Australian sperm donor wins court fight to become daughter's biological father after girl's mother brought her to New Zealand
- The Australian sperm donor will not fight in court to be called the girl's biological father
- Robert Massons, his pseudonym of the court, agreed to give his sperm to his friend
- He played an active role in the girl's life and introduced her to his family
- The wife and her wife then decided to relocate the daughter of New Zealand
- Mr Massons stopped them through Family Court and turned out to be a parent
- The mother appealed to the state laws that regarded him as a mere sperm donor
- But a high court decision on Wednesday ruled the man as her biological father
An Australian man who donated his sperm to a friend won the legal battle to become the girl's biological father because he was involved with her.
The man, given the pseudonym Robert Masson, won the High Court battle that began when the mother made the decision to move the child to New Zealand.
A majority of the High Court ruled that the sperm donor is the legal father of his child, with the decision to withdraw an appeal from the girl's mother and her wife.
The court heard that Mr. Masson agreed to give his sperm by artificial insemination in 2006 to his friend Susan Parsons (her court pseudonym).
Mr. Masson agreed that he would be older, provide financial support and financial care, and was mentioned as the girl's father on her birth certificate.
In the years since her birth, Mr. Masson has maintained a close relationship with the girl and introduced her to his extended family.
Both the girl and her younger sister, who is not his family, mention Mr. Massons & # 39; Daddy & # 39 ;.
Problems arose when the mother and her partner wanted to move to New Zealand with the girls.
Masson stopped them through the Family Court with the first ruling in his favor, because he turned out to be a parent.
A successful appeal made by the girl's mother and her wife stated that state laws ruled him as a pure sperm donor.
But the High Court on Wednesday ruled in favor of the man and overturned the appeal, and restored the Family Court ruling that women should stay in Australia.
The case came down to the question of whether state law should be applied instead of commonwealth laws, where state law says a sperm donor is not a parent.
Lawyers for Mr. Masson argued that state laws should not apply because there was no gap in the Commonwealth law.
Under the Commonwealth law, Mr. Masson is considered a parent, since he is the biological father and involved in the child's life.
The High Court agreed and said in a summary of its judgment on Wednesday: & # 39; The majority felt there was no reason to doubt the primary court's conclusion that the appellant was a parent of the child. & # 39;
Advocate General Stephen Donaghue QC argued that the Commonwealth definition should be used.
& # 39; State law is simply not relevant & # 39 ;, he told the court.
Lawyers for Parsons and her partner say that the man is a sperm donor and not a parent.
. (TagsToTranslate) Dailymail (t) news (t) new zealand