in middle of divorce and require husband's "permission"

[Anonymous]

This article expresses my indignation that exes who are dragging out divorces are given authority to things like this (name change, fertility treatment) as tools of leverage and control.

I'd like to move on with donor egg and donor sperm but I have to wait until the divorce is final (he is refusing to negotiate so it will be contested to trial) before I can move forward on my own. Or, according to most fertility centers, I have to "ask him for permission."

I am so disgusted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/my-marriage-was-over-why-couldnt-i-get-my-old-name-back/2017/09/28/622be980-a3d5-11e7-b14f-f41773cd5a14_story.html?tid=ss_fb-bottom&utm_term=.ee37143a5cdf

[Anonymous]

If you have a baby while he is married to you, can he be held liable as the father? I don't blame the powers that be for saying you have to wait.

[Anonymous]

I get that, but it should be done in the form of a "release" and genetic tests not his "permission." Proof that I'm using a sperm donor should be sufficient for the release. It's due to archaic presumption laws regarding marriage and parenthood, and the prior stigma re illegitimacy. Prefer to get the release from a judge (which I will try to do), rather than have to ask ex for "permission."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get that, but it should be done in the form of a "release" and genetic tests not his "permission." Proof that I'm using a sperm donor should be sufficient for the release. It's due to archaic presumption laws regarding marriage and parenthood, and the prior stigma re illegitimacy. Prefer to get the release from a judge (which I will try to do), rather than have to ask ex for "permission."

Even the release would require his consent, or at least give consideration to his views. Plenty of married couples have babies using donated eggs and/or sperm with the intention of both spouses being the parents to that child, so that alone would not be dispositive as to whether this were legally his baby or not. You can request a release from the judge, but the judge most likely will still going to ask for input from your husband on the matter before ruling. Have you already found the egg donor? If you started the process while married and are now trying to cut your husband out of it, that's going to be highly problematic if he doesn't consent. If you'd be starting from scratch post-release/consent, though, that's an easier situation.

[Anonymous]

Not trying to cut him out of the process he was ever involved with. He was never involved at all in my choice to proceed independently.

If I say more about the background, I will out myself.

It's a very rare situation of ex spouse trying to control the "wife" and is using any device he can find for leverage.

[Anonymous]

Why would you tell a fertility center your marital status? It's none of their business and they have no way to prove whether or not you are married.

[Anonymous]

Let's just say they already know my situation. I also think a new place would ask and I'm not going to lie about marital status.

[Anonymous]

Is it his sperm?

[Anonymous]

No

That is why the whole permission regardless is annoying. It has to do with presumptions re paternity when still married.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would you tell a fertility center your marital status? It's none of their business and they have no way to prove whether or not you are married.

Seriously. Just say you are single.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get that, but it should be done in the form of a "release" and genetic tests not his "permission." Proof that I'm using a sperm donor should be sufficient for the release. It's due to archaic presumption laws regarding marriage and parenthood, and the prior stigma re illegitimacy. Prefer to get the release from a judge (which I will try to do), rather than have to ask ex for "permission."

What's the difference between a "release" and "getting permission?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No

That is why the whole permission regardless is annoying. It has to do with presumptions re paternity when still married.

This is to protect the child, in case you can't care for him/her. The government has an interest in attaching two potential caregivers and earners to each child.

[Anonymous]

I get the indignation about the name, I'm in the same boat. But pregnant while he is still legally married to you? If I were him, I'd fight that too. That is just asking for trouble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No

That is why the whole permission regardless is annoying. It has to do with presumptions re paternity when still married.

This is to protect the child, in case you can't care for him/her. The government has an interest in attaching two potential caregivers and earners to each child.

NP here and agree with the above. Further to that point, there's a ton of downside risk to your husband if he signs off on this arrangement and no upside potential.

Also, the presumption of paternity for married couples is appropriate in the vast majority of situations. I fail to see why the presumption should be set aside as a general rule for a one-off situation like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get the indignation about the name, I'm in the same boat. But pregnant while he is still legally married to you? If I were him, I'd fight that too. That is just asking for trouble.

Yep. The issue described in the article and what OP is frustrated about is apples and oranges.