Amie Cullimore, a medical practitioner, filed a child support claim against Michael Ranson, who more than two decades ago donated his sperm to Amie Cullimore, who subsequently conceived two children. Cullimore alleges that throughout the years, Ranson has assumed the role of loco parentis, which means that Ranson has stood in the place of the parent throughout the years. Ranson filed a response that Bill 28, also known as, All Families Are Equal Act, which extinguishes Cullimore`s claim based on the assertion that the surrogate parents who lack an intention to be parents cannot be considered parents in law.
Are sperm and egg donors parents and can they be sued for child support?
No, according to section 5 of the newly introduced…show more content… In addition, the issue rests on whether Ranson has assumed the role of loco parentis (i.e., standing in the place of the parent) in reality? All Families are Equal Act, also known as Bill 28, seems to protect Ranson against Cullimore`s claim for child support. Section 5 of Bill 28 states that the sperm donors are not considered to be parents “This section is deemed not to apply to a person whose sperm is used to conceive a child through sexual intercourse if, before the child is conceived, the person and the intended birth parent agree in writing that the person does not intend to be a parent of the child.” However, Bill 28 received a Royal Assent only on December 5, 2016, which means that Cullimore could ask the court to make a retroactive child support claim against Ranson based on legislation and case law prior to Bill 28 coming into effect. If court grants Cullimore`s request, the court will have to examine the factual evidence based on individual circumstances of the claimants. If court finds that there was no written agreement between Ranson and Cullimore, and if Ranson did not stand in the place of a parent, and did not demonstrate the settled intention of being a parent of Cullimore`s two children, then Cullimore`s claim will likely be…show more content… For example, in Cheng v Cheng the court held that it is enough to demonstrate a settled intention to treat children as their own for the person to be liable to pay child support. Moreover, the child support responsibilities could extend beyond the biological parentage, because in Cheng v Cheng these obligations extended to the