Jason Patric wants parental rights over son conceived through sperm donation


Ugh, this is a complicated story and it’s one of the rare times when I can actually see that both sides have some sort of legal leg to stand on. The backstory: Jason Patric fathered a child with a girlfriend/friend named Danielle Schreiber. The child was conceived via Jason’s “sperm donation” – meaning that the child was not conceived with the p-in-the-v, although Jason and Danielle did have an on-and-off sexual and romantic relationship for several years. When Jason “donated” his sperm, he said flat-out that he wasn’t interested in fatherhood, and that he wanted no part in the child’s life. Danielle gave birth to son Gus, and Jason eventually wanted to spend time with Gus. Danielle let Jason spend some time with Gus here and there, but Jason wanted more time, and more rights as a parent. Danielle was all “whoa now, you said you didn’t want that” and now they’re fighting about it in court. Here’s People’s coverage:

What started as a child custody dispute between Jason Patric and a former girlfriend has evolved into a controversial, high-profile case that could change California law.

Patric, 47, star of The Lost Boys, Sleepers and My Sister’s Keeper, has become intimately intertwined with a California state bill that would give sperm donors the ability to sue for parentage rights.

As part of a fertility treatment, Patric donated sperm in 2009 to a former girlfriend, massage therapist Danielle Schreiber, that resulted in her pregnancy, according to ABC News. He then decided he wanted to help raise the child, Gus, now 3, but was thwarted in his attempts to gain partial custody.

Patric told the Los Angeles Times that he and and Schreiber agreed to have a child together and that he has had a “loving relationship” with his son.

“I cared for him, I supported him, I raised him along with his mother,” Patric said. “No child should have to endure a painful separation from a parent who loves that child because the other parent is no longer willing to share the child and asserts a legal technicality.”

Schreiber disputes Patric’s account, telling the Times: “When Jason offered me his sperm, it was under the condition that his donation never be made public and that he would not be a father to the child.”

In February, a judge ruled Patric was simply a donor and, because the couple are not together, he couldn’t sue for custody. But Patric told ABC he’ll continue his fight: “I just pray and I try to do everything I can legally, legislatively to have justice come.”

In August, the California state assembly is expected to vote on the bill – which would allow courts to grant parental rights to sperm donors under broader conditions, such as if a donor showed that he openly acknowledged the child as his own and received the child into his home.

[From People]

It seems like Jason would have more parental rights if Gus had been conceived through sex, correct? The sticking point – one of the sticking points, I guess – is that Jason seemed to sign away his rights when he “donated” his sperm. I don’t really understand how this complicated, personal, sexual and romantic relationship will or should affect all sperm donors though – isn’t this a very particular case? Maybe I’m being naïve about it.

Anyway, Danielle and her lawyer were on the Today show yesterday and… yeah, I don’t know, you guys. It seems like Danielle wants her cake and to eat it too. She wants to say that Jason was never involved with Gus and that he never showed any interest, but she also makes it clear that she never wanted Jason to be involved in any way.

I think these are photos of Jason and Gus in Hawaii in 2011:

Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

122 Responses to “Jason Patric wants parental rights over son conceived through sperm donation”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Nikki says:

    This is BS. If you donate sperm, you sign documents waiving your parental rights. To turn around and want to uproot several people’s lives for your own selfish needs is absurd. It reminds me of when bio parents try to get their adopted kids back.

    • Sherry says:

      I don’t think it’s entirely selfish. Imagine being the mother and having to explain to your son that his father wanted to have a meaningful relationship with him, but you refused. Who’s the one being selfish in that scenario?

      What makes this tricky is their previous relationship. It’s not like a woman went to a clinic and got impregnated with anonymous sperm.

      • Babalon says:

        This.

        Gus is NOT going to care about paperwork as he grows into a young man. I’m all for honoring a contractual agreement. However she should not have waived it to allow them to bond and form a relationship if that was important to her. That child now has a father.

      • Amanda says:

        I agree. The deciding factor should be what’s in the best interest of the child first and foremost.

      • nikko says:

        I totally agree with you Babalon. If she didn’t want Jason to be a part of their son’s life she should of never let them bond. Alot of people don’t think they want kids, but once the baby comes, all things change. She should be happy for the boy that his father wants to be a part of his life. The more love the boy receives the better. I think he should be allowed to have joint custody of his son.

    • Aly says:

      I don’t know, it seems Danielle is making decisions for Gus based on how she feels in that moment about Jason. Sometimes he’s ‘dada’ and other times he wanted nothing to do with Gus. Jason may have said he didn’t want to be in Gus’ life but he’s there now at a point in Gus’ life where it’s not too late. I can’t imagine trying to prevent having my kids’ father in their lives if he was trying to step up.

      • lucy2 says:

        Exactly.
        Both adults made some bad choices here, and it’s the poor kid who will bear the brunt of it.

        I’m not a lawyer, but it feels like if he was truly just a donor, he waived his rights and the mother is the only parent. But her allowing them to not only meet but have a relationship really makes things muddy for everyone.

    • Amory says:

      He did not sign away his parental rights on the sperm donor form. He checked a different box, one where he claims fatherhood, along with the mom’s name as mother. I don’t really know the story, but your premise is incorrect, and not even the mom is disputing that.

      • DLP says:

        I’ve read about this before. Supposedly they began dating again after the child was born. He absolutely bonded with his son! From what I remember from the other article they lived together, all three, as a family. Then they broke up….

    • Kim says:

      A legal technicality?! What if a producer tried to pull that with a movie contract he signed? Thats what legal contracts (Which I hope she has) are for. He is having remorse but that is his fault. Yes it seems it would be best for him to be a part of the childs life BUT that is her decision not his if he signed away his rights.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I agree.
        I think that signing away parental rights HAS to be something that has lasting power.

        I heard on NPR of a story of a man who got a girl pregnant, said he didn’t want anything to do with the kid. She gave it up for adoption, and after 18 months he decided he DID want the kid because he didn’t know that she was going to give it away. (He was part Native American, so that complicated things and case was heard by SCOTUS). The little girl was ripped away from the only family she had known (her adopted family) because a man didn’t take his responsibilities and the choices about those responsibilities seriously from the get go.

