"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 their child."
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.
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.