Sperm donor who has won a historical legal battle with his child's mother gives a grim warning to others
A gay sperm donor who fought a bitter legal battle with his child's mother has issued a clear warning about having children with friends.
The man, known as Robert Masson, won a historic Supreme Court ruling to become the legal father of his daughter.
He took legal action against his child's mother after hearing that she was planning to bring their 12-year-old daughter to New Zealand.
The girl was born in 2007 after Mr. Masson and his old friend Susan Parsons (their court pseudonyms) agreed to have a child through artificial insemination.
He agreed that he would act as a parent, provide financial support and financial care.
Mr. Masson changed jobs and took a $ 100,000 pay cut to move from Sydney to Newcastle to play an important role in his daughter's life.
A sperm donor was considered to be the legal father of a child that he had fathered with a friend, which prevented her from moving to New Zealand with her mother (stock image)
He is named as the girl's father on her birth certificate and was actively involved in the girl's and younger sister's life, and both called him & # 39; Daddy & # 39 ;.
But problems arose in 2014 when Mr Masson discovered that Mrs. Parsons and her female partner were planning to move across the Tasman with the girls of seven and six at the same time.
Mr. Masson said he only heard the shocking news of another father while he waited to pick up their children from school.
While the women invited him to make the switch with them, Mr. Masson had personal and business obligations that would keep him in Australia, including an older mother who had just been diagnosed with lung cancer.
In the following five years, he has paid out more than $ 1 million in legal fees in a case that has potentially dramatic consequences for sperm donors.
During the school pick-up, the sperm donor discovered that his child's mother was planning to move to New Zealand with her partner and his daughter (stock image)
& # 39; People must have their eyes wide open if they decide to have children with friends. It means discussing it as equivalent to any possible important issue about the future well-being of their children, & Mr. 39 told Masson Good weekend.
His lawyer Tahlia Bleier agreed and called on people in similar circumstances to have a child together 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.
The legal saga finally over, Mr Masson now wants to continue raising the girls (stock image)
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.
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 High Court agreed last month and said in a judgment that there was no reason to doubt the court's original conclusion that Masson was a parent of the child.
& # 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 fork has issued more than $ 1 million in legal costs in the historic case that has potentially dramatic consequences for sperm donors (stock image)
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.
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 be able 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