Sperm Doner Must Pay Child Support

[The Kernel]

Does anyone want to explain this one to me? I'm getting about a 9.8 on the WTF meter...

CNN

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- A state appeals court ruled that a verbal agreement between a woman and her sperm donor was invalid, and ordered the man to pay child support for the woman's twins.

The three-judge panel ruled Thursday that the deal between Joel McKiernan and Ivonne Ferguson -- in which McKiernan donated his sperm and would not be obligated to pay any support -- was unenforceable because of "legal, equitable and moral principles."

Despite an agreement that appeared to be a binding contract, the father is obligated to provide financial support, the court decided.

"It is the interest of the children we hold most dear,"' wrote Senior Judge Patrick Tamalia.

McKiernan's attorney said he may appeal.

The decision could have implications for sperm and egg donors who expect anonymity, said Arthur Caplan, a professor and medical ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania.

"Anybody who is a sperm donor ought to understand that their identity could be made known to any child that's produced, and they could be seen by the courts as the best place to go to make sure the child has adequate financial support," he said Friday.

According to the trial judge's opinion, Ferguson and McKiernan met while working together and had a two-year affair. The relationship waned by late 1993, when Ferguson convinced McKiernan to act as a sperm donor with no responsibility for any child born as a result, the opinion said.

McKiernan, who has paid up to $1,520 a month in support since losing the case at trial, said he was not pleased with the ruling, but declined to comment further.

Ferguson's lawyer, Elizabeth Hoffman, said there was never evidence of an agreement between the two in which McKiernan would not have to pay any support.

"There was no evidence except his word and her word and it was a matter of credibility," he said.

[Joe]

Ah, I love judicial activism.

[Gandalf]

Well that's fucked.

But to be fair, maybe they should have written something down.

[Sea Skimmer]

Rulings like this always make me want to go burn down the local courthouse.

[kojikun]

Agreement or no, if you don't have sex, and she just uses your sperm, you are NOT responsible for those kids. The only link to you is the precise DNA code. God, wtf..

[Meest]

According to the trial judge's opinion, Ferguson and McKiernan met while working together and had a two-year affair. The relationship waned by late 1993, when Ferguson convinced McKiernan to act as a sperm donor with no responsibility for any child born as a result, the opinion said.

I think that explains it all, he got fucked over hard. Though pretty stupid to trust someone you had an affair with only a verbal agreement about something this serious.

[Crown]

Well that's fucked.

But to be fair, maybe they should have written something down.

I agree with you 100%.

I mean today you can't fart without being sued by somebody, it really has become fucking depressing.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

How do these judicial decisions stand as right? SHouldn't they have someone reviewing these cases and overruling them due to moral negligence? There has to be SOME system of checks and balances....

[DPDarkPrimus]

Unless there's more to this, the case is just pure bullshit.

[Howedar]

Absolutely fucking rediculous.

But boys and girls, this is why you get stuff in writing.

[Jalinth]

Well that's fucked.

But to be fair, maybe they should have written something down.

I agree with you 100%.

I mean today you can't fart without being sued by somebody, it really has become fucking depressing.

Folks - did you read the background?
This was part of a 2 year affair. A kid was born thanks to the affair - the fact it was through artificial insemination, so what? This wasn't a situation where the only connection was being a sperm donor (whether your identity was know or unknown).

Read the case - www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/a15043_04.pdf

This was an appeal of a lower court decision that said that same thing. Essentially, the mother screwed the guy. The courts (2 of them) determined that this guy is the "father" in a legal sense. The "waiver" of child support can't be done - it is the child who are entitled to it and they couldn't off on the contract

This is a far different situation that anon. sperm donor folks. Once the court determined this guy is a legal "father" - he was screwed. Most states stop anon. sperm donors from being a legal "father" - he was far from anon.

The mother sounded like a peach (courts don't use deceptive and similar terms without good cause) but child support is a right of the kids and not the mother. So an agreement between the parents has absolutely no impact on it.