        I think if we allow fathers to be in and out of their child’s life at whim, it is harmful. Whose to say that in a few years Jason won’t decide again that it is all too much and walk away?

    • Decloo says:

      I thought I heard that they got back together again as a couple after the baby was born and he decided he wanted to be a real father. I believe the photos above were taken when they were pretty much together as a family. She shouldn’t let him bond with the kid if she wanted to keep Jason out of it.

    • Maria says:

      He did NOT sign documents waiving his parental rights, though. He signed documents that he intended to PARENT the child and he has shown them to the press to prove that. When you listen to both sides of the story, it seems clear that once he decided to break up with the mother, she decided to withhold his child from him. She claims she is not trying to keep the child from him, yet he has tried to email her and contact her by phone for 21 weeks with no response. He doesn’t even know where his son is.

      • Lucy2 says:

        If that’s the case and she has nothing proving he gave up his rights, then he absolutely should have a relationship with his kid, and she should be glad he wants to. If she doesn’t like him anymore, too bad.
        What a messy situation.

    • mac says:

      The article fails to mention the fact that after Danielle had the baby she reconciled with the “sperm donor” and they were in a relationship. During that time he loved his child, cared for him, and acted like his parent. And Danielle was more than fine with it. But now that they split up again she claims he was never involved. She had no problem letting him raise their baby when they were sleeping together! Normally I would be on the mother’s side in sperm donor cases but she is just being vindictive here.

    • xxx says:

      But I think they got back together for a while after she had the child, and so he was like a father to the child at that time. The kicker is, he IS the actual father. They developed a bond in that period. Then they split again and she wanted him to have no contact with the child again. SO here’s the thing, if she hadn’t had a relationship with him and let him develop a bond, this might not have happened at all. It’s a weird situation that is anything from straight forward. And at the end of the day, it should be about what is best for the CHILD. It is his father and he already has a bond with him. Yes the main custodian should be his mother, but she should also let his father into his life if he wants to be there.

  2. Kiddo says:

    I wonder if there is a written contract? The photo means nothing really. He could have been acting as a kindly uncle, if you will, at some point. If he has been providing financial support, all along, I suppose that could make a difference, if it was routine and the same rate consistently. But then otherwise, he could have simply given gifts at random times without a full commitment. I think it’s a very bad idea to give sperm donors parental rights, in general. I don’t know how I feel about this case. It is ,however, a cautionary tale about involving a known person for sperm donation without a strong legal document.

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      He has videos of the kid calling him “Da-da”.
      I’m not taking sides in this but I watched both Today show interviews and I think the letter from Jason stating that he ‘wasn’t ready to be a father’ came from a place of hurt when the relationship was ending. I think he’s just an immature dude who was trying to make a power play and then quickly realized how idiotic that was, and that he wanted to be a part of his son’s life.

      Apparently, they had been doing fertility treatments, as they were unable to conceive naturally.

      It’s a tough situation but I hope she lets him see his son as I think it would be in the child’s best interest.

      • Micki says:

        It’s an utter mess.I hope they’ll reach an agreement for the sake of the child.

        He sounds like a man, who doesn’t know his own mind and as a result everyone else is mean…and he’s the victum.

        I wonder how the donation was regulated in their case and in general.There’s a lot more to know about it before forming a judgement.

      • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

        I think that they were both wrong in the scenario, but he is trying to make amends for it…which is good, especially as their son is little.

        If she didn’t want him to ever get attached to their son, then she should’ve never let him into the kid’s life. Case closed. She would’ve had to have known that if he wasn’t a total douche, he would’ve gotten his head out of his ass and stepped up (in whatever way that she wanted)…she was the one who let it get personal.

        And I have to say, I’m glad that he did see that it is his responsibility, his duty, to care for his kid. This is coming from someone who has a biological father who cussed my mom out for over an hour because she dared to go after him for child support…when he didn’t have to pay it for 12 years,said that we (me and my twin) weren’t his, AND told my mom if he did make him pay child support he wouldn’t ever have a relationship with us….my mom said “oh well”.

        This same, daring, wonder of a sperm donor, has given me at least eight brothers (three of them with his wife, the others with randoms-one boy that I go to school with might be my brother, as his dad is from Virginia (like mine) and we look similar), and another sister.

        As you can probably tell I don’t hold much love for him.

        I think the bottom line is, you have to do what’s best for your kids..not what you feel. My mom doesn’t like my biological father for many, many reasons. She probably hates him for all the crap he put her through. But, when she contacted him for child support, he would’ve wanted to come see us, or have us go to him, she would have done everything in her power to make that happen.

    • Irishae says:

      I have a similar “don’t know how to feel” viewpoint. I can completely understand the support for Jason to be involved in the child’s life. Sure, ideally we’d all have 2 loving parents. And ideally those parents would put aside any differences they had for the sake of the child.

      The thing is, and speaking from personal experience (so some bias), if the parents simply can’t do that it would be better for Gus if the original agreement was honored. It is obvious that these two don’t really know what they want for each other and don’t know how to work it out without flip-flopping and going to court over it. I guarantee if Jason gets the parental rights he desires that it will not be the end of the drama, and any ongoing battle or ill will between his parents will certainly spill over and affect Gus negatively. What a confusing situation to grow up in. IMHO, it would be better to keep the ties cut even though she wasn’t too smart herself. Gus is young enough that he won’t remember all this craziness if they just put it to rest.

    • Emma - the JP Lover says:

      @Kiddo, who wrote: “If he has been providing financial support, all along, I suppose that could make a difference, if it was routine and the same rate consistently.”

      Yes, he ‘has’ provided financial support. The mother was forced to admit that during her interview, but then she tried to dismiss his financial support by saying “But it was money that he owed me.” If he ‘owed’ her the money because she insisted upon it as financial support for their son, then he has a case.

  3. Tara says:

    If this is true then shame on Jason. He needs to rent ‘The Kids Are Alright’ and watch it very carefully. Yet another self absorbed celebrity?

  4. Maria says:

    Except these two were on a relationship after the conception and she allowed him a role in Gus’s life; she flipped the script and expects him to passively fade away, things are different for him.

