"I feel like we can breathe for the first time in a year and a half," one of the women said. The Star Tribune article noted Edrington "seemed to not fully appreciate how a married couple would be devastated by the prospect of redefining their family and being ordered by a court to share custody of t...
Yeah, the mistake was allowing the donor to be in the child's life. I can understand him bonding with a baby girl in that scenario. He was babysitting and watching her grow up to look and act like him. This is exactly why professional donor services keep things anonymous. I agree with you that he shouldn't have parental rights, as he gave those up as part of the donation. But I also understand how an unreasonable person reaches the conclusion that he should sue for parental rights.
using a friend as the donor seems like an obvious avoid to me. that said some of the news articles that have come up over the years regarding donor banks have been more than a little concerning too.
Unless the defendant attempted to contact every single one night stand to determine if a child resulted in those unions, he has no parental claim over this child whatsoever.
And for that matter, all masturbatory emissions where his sperm was clearly not seeking an egg, could be termed reckless abandonment.
“She is an endearing, alluring, and beautiful kid, and she looks just like me, and I fell in love with her,” he said.
It wouldn’t be fair to make any assumptions, because the word doesn’t necessarily have sexual connotations, but I’m uncomfortable with his use of the word “alluring”.