[moku]

Still sounds pretty screwed...

[Tsyroc]

I still like how they always rule for the benefit of the kids though. The rights of the children seem to be more important than your rights.

You're the step-father, divorce the mother and move out but because you are a better provider the court hits you with the child support while scumbag dead beat biological father continues being a bum.


Still, in the case of this guy. He was a dumbass for not getting things in writing. It's still a strange case though. I'm assuming that they didn't agree to have kids together but he allowed her to use his sperm to be artificially inseminated. Why would anyone do that? He seems to be a bit of a comittment phobe who wanted to keep having sex but wanted to be able to cut an run if he decided he didn't want to be with her or the kids anymore.

Any wonder why the court found the woman to be more credible than the woman since it ended up being a he said / she said?

Does this mean David Crosby could be held accountable for child support for Julie Cypher's kids (Melissa Ethridge's Ex) or is he safe because they (I'm assuming) never had sex with each other?

Anyway, I still think this ruling could have some small impact on the number of people willing to be sperm donors. The courts could always decide that the rights and needs of the kids outweight everything else. At this point I think that's still a longshot but I always look at it this way. Unless you want kids then you should always take personal responsibility for your own birth control. In this case it would mean I'm won't be donating anytime soon but in sexual situations that means a condom regardless of whether she's using birth control.

Besides, multiple forms of birthcontrol have got to make it even more difficult for those little swimmers to do their thing.

[Stormbringer]

The mother sounded like a peach (courts don't use deceptive and similar terms without good cause) but child support is a right of the kids and not the mother. So an agreement between the parents has absolutely no impact on it.

Except the child was concieved by artificial insemination! Children concieved in that method have never been the responsibility of the sperm donor.... until now.

Goddamned lawsuit happy harpies and goddamned stupid judges. Legistlating away any and all legal protection from the fucking bench.

[Tsyroc]

Except the child was concieved by artificial insemination! Children concieved in that method have never been the responsibility of the sperm donor.... until now.

Except in the cases of couples who were married when the artifical insemination took place, but in those cases I would assume that both people actually wanted children at the time.

Goddamned lawsuit happy harpies and goddamned stupid judges. Legistlating away any and all legal protection from the fucking bench.

I think the guy left an opening because of their long relationship. If he'd just been a friend or aquaintenance of her's he might have been okay. He still would have been better off with a legal contract. If that's not the case it's going to keep getting more and more difficult to get sperm donors.

Everyone will insist on being annoymous to the Nth degree.

Then sometime in the future when they can track everyone by DNA (national Big Brother Database) all of the previously annoymous sperm donor will be in for a new shock as science helps track them down.

[Tsyroc]

Maybe the guy should try for custody now.

If his finances are so good for the kid then he/she'd be better off with him where he can make sure all of that child support money is spent only on the kid.

The decision could have implications for sperm and egg donors who expect anonymity, said Arthur Caplan, a professor and medical ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania.

"Anybody who is a sperm donor ought to understand that their identity could be made known to any child that's produced, and they could be seen by the courts as the best place to go to make sure the child has adequate financial support," he said Friday.

On the same note. This could mean that sperm and egg donors could come around later and make a claim on a kid. It's more unlikely than the above situation but since my soon to be nephew was concieved via donor sperm I'm a spidgen more likely to be concerned than the average schmoe.

[Stormbringer]

Except in the cases of couples who were married when the artifical insemination took place, but in those cases I would assume that both people actually wanted children at the time.

That is a very different case as you point out. A married couple concieving a child by artificial means (which they both participated in) is a far cry from sperm donation. And it should be treated as it is where it's treated the same as a natural birth.

I think the guy left an opening because of their long relationship. If he'd just been a friend or aquaintenance of her's he might have been okay. He still would have been better off with a legal contract. If that's not the case it's going to keep getting more and more difficult to get sperm donors.

There's no doubt at all they he would have been better setting up the necessary legal contracts for the sperm donation.