    If it had just been a donation with no contact, I’d agree completely, this woman opened the door.

    • Sirsnarksalot says:

      Except imagine it from the point of view if a boyfriend who she got together with as a single mom. He grows close to the kid and when they break up he sues to maintain a relationship with her kid. That would be insanely unfair forthe mother. I know biologically its his kid, but when he signed away his parental rights that’s the end if the story legally. Same with adoption. You can’t go back and try to undo giving up your child for adoption.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        He signed his name and her name both as “intended parents”.
        It’s not about what’s fair to the mother or what’s fair to the father–it’s about what’s best for the child.

      • Tig says:

        Did domestic work for alot of years, but depending on state, one can “undo” an adoption, or at least file suit to attempt to do just that.

        Clearly, not the situation here. Seems like two “adults” caught up in a drama of their own making, with a child to pay the price. Too sad.

      • ojulia123 says:

        The thing that’s really bothering me is the video of her pointing to Jason’s picture and the baby says, “Da-da!” A single mom wouldn’t do that with just a boyfriend, would she? It seems like when they got back together, she was fine with Jason takin on the role of father, but as soon as they broke up, she wanted to take that away.

        I don’t know. This is a complicated situation.

    • T.Fanty says:

      @ Marie,

      I agree. The contract is one thing, but morally, she rendered the agreement null and void when she allowed him to become part of the boy’s life *as a father.* Effectively, she allowed the terms of the contract to be changed and to be honest, it doesn’t sound as though she’s putting the child first here.

      • Sirsnarksalot says:

        Rig- you can’t undo an adoption. Once your parental rights have been terminated and the child is adopted there is no standing for you to petition to have any rights in regards to that child. And I say that as an attorney. The law favors what is best for the child generally, but it also has strong favor for issues being “settled”. Once a contract exists it generally takes extreme circumstances for one party to force the other side to renegotiate (in general matters). It may seem beneficial for the child to have his bio da in his life, but that’s entirely up to the mom if he did in fact surrender his parental right (and obligations).

      • Sirsnarksalot says:

        Tig- you can’t undo an adoption. Once your parental rights have been terminated and the child is adopted there is no standing for you to petition to have any rights in regards to that child. And I say that as an attorney. The law favors what is best for the child generally, but it also has strong favor for issues being “settled”. Once a contract exists it generally takes extreme circumstances for one party to force the other side to renegotiate (in general matters). It may seem beneficial for the child to have his bio da in his life, but that’s entirely up to the mom if he did in fact surrender his parental right (and obligations).

  5. marie says:

    did he sign something stating that he wanted no rights to his donation? since this was done privately did she take the steps to protect herself from this happening or did she just take him at his word? Why did she proceed to have a relationship with him and muddy the waters?

    I dunno, I think this could change the way sperm donation is done privately but not so much from a bank. To me it shows that it would be much easier to just go through the bank, that way you don’t know the person and they have no claim.

  6. MsJudgement says:

    The person who seems like they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too is Jason. They probably broke up because she wanted kids and he didn’t, but since it was amicable he agreed to be her sperm donor. NOW that the kid is here and cute and he finds that he actually enjoys being a dad he wants to “assert his rights”.

    • Naye in VA says:

      But this isnt some petty piece of property, this is his child. He has actually been a part of this child’s life. Can you really fault him for being unsure about kids previously, and meeting his own kid and having a change of heart? Really? She opened the door for them to have some sort of relationship, she has been off and on with him. I think she has been really ambiguous about his real relationship with her and the kid. She keeps him at arms length in case things dont go well between them, and she can just take the kid and roll IMO.

      • UsedToBeLulu says:

        Well said Naye. I agree.

      • Emma - the JP Lover says:

        @Naye in VA, who wrote: “She keeps him at arms length in case things dont go well between them, and she can just take the kid and roll IMO.”

        Yes, I got the impression she was using her child as leverage against Patrick to get something she wants … maybe marriage? In any case, I got the feeling she’s using her son as a bargaining chip.

    • Turtle Dove says:

      MsJudgement – +1

    • minimi says:

      I totally agree with you!
      So he was in a on/off relationship for years and when she decided to have a baby they decided to make it through sperm donation?! Seems more than evident that he went through all this effort because he wanted to be legally unbounded to any duty towards the child, and the mother accepted that. And well, in my opinion, he is the one who thinks this child is a piece of furniture: now you want, now you don’t, now…I’m also not sure about how to judge the fact that she allowed him into the child’s life. Maybe she thought everything was so clear and that he could participate as any other friend/boyfriend. There are a lot of single mothers out there that do a wonderful job. I’m not sure that a guy that showed to be such a cold thinker (impregnate the on-off girlfriend by sperm donation) is such a reliable person (well, he’s not, since he signed papers that he wants to overpass now) to have custody of a child he first rejected – and that is also a legit question regarding the interest of the child.

    • SamiHami says:

      They probably broke up because she wanted kids and he didn’t? That’s a pretty big assumption on your part, don’t you think?

      It seems to me that there are so many people in the world abandoning their children; yet here is a parent who wants to actually be part of his child’s life and the mother wants to keep him away. And people are saying HE is the selfish one? How can it be a bad thing for this kid to have two parents that love him?

      I don’t see that he’s asking to take Gus away from his mother…just that he wants to be a part of his life, to be his father. I just can’t be against a guy who is trying to actually parent his chil rather than walking away.

      • minimi says:

        I think that it is also a big (seemingly false) assumption that the mother won’t let father and child have a relationship. She said it before and she said it again in this interview that the point is that she has no will of giving him parental rights, that he rejected before, but that she would obviously allow father and child to see each other. IMO, it never sounded like she wanted to prevent a relationship between the 2 of them. It is a very complicated situation, but I also find it simplifying that just because he now wants to be present that means this is the best for the child. Not every biological parent is “the best for a child”. It’s complex and shared parental rights can, in this story, also make everything more complicated.

