Top Stories -   

1
Olivia Pratten speaks to members of the media on Oct. 25, 2010. Olivia Pratten speaks to members of the media in this undated photo.

Lawsuit seeking info on sperm donor begins in B.C.

Viewer

CTV News Video

CTV National News: Rob Brown on the challenge
In a case that could affect thousands of Canadian families, a 28-year-old woman is going all the way to the Supreme Court of British Columbia to challenge the law on privacy protection in regards to sperm donors.
CTV British Columbia: Mike Killeen on battle
A lawsuit began in B.C. Supreme Court that could have major implications for Canadians conceived through anonymous sperm and egg donors.
CTV News Channel: Fiona Kelly, UBC
A family law expert and a professor at the University of British Columbia says Olivia Pratten may have a successful case and it will open the way for Canada to revisit the issue of donor anonymity and perhaps consider the possibility of only having open identity donors.

A A |  Email ThisEmail  | PrintComments (27) Facebook   

Olivia Pratten speaks to members of the media on Oct. 25, 2010. Olivia Pratten speaks to members of the media in this undated photo.

Photos

Olivia Pratten speaks to members of the media on Oct. 25, 2010.

View Larger Image

Date: Mon. Oct. 25 2010 9:27 PM ET

A lawsuit began Monday in B.C. Supreme Court that could have major implications for Canadians conceived through anonymous sperm and egg donors.

Olivia Pratten, 28, who was conceived with the help of an anonymous sperm donor in Vancouver, is suing to have the B.C. Adoption Act declared unconstitutional, because it denies the children of sperm and egg donors access to information about their biological parents yet still gives that same right to adoptees.

Pratten hopes the lawsuit will compel the province to introduce legislation that would require donor records to be permanently maintained so that they can be accessed by offspring when they turn 19.

The current rules in B.C. state that doctors have to keep such records for only six years after the last contact with the recipient patient. After that, they can be destroyed.

Pratten, who now lives in Toronto, first filed a class-action lawsuit on the matter in 2008. She later agreed not to have the case certified when she was granted a temporary injunction from the B.C. Supreme Court preventing the further destruction of donor records, pending a final decision in her case.

Pratten, who has long been an advocate for the rights of donor children, has noted the disparities between the rights of adoptees and others conceived the way she was. She has said that all she wants is for the children of egg and sperm donors to have the same rights to access records as adoptees.

B.C., along with Ontario, Alberta, Newfoundland and the Yukon have enacted laws that allow adoptees to access information about their birth parents when they turn 19. Manitoba enacted legislation that opened records for new adoptions in 1999, but all those that occurred earlier are closed. The remaining provinces have created voluntary registries only.

Pratten has said that her parents, now separated, support her legal action and her desire to learn more about her biological father.

She has said that while she has a father whom she loves, she still has questions about her biological father. All that she knows of him was that he was a 5-foot-10 medical student with blue eyes and A-positive blood type.

Pratten's court action names the province of B.C., as well as the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia as defendants.

The province applied to have the case dismissed, arguing that records for Pratten's sperm donor father no longer exist and that the case is "moot." But earlier this month, the Supreme Court of B.C. ruled the trial could go ahead.

"This is a serious matter, and the plaintiff and others are directly affected," Justice Miriam Gropper wrote in her decision. "The province has not demonstrated that there is a better avenue for Ms. Pratten and others like her to address these issues."

"I am satisfied that Ms. Pratten has public interest standing, and potentially direct interest standing, in the event that the records she seeks do exist."

With files from The Canadian Press

Comments are now closed for this story

longhairedco
said

I would think that if the donor's really did not want to become fathers that they should perhaps give sperm donation a miss. What I think you really meant Ann, was that donors do not want to have financial obligations of fatherhood.


Keith in Brampton
said

@ Redfern and Dynamic: The situation is in some ways no different than if the mother had picked up some strange guy at a bar & never got his name, only to find out later she was pregnant. Or a married woman getting pregnant as a result of an affair, and who doesn't want to disclose her lover's identity. The Dad in these examples is, and will always be, anonymous (unless, in the latter case, the daughter sues the mother and the court compels her to reveal all). Sometimes, you just have to accept things as they are and move on...


L
said

If this goes through, donors will stop donating. They are doing something that helps those unable to conceive the "traditional" way, but they have no interest in having a child themselves. As some said, what about the rights of the donors? I do agree that general genetic and medical information should be given to the child, and the person who purchased the sperm, however, to give the name of the donor is a violation of the donor's rights. If the donor wants their name included that is their choice, but it should not be forced by the courts. If it is, there will be no further donations made, then what about all of those people who now will not be able to have kids at all?