But that doesn't change the fact that he seems to have been just plain taken advantage of by the woman, her lawyers, and a *gasp* real, honest to goodness, legislate from the bench activist judge. It seems clear he did it with the intention of being a sperm donor not a father and yet he gets slapped with the child support anyway. That seems to me to clearly violate the intentions of the agreement.

[kojikun]

Yeah, go for a custody hearing. Hahaha.

[Darth Wong]

The mother sounded like a peach (courts don't use deceptive and similar terms without good cause) but child support is a right of the kids and not the mother. So an agreement between the parents has absolutely no impact on it.

Except the child was concieved by artificial insemination! Children concieved in that method have never been the responsibility of the sperm donor.... until now.

Not when the insemination is the only relationship between the donor and mother. That was not the case here, where they had a 2 year relationship. It's a simple case of "he said, she said", and they're not going to deny the kid child-support based solely on his word when they had a verified long-term relationship so the burden of proof falls on him to show that he does not have any responsibility for the kid.

Goddamned lawsuit happy harpies and goddamned stupid judges. Legistlating away any and all legal protection from the fucking bench.

Maybe you should have added a dozen exclamation marks after it to make this point even stronger.

[neoolong]

It says sperm donor, but did they do it through a sperm bank of some sort, or merely have sex till she got pregnant?

Because I would think that the sperm bank route would give him protection from having to pay.

[Darth Wong]

It says sperm donor, but did they do it through a sperm bank of some sort, or merely have sex till she got pregnant?

Because I would think that the sperm bank route would give him protection from having to pay.

Incorrect. Couples have children through artificial insemination all the time, most often as a fertility treatment. The fact that it's done through artificial insemination has precisely NOTHING to do with the issue of parental responsibility.

It's obvious that few people bothered to read the ruling at all. The ruling was based on legal precedent (Kesler vs Weniger, Pa.Super.2000 and Sams vs Sams, Pa.Super.2002) indicating that a parent cannot bargain away the child's support. Right there, the informal agreement between the two parties is nullified, hence he is required to pay support if necessary in order to take care of the children.

This does not apply to anonymous donors, who are not recognized legally as the father of the child. He was not an anonymous donor. He was a known donor who had a relationship with the mother and who inseminated her for the express purpose of siring children, under a contract whose conditions were illegal, hence null and void. All of this whining about "activist judges" is just bullshit; CNN grossly misinterpreted the case ruling.

[Master of Ossus]

It still strikes me as being totally ridiculous that a woman can ask a guy to get her pregnant as a sperm donor, then turn around and demand child support from him. In this case, the woman ought to be responsible for raising the child. After all, ultimately it was her decision to have one.

[Joe]

Furthermore, did the woman suddenly appear out of nowhere and ask him, after he'd had nothing to do with the kid for years, to start shelling out cash? Because that's bullshit, even there is some legalistic crap that makes him responsible.

[Darth Wong]

It still strikes me as being totally ridiculous that a woman can ask a guy to get her pregnant as a sperm donor, then turn around and demand child support from him. In this case, the woman ought to be responsible for raising the child. After all, ultimately it was her decision to have one.

The fact that the woman reneged on her agreement with the man is a poor reflection on her but has no bearing on this case. The plain and simple fact is that you cannot bargain away a child's support under the law, and for good reason: you are approaching this case from the standpoint of what you feel is just for the father, but the judge is approaching this case from the standpoint of what is best for the child.

[Darth Wong]

Furthermore, did the woman suddenly appear out of nowhere and ask him, after he'd had nothing to do with the kid for years, to start shelling out cash? Because that's bullshit, even there is some legalistic crap that makes him responsible.

Ah, so you disprove the case ruling by simply saying "that's bullshit", even though a man who had naturally fathered the child with this woman would be nailed for support and no one would blink an eye. In short, you are hinging your entire argument upon the physical means of insemination, which you feel to make a world of difference. It does not.