Advertisements
Susan Parsons had a daughter with her partner Margaret using semen from her gay friend Robert Masson in 2007 (stock image)

A lesbian couple who had been stopped by their daughter's sperm donor after a $ 1 million legal battle to move to New Zealand, said they did not regret spending time with her.

Advertisements

Susan Parsons had a daughter with her partner Margaret using semen from her gay friend Robert Masson in 2007.

He agreed that he could spend time with his child, especially if she wanted to get to know him.

Susan Parsons had a daughter with her partner Margaret using semen from her gay friend Robert Masson in 2007 (stock image)

Susan Parsons had a daughter with her partner Margaret using semen from her gay friend Robert Masson in 2007 (stock image)

In the early years of his daughter, Mr. Masson from Sydney to Newcastle to be closer to his daughter and met her after spending some time with her mother's permission.

He is named as the girl's father on her birth certificate and was actively involved in her and her younger sister's life from another sperm donor, both of whom & # 39; dad & # 39; called.

Advertisements

But problems arose in 2014 when Mr. Masson discovered that Susan and Margaret were planning to cross the Tasman with the girls of seven and six at the time.

Mr. Masson said he only heard the shocking news of another father while he waited to pick up their children from school.

He took the couple to court and won an important Supreme Court ruling that he was the girl's lawful father and could prevent her from moving to New Zealand.

Margaret and Susan (court pseudonyms) have now said for the first time since the verdict that they have no regrets that Mr. Masson has spent time with his daughter.

& # 39; I do not regret the time we have given him. I regret his action, & Susan told the ABC.

She said that her daughters were being asked about the court case at school and that someone had asked her & why is this happening to us? & # 39;

& # 39; I feel for the children that I regret what happened to them, & # 39; said Susan.

The donor agreed that he could spend time with his child, especially if she wanted to get to know him (stock image)
Advertisements

The donor agreed that he could spend time with his child, especially if she wanted to get to know him (stock image)

The donor agreed that he could spend time with his child, especially if she wanted to get to know him (stock image)

She said that when she agreed to accept Mr. Masson's sperm, she did not expect him to spend as much time as he did with their daughter.

& # 39; The agreement we made with him was that he would be a donor and that he would be known to the child, especially if the child wanted to know their origin, & # 39; she said.

Susan said that Mr Masson had told her that he would work in China for years and agreed to show him his daughter when he returned to Australia.

Advertisements

She said he traveled the first years of their daughter's life, but then moved to Newcastle and played an increasingly important role.

In 2014, after colon cancer was diagnosed with Margaret, he asked for more time with the girls.

Susan said that when she agreed to accept Mr Masson's sperm, she did not expect him to spend as much time as he did with their daughter (stock image)

Susan said that when she agreed to accept Mr Masson's sperm, she did not expect him to spend as much time as he did with their daughter (stock image)

Susan said that when she agreed to accept Mr Masson's sperm, she did not expect him to spend as much time as he did with their daughter (stock image)

& # 39; He probably started the week after my diagnosis, which was a big shock, occupying us more time with the kids, it was a very bad time, & # 39; Margaret told ABC.

Advertisements

When they tried to move to New Zealand that year, Mr. Masson stopped them.

A legal battle where both parties spent more than $ 1 million concluded in June that Mr. Masson was a legal parent – alerting lawyers to informal sperm donor agreements.

After the Supreme Court ruling, Mr Masson spoke about the trial.

& # 39; People must have their eyes wide open if they decide to have children with friends.

& # 39; It means discussing as equivalent to any potentially important issue about the future well-being of their children, & # 39; said Mr. Masson Good weekend.

Advertisements

His lawyer Tahlia Bleier agreed and called on people in similar circumstances who were planning to have a child to sit down with lawyers and draft pre-conception agreements.

She added that the characteristic judgment creates clarity, but also causes problems for sperm donors who are not immediately a parent, but who must be able to apply for involvement if they choose.

Masson stopped Mrs. Parsons and her partner from moving to New Zealand via the Family Court, but on appeal state laws were used to rule him as a pure sperm donor.

The girl's mother and her partner argued that the NSW legislation contains clear rules for fertilization procedures with regard to same-sex couples.

The couple paid out more than $ 1 million in legal fees in the historic case that has potentially dramatic consequences for sperm donors (stock image)

The couple paid out more than $ 1 million in legal fees in the historic case that has potentially dramatic consequences for sperm donors (stock image)

The couple paid out more than $ 1 million in legal fees in the historic case that has potentially dramatic consequences for sperm donors (stock image)

Advocate General Stephen Donaghue QC successfully argued in the Supreme Court in April that the Commonwealth definition should be used.

& # 39; Constitutional law is simply not relevant, & # 39; he said to the court.

The argument was made that Masson is considered a parent under Commonwealth legislation because he is the biological father and involved in the child's life.

A majority of the judges in the Supreme Court agreed and said in a judgment that there was no reason to doubt the court's original conclusion that Mr. Masson was a parent of the child.

Advertisements

& # 39; Characterizing a child's biological father as a & # 39; sperm donor & # 39; suggests that the man in question has done no more than make his sperm available to facilitate an artificial conception procedure on the basis of an express or implicit agreement that afterwards he has nothing to do with a child who, as a result of the procedure was born & said the jury members.

& # 39; Those are not the facts of this case. & # 39;

The court ordered women to consult with Mr. Masson about decisions about parenthood, that he make daily decisions about the welfare of the children when they are in his care and that the children cannot live in New Zealand without his written permission.

The women have no right of appeal.

Masson continues to play an active role in the lives of both girls and has recently returned from a ski trip with his partner Gregg and eldest daughter.

Advertisements

Now that the long-running story is over, Mr Masson hopes that both couples can now continue to raise the girls.

He has no regrets that he had no choice to fight the case to show that he cared.

& # 39; If I had lost this case, if I had not seen my children and they were on my doorstep within 15 years, I wanted to point to a huge pile of legal documents. This is how I fought for you. This is how much I loved you, & he told Good Weekend.

. (TagsToTranslate) Dailymail (t) news (t) new zealand