      • Bijlee says:

        @minimi that’s how I remember it too. She has no problem letting him have a relationship, she just doesn’t want him to have legal rights to the child, since he signed those away. If he said he wanted to be the intended parent, then…idk it’s screwed up since he was sooooo adamant that he signed a document not wanting anything to do with the child…and yet still gave her the sperm. It just makes no sense to me.

  7. Holly says:

    I thought that Jason and Danielle were in a romantic relationship (again) until recently, and that was when it all fell apart…?

    It’s clear that there are so many extraordinary situations involving various methods, people and relationships these days that some cases are going to require consideration beyond state or federal law.

    It’s important to have documentation and legal clarity when it comes to child-rearing, but Danielle made the mistake of asking for a boyfriend/ex-bf’s sperm and then picking the relationship back up. If you want 100% custody, you can’t have that much of a mess surrounding how you obtain the sperm.

    I can’t see a benefit to the child losing time with his father when his father is fighting to see him. And it’s not fair (in a case as personal as this one/not a sperm bank, etc.) to hold someone at what their feelings were about mothering/fathering a child when it was theoretical or years before. A whole lot of children would need homes if women were legally required to stand by how they felt about having children a decade before they do.

    • cloud&feather says:

      ^ What Holly said.

    • Naye in VA says:

      +1000. I think it’s all about her feelings towards Jason at any given moment. Its all cool when they are together and he can be around the kid, but if they dont work SEE YA

      • Joanna says:

        @naye

        yep!

      • Badirene says:

        I agree its all about her feelings now for Jason. They made a mess of this whole situation and the cynic in me says that she also wanted things both ways, a donor with money and some level of celebrity that she could use if things got tough as a single mother down the line, a resource she would not have if she went to a sperm bank. Nobody was thinking of what was best for the child they were making together.

    • I Choose Me says:

      Agree with assessment one hundred percent.

      I wish they could come to some amicable agreement. They should do what’s in the best interest of the child.

  8. Dhavynia says:

    Another way the courts and government try to take women’s right. Why now? He said no and then discovered the joys of being a parent and he wants in?
    Im sorry but it would be very different if she was fighting for money. She probably never thought he would get close to the child

    • Chinoiserie says:

      A womans right to keep her child from having a father?

      A child is not a property you can own, so one should look at this case from what is the best interest of the child AND what the law says on the issue, her personal feelings should be irrelevant. It would be different if she would be in a relationship with somebody who is the child`s new dad or he had never had anything to do with the child and just randomly changed his mind.

      They were in a romantically relationship and he naturally changed his mind and started seeing the child his own. There is no harm for the child to have father figure or child support if

      These are complicated issues, but I don`t believe single women should have kids on their own like this and bring children without dad to the world, but should adopt orphan children instead. This is just my opinion but I think children’s rights should come always first.

      I am sorry if my english is not perfect, I am in a hurry and not very god at languages in the firs place :)

      • Rachel says:

        Everyone is going to have their own opinion on the matter, and there are many different sensitive areas included in this that people tend to be passionate about – best interests of the child, women’s rights, then all the tangential political and religious beliefs involved in both. So I pretty much respect people’s opinions on the matter.

        However, at the end of your comment, you stated that single women should not have biological children, but should adopt. So in your opinion, a biological children should always have two parents, but it’s okay for orphaned children to only have one? What is the difference exactly? Why, in your opinion, do orphaned children only need one parent, whereas biological children need two? And why should single women not have the right to give birth to a biological child simply because they have chosen not to be involved in a relationship with a man?

      • Naye in VA says:

        I think she is saying, why create more fatherless children (if you so choose to be a single parent) when there are millions of parentless children around the world. It’s not a very tactful statement, but it makes sense.

  9. turningviolet says:

    surely it’s about the little boy though ultimately – and whether you accept it or not, the best thing for him is to have 2 loving parents in his life. Maybe Jason did decide he wanted to be involved after the event, but better that than not at all imo. Poor kid, imagine in 15 years finding out that his mum actively tried to prevent his dad from being a big part of his life. She needs to be the bigger person and suck it up for the sake of her son.

    • MsJudgement says:

      But what if, like many single moms, Danielle wants to date and eventually marry someone else? Her son is young enough that *that* guy would be his father figure. And I can imagine her foreseeing this and not wanting the complication of creating a “step-parent” and visitation situation. It sucks for Jason, but he was old enough to have considered the impact of donating sperm and he chose to anyway. We don’t always get “do-overs”.

      • Tapioca says:

        Is that you Halle Berry?!!

        The kid comes first. If little Gus loves spending time with his dad and his dad wants to be a father to him then it’s up to them to all act like adults and work together for a solution. Most single mums would kill for the biological father of their kids to fight to see them as JP is trying to.

      • SamiHami says:

        Who cares if she wants to date someone later, etc? JP is still the child’s FATHER, whether she likes it or not. Regardless of any written agreements, etc. the child knows him and knows he is daddy. Everyone has to live with this reality, and the #1 priority should be what is best for Gus.

    • The real me says:

      You are so right!! Once again, people take either “her” side or “his” side. What about the kids side?! It’s obvious Gus thought of Patric as his dad! Whether its legal or not is irregardless. There are children out there who would love to have a father in their life!! Adults being selfish. Makes me sick.

  10. tracking says:

    My understanding is that not only did Patric sign away any legal rights, he was the one who insisted upon that contract and that he not be anywhere identified as the child’s father. If this is true, he should not have a legal leg to stand on just because he “changed his mind” at some point along the way. However, it would be nice if she permitted him and the child the opportunity to have a relationship. But on a personal, not legal, basis. (it was pretty generous of him to agree to the sperm donation).

    • JenD says:

      Yep, they set out the parameters of the donation legally, and now he’s changed his mind and wants to change the law to suit his needs.

    • Samtha says:

      He didn’t just change his mind, though–SHE let him be part of the child’s life. Once she allowed him to establish a parental relationship with the child, she opened the door for this.

      If she had never made him part of the child’s life, I would support her choice entirely. But the situation is more complicated than that.

      • tracking says:

        I agree it’s complicated, but think the situation should be handled amicably out of court. It seems like he’s pushing for legal rights he’s not entitled to, and that she’s willing to let him continue seeing the boy.