Eric
said

Easy. Upon donation give the donor the option to maintain their anonymity if they want it or they can sign away their right to anonymity and allow the kids to find them when they've grown. The donors don't 'owe' these people much of anything and if they don't want some person showing up at their door 30 years after they donated sperm or eggs, that's their decision, not the product of the donations decision.


ZacHfx
said

I think opening these records is a bad idea, these men donated sperm under the understanding that they would be anonymous, what about their rights? Do they want their kids coming to find them? I assume is what this information will be used for. I am adopted and don't know who my birth parents are, I have never felt the need to find out who they are, and I've never understood why some people feel the need to. My mother and farther are the ones that raised me, and I don't see what finding my birth parents would tell me about myself.


Syl
said

@ AnneThe article makes it clear she has a father who she loves, she is not looking for a new father. Being in her situation I can tell you there is much information that is important such as and probably most importantly, family medical history. What this lady is doing has nothing to do with finding a father and as in adoption, the biological parent. after being found is not in any way responsible for the child, they gave up those rights 9 months before the child was born and even longer for sperm or egg donors. So all you donors out there, stop being fearful you will suddenly be a father, it has nothing to do with that.


Eric in Alberta
said

Anne (the OP) has it exactly right. Even if you are using the medical history as the main tool, it is irrelevant. My father is not under any obligation to disclose his medical history to me even though I've known him my entire life. Would he if I asked? Probably. That is beside the point as it is completely within his rights not to. The court must assume that is what the donor wishes barring any news otherwise.


Myrna
said

What is not seen here is the right to medical history.I agree the name and personal information should be strictly anonymous. There is no need to know. It is not like adoption. In adoption you are giving up a child you cannot or don't wish to raise, Sperm donors are giving up what may or may not become a child, and are helping out childless couples. If anonymity is not allowed there will be no child, because there will be no donors.However medical family history and information should be taken and given to the family. How many times have you heard of adoptees looking for their parents because they need some medical info. Medical information should be there for everyone. You never know if it will save a life.


CalgarySandy
said

I don't understand why our courts keep being tied up by people who knew the law when they made a choice. Then later, our tax money is wasted by their changing their mind. It is ludicrous. There is not enough money for health care, education, and other guaranteed services but money is spent on this kind of nonsense. Buyer Beware and don't sue later.


VinceL
said

Ms Pratten's case is an important one. As a society we are moving beyond the belief that the child's best interests in an adoption situation are served by deception or enforced ignorance. We are less likely to consider ethical the approach that lies to adopted children about what happened to their parents as an expedient for the adopted parents. Similarly, the shroud of social stigma surrounding donor conception is lifting. We are less likely to fear or disdain the couple who has chosen to conceive children through the agency of a gamete donor. The courts will need to find a way to honor the implicit or explicit contract of anonymity with the donor, while honoring the child's need for information of at least a genetic or family health-history nature. Likely the courts will not pursue a complete stripping of anonymity as some sensationalist coverage suggests. Nor will the courts move to bind donors with any kind of support obligations no matter what silly lawsuits lawyers may try.Instead, expect movement toward either document retention requirements for ART-practitioners or a public repository to ensure that the key information is held in the public's trust.


Mo, SK
said

What about the children that are conceived through an illicit affair? If the man and wife are still together and the affair remained secret, then they don't know their biological 'donor', either, and probably will never know that they were 'love children'.If the law is changed, the other possibility is that the parents will never divulge to the child what the truth of their conception is. As it stands know, it is at the parent's discretion whether or not to tell the child.These two groups of people will never know their biological background either, yet they are able to live normal, productive lives. So does that mean at some point, all newborns will be subjected to DNA testing?


Mel Blake
said

The petitioner in this case should consider the opposite situation. What if the anonymous sperm donor suddenly decided that he wanted to look up all the information about her? I am sure the argument then would be about her right to privacy being invaded by some stranger who signed a contract knowing what its terms were.


Scott ON
said

lol, I kind of hope this goes through. Donor's will stop donating, less children will be born and it might take some of the strain off the planet due to overpopulation.


Albertan
said

My thought would be to disclose any "Medical" Records withholding the name of the Sperm donor, otherwise she has a father whom she loves and has raised her financially. The donors should remain in closed records as they have given up rights to the mother. The only reason I can see for her to proceed is to have a relationship with her biological father for unknown resason (other than "Medically related"). Or to possibly collect and inhertance when he passes. You are opening "pandoras box" when disclosing information of this nature - all sperm donors will now be considered as having to pay support in the long run.


