Australia`s Supreme Court has ruled that the sperm donor is the father of a girl. (photo of Australian news agency)
The Australian Supreme Court has ruled that the new state law should not be applied to cases of sperm donors who claim to be the legal father of the child, according to the Australian Associated Press.
In recent days, the Supreme Court of Australia, the majority of the Supreme Court, ruled that the donor, Robert Masson, was the legal father of a girl because he was involved in the life of the child.
In the end of April, the case was applicable to the new state law or federal law.
The new state law says the sperm donor is not a father. But Marson argues that the new state law should not apply to the case because federal law is not blank.
According to federal law, marson is considered a father because he is the father of the child and is involved in the life of the child.
The Australian Supreme Court agreed and said in a summary on Wednesday: "most judge believes that there is no reason to doubt the junior judge`s conclusion that the appellant is the father of the child."
The case began in late 2006 when marson and parsons (the name of Susan Parsons, a chemical name on court) agreed to give birth to a child through artificial insemination.
Mason agreed on the condition that he would raise children, provide financial support and financial care.
On the girl`s birth certificate, he is the girl`s father. Mason was actively involved in the life of the girl and her sister, both of whom called him Dad.
The problem arose when the girl`s mother, Parsons, and her partner wanted to move to New Zealand with their two daughters.
Mason stopped them through his family court (Family Court), who was found to be the girl`s parent, but on appeal, judge ruled that he was a pure sperm donor on the basis of the new state law.
Donag (Stephen Donaghue QC), deputy director of the New State Attorney`s Office, believes the federal law definition should be used. "the new state law is not relevant at all," he said on court.
Parsons and his partner, lawer, said the man was a sperm donor, not a father.
""The characterization of the child`s father as` donor `means that this person does not do anything other than providing semen to promote the artificial conception, which is based on the express or implied condition that the donor is not allowed to have any contact with the child born with the artificial conception. (but) this is not the case in the present case."," said juge.
The Supreme Court of Australia ruled to restore the original family court order that the woman should consult with Mr. Ma on the decision to raise the child, and when he took care of the child, he could make a day-to-day decision on the well-being of the child, and without his written consent, the child could not live in New Zealand. (Zheng Peiping)