  11. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    Why are people so unrealistic? They think if they create a child with a person they know, everything can be settled by signing papers. Once the child is born, the possibility exists that everything will change, and very basic human emotions will become involved. He loves his son now. He should have realized that this could happen, and so should she. Sperm donors should probably be anonymous because people aren’t machines.
    Now they need to think about what’s best for the child, not for themselves.

    • Holly says:

      I agree that everything changes when babies are born, but I’m not sure if someone can foresee how that might change. To be blunt, women go through many of the hormonal shifts during pregnancy and post to ensure that they bond with their babies; there are some serious biological things that happen to ensure that mothers get ready to raise and love a child. Men certainly can’t imagine any of that.

      They both screwed the pooch because there’s something missing in terms of why he was willing to give her his sperm when he felt so strongly about not wanting to be a father – and then with her attempts to say their personal letters trump his “intended father” signature for the procedure. She says it’s just the basic consent, but she can’t observe some forms and not others.

      Her lawyer saying that Jason’s been found to be an untruthful person should not be something the mother of his son wants to broadcast on The Today Show. I generally always side with the mother in any situation like this but if she wanted absolute certainty that she would always be the 100% sole guardian, she needed to look elsewhere for sperm or choose not to reunite and bring Jason into their life. I don’t see how her change of heart in that area is more acceptable than his.

      • Cindy says:

        @Holly I’m sorry to say, I disagree with your statement that men can’t understand the biological bond to their child. Many women shift in hormones and do bond with their child, but many also do not.
        Love for a child can run just as deep for a father, as for a mother. I would never disrespect my husband and say that because I gave birth, my love means more. My children are both Mommy sucks, much to my joy, but that does not make their father any less worthy or special to them! We are both special and giving birth is no guarantee to being a good parent.

  12. Jess says:

    Surely if you have a child with an ex-partner you have to expect this. If you can’t stand the thought of co-parenting, you go to a sperm bank. You don’t ask someone you’ve had a relationship with, someone who’s still a part of your life, to have a kid with you and then expect them to pretend it’s not their child.

    I don’t understand why this woman wouldn’t want her child to have a father, when in this case the father seems perfectly loving and is attempting to actively parent his child? She obviously thought highly of Jason if she used his sperm, so what’s the problem. He’s not trying to get full custody. She might be annoyed at having to co-parent, but should that take precedence over her child having access and a relationship with his father.

  13. katherine says:

    It’s sad that a man who wants to step up as a father after seemingly acting in that role to his biological child would be prevented from doing so. Perhaps this wasn’t their original agreement, but it does seem like it would be in the best interest of the child to know his father. Very, very sad. Perhaps this is why we should treat parenthood more seriously and not play with creating life like mad scientists with no common sense. Children require more than monetary support, and all children have a right to know their biological parents and family.

  14. Hannah says:

    They made what should be straightforward very very awkward. A lot of surrogates and sperm donors who are known to children and have relationships with them are still very clear cut relationships where they call them uncle or auntie etc. This seems like a mess. The kid identifies him as dad. They seem to spend dad son time together. What a shambles these two have made of it all.

    • Holly says:

      Yeah, she kind of lost me in that interview when she said that his involvement with Gus was just because he was in her personal life, and anyone in her personal life would have had contact with him… and then she has video of her toddler pointing to the Playbill she’s put in front of him and pointing to Jason and saying “dada.”

  15. Sloane Wyatt says:

    I’d be very interested to see the particulars and timeline of when & how Jason came back into his bio son’s life. So far, it seems like Mom said come on around, it’s fine for you to spend time with your boy, but don’t forget it’s just visiting because we have a contract. Well, I totally get how Jason then fell in love with his son.

    Jason knows he made a terrible mistake. The irony is Mom opened the door and allowed a bond to grow between Jason and his son. Mom is trying to close the barn door after the horse has bolted.

    It’s too late to try and go back to “the contract”. Dad & son now have way more than an anonymous sperm donor relationship. Unless Jason is unfit, the child deserves to have in his life both a father and a mother who love him.

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      This is the most thoughtful comment on this thread IMO.

    • Suze says:

      I don’t think it’s about having a relationship with his son, I think it’s about legal rights with regard to his son.

      • Sloane Wyatt says:

        Thanks, Kitten.

        @ Suze: Pursuing his legal rights to his son IS totally about Jake having a relationship with his child. Stating the obvious, without legal rights Jason has absolutely no guarantee of being in his son’s life in any meaningful, significant way. He can and is kept out of his son’s life and has no say in the many important decisions regarding the little boy’s upbringing. As it stands, anything & everything regarding his child is at the sole discretion of the boy’s Mom.

        With legal rights to his son, Jason would not only have legal obligations to his child, but also ensured visitation rights and partial/sole/or full physical custody, depending on the court’s ultimate ruling. Jason clearly wants a relationship with his son, the child he and his Mom reportedly spent years trying to conceive through various means.

      • Suze says:

        I wasn’t disagreeing with you. I was adding on to your original point.

        Mr. Patic does already have a relationship with his son,and that the ex is saying she is not averse to letting him continue to have a relationship with him. Now, whether or not that would pan out without legal co-custody, who knows, but it’s what she’s saying.

        It’s the legal guardianship that is the sticking point between them, because the emotional relationship is already there, it’s already developed. In your original post you didn’t mention anything about the legal aspects – I was just pointing that out.

        I think both these adults have their heads up their ass*s right now. They need to back down on the emotional public speechifying and figure this out privately (and nail it down legally) while the child is stil young. This situation is very different from a standard sperm donor set-up – honestly, if feels like two adults who no longer like each other and are using their kid as the rope in a tug of war.

      • Sloane Wyatt says:

        @suze: “Oh, that’s very different…Never mind.” – Emily Litella from old SNL

        Although I did misunderstand your post, I very much agree with you that these two should be privately working out their legal custody issues.

        I dunno though, there seems like something more here than meets the eye. While I’m sure they both love their little boy, I’m wondering if Patric and Danielle are playing this out in the press for less than the purist of motives. Mayhaps, Patric’s PR is getting a positive spin, and Danielle could be working the TV/news circuit financial gain angle.