Will
said

Wait for it, some poor bugger is going to be hit up for child support next.


ParkerCalgary
said

What's next? Suing the donors for support? Suing for an unreported medical condition (that was probably unknown by anyone at the time of donation)?


Dynamic
said

I, for one, would greatly appreciate to know the name of the person who generously gave her egg/his egg , if I was the one conceived with it!I am deeply involved, at this moment, erecting my family tree (for my school age child). It would be devastating if I couldn't pursue the "blood" line, just because one of the parent denies to give informations about the other parent! If a parent is unable to provide the information (because of anonymous donation), then the child should be able to obtain that information when he/she are ready to conceive themselves!P.S. I am also thinking of genetic, at this time, as many genetic illnesses are shared via the genes!


robin hood
said

Why are doctors only keeping patient's medical records for 6 years while others dealing with personal health/experimentation—ie "massage therapists" have to keep their client/patient's records for 10 years? In addition if a patient is a minor a therapist must wait 10 years after the client/patient has reached the age of 18.I'm not certain I like the idea of "breeding by needle; anonymous donors” you never know what you'll get; kinda like a box of chocolates? I find it scary since I prefer the nuts over the soft creamy centers!


Redfern
said

Clearly, some people don't understand the problem here. If manufactured children--which is what these kids are--are denied the same basic human rights as everyone else (ie. the right to know who they are and where they came from) then we have, in essence, created a "lessor" race of people. This is unacceptable. Birth certificates should be statements of biological truth, not ownership or political correctness. What is the risk of these kids marrying a sibling- Or a parent, for that matter--if the records are not open. Every person has the right to know their own biology. If donors don't like it, then don't donate.


Keith in Brampton
said

The donors obeyed the laws in place at the time and likely signed contracts that included an anonymity clause. If the court allows these contracts to be breached retroactively by a third party, then where would the donors turn for recompense? The donor in this case gave to the parents what they wanted and what they otherwise could not have: A child. I think the plaintiff's actions displays a great deal of ingratitude not only toward the donor, but also toward the parents who raised her. She should just be thankful for the gift of life and for parents who love her.


KJ in Kingston Ontario
said

Right -- just change the law retro-actively to suit someone's current preferences.... Next comes the movie rights to the petitioner's story for a CANCON version of "The Kids Are Alright"....


Phil
said

Next thing will be the donor will be obligated to pay child support.


realist
said

Where does it say anywhere that she wants information on her sperm donor in order to have a relationship with the man?


Brian
said

Hmmm what about the rights of the donors to remain anonymous?


Anne
said

Why shouldn't they be able to find out who their biological parent is and family history? Those who know "who" we are really have no right to put up roadblocks to access of information. Who wouldn't want to know their background? It is their right. And those wishing to donate to a sperm bank should be aware that one day, their biological child may desire to know who they are.


schpid
said

So why can't we seem to clear important matters in our court rooms? Because people think that they have the right to everything their heart desires. She said she has a father who loves her. That should be that. I can maybe understand children given up for adoption need some sort of closure but searching out a sperm donor is ridiculous. Don't be too upset if the donor slams the door in your face


Anne
said

Men will stop donating all together if this goes ahead. One of the reasons they agree to it is anonymity. These men do not want to be fathers. This "donor" is not her father. He has nothing to offer her. Medical histories should be made available but that is it. Without this donor, she would not have been given life.


Share with your social Network:

Facebook DIGG Newsvine Delicious Twitter StumbeUpon Reddit Yahoo! Buzz

 

Advertisement

Contest

Today's Top Stories

Former Liberian President Charles Taylor waits for the start of his sentencing judgement in the courtroom of the Special Court for Sierra Leone in Leidschendam, near The Hague, Netherlands, Wednesday May 30, 2012.  (AP / Toussaint Kluiters)

Charles Taylor gets 50 years for 'brutal' crimes

More   2 Comments 2    1 Video(s) 1

A police officer removes a package containing a human foot from the Conservative Party headquarters in Ottawa on Tuesday, May 29, 2012. (Sean Kilpatrick / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Police probe body parts in Ottawa, torso in Montreal

More    Comments    3 Video(s) 3

Supporters of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, hold placards and banners bearing images of him before the verdict was given in his extradition case at the Supreme Court in London, Wednesday, May 30, 2012. (AP / Matt Dunham)

Britain's top court backs extradition of WikiLeaks chief

More   4 Comments 4    2 Video(s) 2