Media & Links
7:30 Report
Leigh Sales from the 7.30 Report discusses the High Court case of Masson v Parsons. For the first time we hear from both sides of an unprecedented High Court sperm donor father case and speak with lawyer Nicole Evans on the legal aspects of the case and future implications.
Robert:
Reporter:
Susan:
We felt this man gave us a wonderful gift because of our circumstances have been a bit of a roller coaster ride.
Reporter:
So, are you dad or donor?
Robert:
Reporter:
Do you have any regrets about having to fight for your parenting rights in the High Court of Australia.
Robert:
None whatsoever.
Reporter:
Do you regret having so much contact with the biological father?
Margaret:
We didn’t have so much contact. All through Susan’s pregnancy where was he, nowhere.
Reporter:
The Family Court of Australia suppresses the identities of those involved to protect the children. This case is so unique and has posed so many questions about the modern family that, although I can’t show you their faces for legal reasons, tonight for the first time you’ll hear from both sides of this landmark ruling, a ruling which saw the very definition of the word parent taken all the way to the High Court. His family court given pseudonym is Robert Mason the biological father who in 2006 successfully helped a lesbian friend conceive a baby girl via artificial insemination.
Robert:
Reporter:
The court given pseudonym for the girl’s biological mother is Susan Parsons her partner’s pseudonym is Margaret biological father Robert masse and says that you’re always co-parents and even discussed moving in together is that the understanding that you went into the birth of your daughter with.
Susan:
Reporter:
Susan and Margaret weren’t able to prove they were in a de facto relationship at the time of conception a detail that would prove crucial later on. So, Robert Mason is on the birth certificate as the father, he was present at the birth and helped you to create your daughter. How is he not the father?
Susan:
Robert:
We had a period of you know six years where things worked really well, we had this really great family unit that functioned really well.
Reporter:
Adding another layer of complexity to the case just over a year after their first child was born the mothers had another daughter. This time Robert wasn’t the donor, but the younger child also calls him dad. There’s plenty the parents don’t agree upon, but they do agree that things began to go awry when the women planned to move the girls overseas.
Robert:
Susan:
Well, when things really changed it was Ben we were relocating and that was when he first really pushed for having more time and set time.
Reporter:
Nicole:
A known donor is someone who knows the woman and has agreed to provide sperm for the purposes of her having a child generally on the basis that there will be some involvement in the child’s life.
Reporter:
Did you have it a formal agreement in place with the biological father of your daughter?
Susan:
No because he wasn’t going to be here.
Robert:
Closer to the birth I tried to initiate an agreement but that was unsuccessful so yep predominantly verbal arrangements that we shared with our friends and family at the time.
Reporter:
Lawyer Nicole Evans specializes in same-sex family law and sperm donor agreements, so this is a donor agreement, and it sets out party’s intentions in going into the arrangement and what level of contact if any with a child. Reporter: Are these sorts of agreements legally binding though?
Nicole:
Reporter:
Robert:
First impression walking in there it’s a very imposing building you’ve got seven judges and seven attendants in front of you, and we all looked at each other and said how did we end up here.
Susan:
Reporter:
Finally in June this year the High Court ruled in favour of Robert Mason.
Susan:
For me personally I was very shocked by the announcement.
Robert:
Instantly there’s a sense of relief I guess from the stress and the ability to feel we feel much more firmer footed and not have any of these sorts of legal issues being held over a head.
Reporter:
How much of your own resources have you had to put into defending this?
Robert:
Nicole:
I think it’s very different difficult for lesbians who want to have a known donor for you know reasons that they want the child to know the biological heritage and want that person involved in the child’s life but at the risk now that that person might have some legal status is quite scary for a lot of lesbian couples.
Sarah:
Reporter:
Sarah:
Obviously we all decided upon his name and that was tricky you’ve got four people with different ideas about what was a great name that took us ages, so all the decisions were all, the major decisions were made together but with the understanding that at the end of the day…
Godwin:
Eden:
If anything it’s good just for those reasons like more Christmas presents more parents like I got four parents and every single one of them I love for a different reason which is really cool.
Sarah:
A few people who had had difficulties with known donors advised me that I should put it in writing but it that in itself felt like a betrayal of trust we are four very different people.
Reporter:
Sarah:
This suddenly opens the door to a lot more cases where people are going to be taking each other to court and the children are going to be caught in the middle. Godwin: But you know what we were lucky, and we were probably lucky in a naive sort of way.
Reporter:
Susan:
I think given our experience with the clinics I would just recommend a clinic because it’s so easy.
Robert:
I’d imagine there’s a lot of people out there now fearful of what it means for them I would say that anybody that is thinking about donating and they want to have a role in that child’s life I would say don’t do it.
Reporter:
Has it taken a toll on the girls?
Susan:
Reporter:
Susan:
Robert:
I think with some assistance by the right counsellors we should be able to get it back onto an even keel.