        Regardless of any parental shenanigans, their child deserves to have both a loving Mom and Dad in his life.

  16. Kim1 says:

    This is BS this woman gave him a bday cake with Gus pic on it last year,he showed a Christmas card dated 2012 to Daddy from Gus written by her.Dont call a sperm donor daddy.Also he had to a blockage removed in order to donate sample.Who on the hell has painful procedure to be a sperm donor.He was on Katie yesterday

    • Holly says:

      Dammit, I wish I could’ve DVRed that!

      Whoa, I found a clip and his story is completely different, I mean completely. I’m not sure what to think about it, but there’s clearly a huge piece of information that’s been missing. I hope he’ll do another interview so I can see the rest of what he went over. Thanks for posting about his appearance Kim1.

    • Feebee says:

      I saw the Katie IV too and yeah his story is totally different. I was almost in tears. If he did sign papers saying “intention to parent” also with being around the boy since birth, plus that card! That Christmas card…. I’m firmly in his camp. He claims he was never a sperm donor, thus he is the father and fathers’ rights have been long been marginalized.

  17. Joanna says:

    If he was not intended to be a part of the kid’s life, why did he pay tuition payments for the child’s daycare, as seen in the video? It looks to me like they altered their original agreement by their actions. She had a relationship with him after, let him pay tuition, let him hang out with them (see the Pictures). She says it was for money she owed him but I don’t buy that.

    I think she was happy when he decided to be a part of the kid’s life when they were dating, but now that they’re not, she wants to change things. she doesn’t want to let him have a part of his kid’s life. But she altered the agreement by her actions and allowing him to have a part in her life. That was all fine and good while they were dating but now that they’re not, she wants to go the easy route and totally dismiss him from his kid’s life. A kid who she happily let spend him time with and bond with while they were dating.

    In my mind, they both altered the original agreement. So if he wants to be declared the parent and restored his parental rights, I think that is fine. Along with the responsibility of child support. She let him act as a dad during the relationship, it’s not fair to him or the baby to sever their relationship.

  18. CC says:

    He is his dad….biologically. She was actually letting him spen time with a kid he formally rejected from the get-go. So what exactly is his problem?

    Anyways, if I recall, this is actually a story several months old. Were there any new developments?

  19. eb says:

    I always wondered at decisions people make about things of which they know nothing.

    Like kids in college studying for something of which they have no experience.

    And this – a childless man deciding he will not want to be a father to a child before it is in existence. How can you possible know how you’ll feel about something of which you know nothing? And make a big decision about it. At least the college kid can retrain. As we see here there is very little room to reassert parental rights that were reasonably given away.

    Humans, we are encouraged to believe, are capable of intellectually guiding themselves through life if enough effort is made. But, clearly, there are some things that the intellect cannot control. Paternal instinct being one of them.

    Why do people forget that humans are still animals? With all the instincts that goes along with being an animal? Then situations like this would not be such a surprise to males such as Jason Patric.

  20. Jayna says:

    He donated the sperm in lieu of a financial settlement as they lived together a long time before breaking up. So instead of forking over some money he gave her sperm.

    Where it gets messy is they got back together much later and he became involved in the child’s life. After breaking up again, it got messy regarding his rights to the child. It only benefits the child to have him in his life. I hope they work it out.

    • Holly says:

      Well he is truly bad at math if he thought sperm was a good trade for a financial settlement; surely he would know that she could ask for support at any point (regardless of any agreements they might make).

      His Katie interview (the bits I could watch) have him stating that they were in a relationship for 4 yrs and trying to have a child, and the difficulty broke them up, etc. etc., but both agreed to still try to create the child and co-parent. Uber contradictory stories.

  21. De-Vine says:

    I agree. Both the parents messed up. The situation is so convoluted (and I also wonder if such odd circumstances really call for legislative change) that at this point they should really be doing what is best for the child. I really hope that this court battle doesn’t also come back and bite them all in the arse later. Wishful thinking, I know.

    • Suze says:

      Yeah, exactly.

      Let’s not set legal precedents based on this mess.

      They need to get this figured out in the best interests of their child – so go do it. Privately. Get off of The Today Show and go make the best life possible for your kid.

  22. Stephanie says:

    Jason signed an intended parent form while giving sperm for the IUI. They had been trying for a baby for a while, during which he wrote the letter stating he wasn’t ready for parenthood. But the intended form was signed. This b*tch woman disgusts me. Does she actually think her son will be better off without his biological father in his life? I hope he gets his rights. Fathers have rights too! He never signed his rights away, despite her statements (per his live interview I saw). The judge ruled incorrectly IMO.

    • Mo says:

      Finally! He even had a surgery because he was having trouble with his sperm count. They had to do do IVF because of their problems with conceiving NOT because it was a drop off. UGH. They were together 10 years. AND he has been involved, so you can’t go changing the situation. Maybe legally, but not morally.

  23. Samtha says:

    If she didn’t want him to act as the child’s father, she should not have allowed him to take on that role. I’m sorry. Normally I would side with the woman in cases like this, but she allowed a bond to form between the child and his father. It’s not just about what’s best for her and her life anymore; it’s about what’s best for the child. And, IMO, it’s not fair to remove the child’s father from his life now that the bond has been established.

  24. fabgrrl says:

    Ug! What a mess. I can see both sides. They both need to get their sh!t together and do right by Gus.

  25. Vanessa says:

    Jason was on the Today Show this morning and claimed that he selected to be the intended parent rather than waive his rights on the donor form. It sounds to me like she is trying to punish Jason for not giving her the relationship she wants.

    • Amory says:

      Everyone seems to be missing this point, although I think there were other documents later.

      The whole thing is sad – I can see her point – maybe she thinks he wants control over how the boy was raised but never put any effort into the first few years – I would resent that, too. But I also see his point, and from the child’s perspective, it seems like they should be able to reach an agreement.

  26. ruby says:

    I’m sorry, but if you’re not completely sure you can deal with not having a relationship with the child, then don’t be a sperm donor. It’s that simple. He made a choice, he signed that form, and it may be painful but he has to live with it now.

