Los Angeles, CA–Many of you wrote to me about the outrageous UK story involving a father who social services “made aware of [his son’s] existence only to provide the child with a body part.”
Below Kate Dobson briefly summarizes the case:
There are many unknown factors involved in this story about a man who learned years after the fact that he fathered a son. The son, now five years old, has severe medical problems. The bio mother being unable to cope with the demands of motherhood put the child up for adoption. The bio father was notified of the pending adoption only after social workers deemed him to be the best possibility for an organ donation to save the boy”s life.
A meeting with this new-found son was out of the question, he was told, let alone any sort of relationship. He was also informed that the boy was to be formally adopted and that the council was ringing merely to let him know.
His shock slowly turned to anger and then determination. Hurt to have been kept in the dark for so many years, Michael still believed he was responsible for the child – whom we shall call Andrew – and launched a legal fight to secure
But there were extraordinary surprises in store for Michael and his wife, Alex. Hampshire Social Services wanted more than just his acquiescence.
Andrew, it emerged, had been diagnosed with a severe problem in one of his organs. For legal reasons, it is not possible to be more specific.
But the boy stands little chance of living beyond his teenage years without a transplant – from a blood relative if at all possible. The most suitable blood relative, it was explained by social workers, was Michael himself.
In a disturbing saga, this was perhaps the most unpleasant twist of all. It brought him to a damning conclusion – that Hampshire Social Services had made him aware of Andrew”s existence only to provide the child with a body part.
The bio father and his new wife went through the application process to adopt the boy but were turned down for reasons not made known to them. They took the matter to court but did not prevail there either.
The article states that some issues cannot be addressed specifically “for legal reasons.’ Some of the issues not clearly spelled out in the article are:
· What organ the transplant involves.
· Precisely what danger the bio father will put himself in by donating the organ.
· Whether or not the bio mother is also a viable donor.
· Whether or not visits from the bio father create a danger to the son”s physical health
The full article can be seen here