro fertilization, except that a fertile woman (a relative, friend, or anonymous donor) is given fertility drugs to stimulate multiple eggs to develop. Once the eggs are harvested, they are fertilized with the infertile woman’s partner’s sperm (or donor sperm) and the embryos grown in the laboratory for several days. The infertile woman receives hormone therapy to develop a normal uterine environment, and then the resulting embryos are placed in the infertile woman’s uterus. Hormone therapy is maintained for several weeks and then pregnancy progresses normally.”
For men, freezing their sperm has long been an option to preserve fertility. “Most large cities have sperm banks that can freeze sperm. If a sperm bank is not located near your home, you can find sperm banks across the country that can provide long term sperm storage. The Internet is a great resource, and all reputable sperm banks have detailed websites.”

Other options for men include artificial insemination, either with washed sperm if the sperm is relatively unaffected by cancer treatment, or frozen sperm if it is available from before cancer therapy. If there is no sperm available after cancer treatment insemination with donor sperm is another option that can allow conception.

Adoption is also an option for both men and women to build a family after cancer treatment.
As stated above, there are several options available for both men and women who want to take steps to preserve their fertility before undergoing cancer treatment, however, “fertility preservation requires individualization. The optimal approach depends upon the type of cancer treatment (radiation versus chemotherapy), time available, patient’s age, type of cancer, and whether the patient has a partner.”

http://www.physiciansnews.com/2010/08/10/preservation-of-fertility-in-patients-undergoing-cancer-therapy/