  27. Tulip says:

    They’re both idiots.

    • Mrs. Peacock says:

      Agreed.
      Too many people (particularly celebrities) trying to reinvent parenting as it best suits their own selfish needs.
      Be a mom, be a dad, and it is ok if that comes first. Stop trying to reinvent the wheel.

  28. Dani says:

    She caused the entire mess on her own. If she didn’t want him to be there as a father or as anything to the child, she shouldn’t have let him come around in the first place. But she did, and the kid got used to him and started calling him ‘dada’ and now not only will she be punishing Jason, she will be punishing her son. He shouldn’t have all the rights he wants because he DID agree to just be a donor, but as a mother, once you see your child has that connection with someone, you must be so cold to not allow your child to keep that connection. She’s very obviously bitter that their relationship ended and is trying to punish Jason (in a sense) in a way she knows will hurt most.

  29. Garvels says:

    The woman should work out a co-parenting relationship with Jason-why would she want to deny her son a relationship with a father who wants to be involved in his life? If the woman wins the case and denies her son this relationship,the son will find out when he is older and there is a very good chance that he will harbor resentment towards his mother.

  30. Ollie says:

    this sperm donation… they were idiots! You don´t choose your ex or whatever for it… how stupid can 2 people be?!
    In the beginning it is only sperm, but when the baby is there things change.

    After the birth they were a couple again, a little family!!! So he “fell in love” with his baby-son! He wants to be a father! That´s a good thing! In the end, her son can have a relationship with his biological father! What´s her problem? What will she tell her son in some years?!

  31. K says:

    If the kid wants Jason to be in his life (which it seems he does), why not let him? The focus on this is ass-backwards. The focus should be on the kid. Kids usually benefit from having two fully engaged parents.

    • fabgrrl says:

      The kid is only three, right? Three year olds aren’t exactly consistent in what they want.

  32. Renee says:

    Legal rights includes financial responsibility. He must know that and be more than willing. With so many men trying to run away from their parental responsibilities I can’t imagine her turning him down. The issue is she allowed a father-son relationship to develop. She can’t now decide to change the rules probably as a result of their own relationship having cooled. Again.

  33. Anam says:

    Father’s rights must be protected. IT IS ABOUT THE KID and not the woman. Why is this so hard to understand? Idiot judges.

  34. Dawn says:

    I think the great thing here is that he has changed his mind and now wants to be in his son’s life. The mother should be happy with that and work out some way that they can co-parent. I do believe at the end of the day it is better to know your father and than not.

  35. Amberly says:

    Wow I have never see. Such pretentious and judgmental comments from u guys before!! Whew it hot in herre. I think the main point she was and is trying to make is sure know ur kid and yes he has a right to know where Nd who he came from just don’t start trying to sue for joint custody, don’t try to have rights regarding his schooling,religion etc. u didnt want those rights u don’t get to jump in and make those decisions now. She’s not saying he can’t love his son Nd his son can’t love him. Yeah they both made mistakes in this situation but also who are we to dictate that him being in this child’s life is what’s best for the baby? The same way he’s changed his mind this time who’s to say he won’t change it again can u not relate to her as a mother and seeing that maybe those are factors she’s concerned about?

    • Ennie says:

      Someone else will have to judge this.
      She does not seem to be the best judge as she (as a mothe in this situation) decided to rekindle their relationship.
      Why to be back with a man who said he does not want children (she had one)
      The boy is his . Did she really not consider the implications of the obvious bonding between them? She would have expected Jason to treat their son well, or she would not be back with him.
      He has paid things for the child, and she allowed it.
      I have read that many times fathers do not “bond” with their children instantly, it is more of a relatioship thing. This probably hapenned here.
      They both changed things in the initial agreement, and now the little guy will have to pay for their bad decisions. That is not fair.

  36. Jennifer12 says:

    If she wanted to have a baby on her own, why ask an ex-boyfriend for sperm? Why not just go to a sperm bank? If they had a relationship after the child was born, and he was in his child’s life, then how do you explain to your kid that you don’t want his father around him and he isn’t entitled to be near his own dad? Because the kid won’t be 3 forever and when he finds out that his dad fought to be in his life and his mom was refusing it, she will lose her own son. She’s being selfish. No one says she has to be in a relationship with Jason.

  37. Runs with Scissors says:

    Ejaculating into a cup doesn’t make you a father. He was literally a sperm donor.

    He seems to have made his intentions crystal clear and in his own words (not a signature line on some form) BEFORE she got pregnant.

    Operative word being BEFORE. She may not have entered into the situation without his proclaiming that he didn’t want legal authority over the child.

    She said several times she doesn’t want to keep them from having a relationship, she simply wants sole LEGAL guardianship over her child.

    If he really wants a relationship, she has shown that she is open to it, but he has no LEGAL right to demand one, imo, just because he no longer wants to keep it a “secret.”

    • Ennie says:

      Being the sole guardian woudl mean that she can either consent or obstruct a relationship between Jason and the kid?
      Maybe he wants to make sure that he can see the child even in the future.

      • Runs with Scissors says:

        I agree, I think he is trying to ensure that, but I don’t feel he has the LEGAL right to demand these rights..

        She’s been open to a relationship between them in the past, I can only imagine his suing for legal rights will hurt that openness in the future.

        Sharing legal guardianship of a child is complicated and it can affect where you are allowed to live, medical questions, etc.

        I don’t think she’s opposing a relationship, only having to give over equal decision making to a man who told her he didn’t want to be a father and wanted it kept a secret.

        IMO, she’s protecting her child.

      • Cool Phosphorescent Shimmer says:

        Runs With Scissors, I agree. If he gets some degree of legal custody over this child, she will be tied to JP even if she prefers to move for a job or other relationship (Exhibit A: Halle Berry). While it would likely be in the best interest of the child to have a relationship with his father, that was not the agreement, and she should not be legally bound by jason’s change of heart. One would hope she would allow the bond between father and son to grow, but her sticky legal situation –caused by his change of heart–may be preventing that at this time.

