Forced fatherhood
Forced fatherhood or imposed paternity can include deception by a partner about her ability to get pregnant or use of contraceptives, birth control sabotage, paternity fraud and sexual assaults of males that result in pregnancy.
"Sperm theft", also known as "unauthorized use of sperm", "spermjacking" or "", refers to a specific form of forced fatherhood in which a man's semen is used to impregnate a woman without his consent. Although the term uses the word "theft", it more closely falls under a state of fraud or breach of contract. Stealing of sperm in itself without using it for successful insemination is not illegal and is difficult to prove. It usually has no bearing on issues like child support. It is considered an issue in the men's rights movement.
Definition
Forced fatherhood falls into three main categories:- Sperm stashing – Occurs when a man's semen is obtained surreptitiously, such as from a discarded condom, and subsequently used to inseminate a woman.
- Non-consensual sexual intercourse – The sexual assault, rape or statutory rape of a man or boy that results in pregnancy.
- Improper use of assisted reproductive technology – When a man's frozen sperm sample is used, without his permission, to fertilize an egg during IVF and other artificial insemination procedures.
Prevalence
Legal status
Forced fatherhood is not illegal anywhere. Cases are usually reported in connection with disputes over child support. When the obligation to provide child support is challenged by men who allege that their sperm had been stolen or otherwise used to inseminate a woman without their consent, courts will typically enforce the doctrine of strict liability: namely, that a man is liable to support a child conceived with his sperm, irrespective of the circumstances of conception, including any criminal conduct on the part of the mother. Plaintiff arguments of tort liability for fraud or misrepresentation typically do not hold up. Courts are also thought to be reluctant to remedy such grievances as it would mean ruling that a child was born as a result of deception. In some cases, a victim of sperm theft can sue the perpetrator for emotional trauma inflicted.Myrisha S. Lewis has written that male victims of contraceptive fraud, sexual assault, and statutory rape should not be "punished with child support liability, but instead receive compensation for the unauthorized use of their biological products." She argues that the policy of strict liability unjustly penalises male victims of sexual assault. She contrasts their status with that of voluntary sperm donors, who are exempt from child support liability.
In a "landmark ruling" establishing the legal principle that a man's semen is his own property, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, the most senior judge in England and Wales, ruled in favor of six unnamed men who sued the NHS for damages after their sperm samples were lost. The men were all cancer patients who had been advised to freeze their sperm due to the risk of chemotherapy damaging their fertility. Lord Judge, Master of the Rolls Sir Anthony Clarke, and Lord Justice Wilson ruled that the sperm samples were legally the property of the men, and dismissed the argument made by the NHS that the samples should be given the same status as discarded toenails or hair.
Steve Moxon has written, "it must only be a matter of time before the absurdity of 'sperm theft' is stamped upon. The position at the moment is that of a dam held back by 'the best interests of the child' concept, which is proxy for 'the best interests of the state' in not paying child support. It only takes one case to successfully assert the rights of the deceived man for the dam wall to break."
In her article, "It's ten o'clock: do you know where your sperm are?", Laura Wish Morgan highlights the strict liability theory of parentage. She notes cases where the father has been held liable for child support even if he was underage at the time of conception, and thus a victim of statutory rape. Morgan also documents a "somewhat troubling" case where a woman raped a man after he had gotten drunk at a party and passed out, and thus he did not knowingly or willingly have intercourse with her. The mother also admitted that she had done this. Nevertheless, the court held him liable for child support. Morgan concludes: "to all men who complain about paying child support for children they did not want, the simple advice is, "Shut up and put on a condom. And dispose of it yourself."
Cases
Germany
In Germany, sperm theft is known as samenraub. The phrase entered the popular lexicon after a 2001 tabloid scandal involving Boris Becker and a resulting headline in Bild: War es Samenraub?. Becker had claimed that a child he fathered with a Russian waitress was conceived when she stole his sperm after oral sex. He alleged that she inseminated herself following a tryst in a linen cupboard at the London restaurant Nobu. Subsequently, he reversed his stance, accepted fatherhood and agreed to take responsibility for the child. In 2013 the phrase was included in the Duden.A man's request to be relieved of paying child support was rejected by a Munich court. The child was conceived from an egg fertilized with his sperm without his permission. He revoked his consent for his sperm to be used after he and his ex-wife separated and said that she twice forged his signature at an IVF clinic. However, the court said that he was not clear enough when he revoked his consent and the clinic had no reason to doubt the validity of what he alleged were forged signatures.
In 2012, two male gynaecologists were ordered by a Dortmund court to pay child support in place of the biological father. They had helped a mother conceive twins via artificial insemination using the father's sperm, but did so without the father's consent. A contract had stipulated that his sperm was to be destroyed after a year.
On 4 February 2013, the 22nd civil senate of the Hamm Higher Regional Court dismissed a man's claim for indemnification for exemption from maintenance obligations in the so-called "semen robbery process" and thus deviated from the lower court judgment of the Dortmund Regional Court. The man alleged that his signature on the informed consent form had been forged and that his sperm sample had been used for artificial insemination without permission. The court rejected his argument.
In 2022, a 39-year-old woman received a 6-month suspended jail sentence for poking holes in a condom to get pregnant with a man with whom she was in a friends-with-benefits relationship. She wanted to enter a serious relationship while she knew he did not. She failed to get pregnant.
Israel
In Israel, stealing sperm is a common phrase used to denote a woman sleeping with a man in order to get pregnant without telling him. It receives ample media coverage. Some consider that the issue is unbalanced in favor of women and men who fall victim to "sperm theft" should also have the right to say no to parenthood.In 2012, the Tiberias Family Court ruled against a man who asked to be excused from paying child support, claiming the mother of his child had "stolen his sperm" in order to get pregnant. In dismissing the suit, the judge ruled that "even if her biological father's claims are true, they are not sufficient to prevent the minor from succeeding in her current suit." The judge also cited other cases in which men had been ordered to pay child support, even though they had argued they were "fathers against their will".
In 2013, in a "milestone verdict", a Tel Aviv court ordered a woman to pay her former partner ₪110,000 in damages. She had informed him that she was infertile and persuaded him not to use contraception. Subsequently, she became pregnant and sued him for child support after he refused to acknowledge paternity of the child. Previous judgements had gone against him. In January 2017, the compensation imposed on the woman was revoked after the district court hearing the appeal ruled that the sex did not result from misrepresentation, and it was not proven that the plaintiff was interested at the time in the defendant's medical condition or the need to use contraception.
On 4 September 2018, a Tel Aviv court partially accepted the suit of a man claiming "forced fatherhood". Judge Shifra Glick determined that the defendant had been dishonest with the plaintiff, had asked him not to use contraceptives, and had told him that she was using an IUD, thereby "making the plaintiff a parent against his will". The plaintiff's claims of robbery, negligence and fraud were rejected. The plaintiff was awarded limited compensation of ₪40,000.