  38. Janey says:

    I don’t care about these two people,this is their problem not mine.But why are they on talk shows telling all their business??it seems like they both want the public to be on Team Jason or Team Danielle.Their is something really immature about these two and their behavior that is making it hard to sympathize with either of them.I just feel sorry for that baby with these selfish idiotic parents.

  39. Mela says:

    Besides that piece of paper, he is that kids father genetically and is “DaDa” in the heart and mind of the child. Why is the mother trying to deny Gus his father? She is a piece Of work

  40. mercy says:

    I agree with everyone who said it should be all about the child. Most children benefit from having two parents to love and support them, and many are also are curious about their biological ancestry. Their feelings and needs should be put first. The adults made their choices, and the children should be able to make their own choices in regards to what they want to know and who they want a relationship with whenever possible. There will always be unfortunate situations where it’s not possible, but they shouldn’t be used to deny all children their rights. The laws do need to change. There is far too much secrecy and a lot of consideration for the adults’ feelings, but not for the child they are bringing into the world. Maybe if the laws showed more consideration for the child’s feelings, it would force the adults to look at things more from their perspective.

    • LeLe25 says:

      @Mercy

      I 100% agree! I am so sick of this trend of children as property; it seems no consideration is ever given to the child! I cannot think of one reason the father should not be in his child’s life. The child will benefit emotionally and financially (plus a second parent with legal rights provides a good checks and balances system when it comes to major decisions regarding the child).

      In my opinion this mother is heartless. I just cannot picture her son in a decade or so saying, “Hey Mom, you know when you cut my Dad out of my life? That was a great decision!”

  41. Does anyone remember how they resolved this when it was a plot point on The Practice?

  42. TheTruthHurts says:

    I saw him interviewed this AM and he said a completely different thing than what is written here. He said that they had fertility problems, so they did invetro or something and for that he had to “donate sperm.” They made him fill out a form and on it he checked “intended father.” He did not give up his parental rights. It sounds like once Jason did not want to be in a relationship with this woman anymore, her way of revenge was to say something along the lines of “well, you wont get your son either.” Sorry, but I can see a bitter woman doing that. Shame on her.

    • Christin says:

      I watched both interviews, and he made several points that are relevant, I think. They were trying to have this child for a long time and had issues that led to the donation. He wrote the letter (which seems to be a key part of her argument) after they’d been trying, had a miscarriage, etc.

      He has long been known as a very private person (even choosing not to ride the coattails of his famous grandfather). That he would be so public over this situation is telling. What does that poor child think, having not seen his ‘dada’ for 21 weeks?

  43. Lisa says:

    Every time I read his name, I think they’re talking about Robert Patrick, and I have to separate them in my head. Their son is named Gus, hasn’t he had a hard enough life?

  44. la chica says:

    Parental Alienation Syndrome needs to be in the DSM. It’s unacceptable and morally despicable.

  45. d says:

    I think she’s being a c**t. She’s obviously bitter. I get that at first, he said he didn’t want to be a father. But let’s face it, most men who have never been are terrified at first. They all fear their whole world changing. The baby will likely grow to resent his mother if he feels later in life, he could have had a relationship with his father and his mother denied that. LET JASON PATRIC BE A FATHER!!!

  46. Maritza says:

    As long as he doesn’t take the kid to some other state or country why not let him have visitation rights. The boy will benefit from having a father figure in his life.

  47. Charl says:

    Okay… I think this is a point people really need to see and take into consideration here: He selected INTENDED PARENT on the form. If he was a sperm donor, then he would have selected INTENDED SPERM DONOR. As the INTENDED PARENT, he is a legal and custodial parent. He is the father, but more importantly, he is Gus’ Dada, as seen in the video provided for Danielle’s interview. The only reason Jason is being viewed legally as a sperm donor is because of a statue dating back to 1973 where if the intended parent’s are not married, then the father is not considered the natural father. This is at a time where cohabition was rare, whereas today, it is the opposite. This is why Senator Hill is changing it and trying to pass it so situations like this don’t occur again. This bill won’t apply to anoymous sperm donors at all, but sperm donors who have been allowed to bond with the child, have confirmed they are the father and have accepted the child into their home.

    Disregarding legal rights, should this case not be in the best interest of the child? Where does Gus think his Dada’s gone? Danielle can either do two things, even at this age: a) Lie, or b) Tell him the truth.

    Children’s rights are something that is so important in cases such as this. Gus has bonded with his father, Jason Patric. What truly bewildered me is, why say it isn’t about a relationship, when you are blatantly not allowing your child to see his daddy?

    Speaking as a woman myself, this should not be based on women’s rights, it’s CHILDREN’S RIGHTS. When I read comments that say things mentioning the attempts of men dominating the women in scenerios like this, you could also argue this is women trying to dominate men. We need EQUALITY. But that is a completely different arguement. Keeping your child away from his father is not a right, it is parental alientation, and it is cruel to this child. The sad thing is, this is not the only case in the world, and that truly is saddening. Father’s have rights, too.

    Then there’s the argument on Jason exposing his child in this case. Jason has been an intensely private actor who is not the least bit interested in Hollywood and fame, for all of his career. Both Danielle and Jason have the right to tell their side’s of the story, otherwise it would not be fair. This was once a private case, and personally, I still think it should be. However, sometimes to protest things, you have to go public. Through this, many other parent’s suffering from parental alientation are coming forward.

    I’ve seen both sides, and frankly, what Jason says has more evidence over a bond and that he never intended to be just a sperm donor. We could bring up the letter, but we don’t know when that letter was written, do we? It could be years prior to Gus’ birth after the miscarriage and many endevours to have a child, we just don’t know.

    What the court needs to focus on though is what is best for this child. Gus has a father who he refers to as Dada, who he hasn’t seen in 21 weeks, who he loves. For the sake of this little boy, let Jason see his child. It’s the morally righteous thing to do. Danielle and Jason don’t have to maintain a romantic relationship, nor does Danielle have to relinquish any parental rights, but she will have to share them. That’s what co-parenting is about, and to be blunt, that’s something she has to open her eyes and adjust to. This is about what’s right for the child, not the parent’s. So, I am neither on Jason or Danielle’s side, I’m on this little boy’s side and his OWN right to have his daddy in his life.