Sperm Doner Must Pay Child Support

[Joe]

It has nothing to do with the means of insemination; I'm saying it's bullshit, period, for the woman to assure him that she will raise the child by herself and then appear years later and demand he start forking over child support.

If that is indeed the situation.

[Darth Wong]

It has nothing to do with the means of insemination; I'm saying it's bullshit, period, for the woman to assure him that she will raise the child by herself and then appear years later and demand he start forking over child support.

Why? What part of "a parent cannot bargain away the child's support" do you not understand? Do you think it is UNJUST that parents cannot bargain away their childrens' support?

[Joe]

All right, I don't know what I'm talking about. I concede.

[Elfdart]

I agree with the ruling. If this guy didn't want to pay child support, he shouldn't have knocked up the woman. I'll go one step further: Unless parental rights are terminated by a court, the biological father should have to pay child support, period. The money should come straight out of his check, just like taxes. This should cut the same way for mothers, too.

This douchebag was simply trying to duck responsibility for impregnating someone. Fuck him.

[Stormbringer]

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.

Except it seems quite clear that the relationship was over before she asked him to be a sperm donor. It doesn't even seem that point was even contested according to the article. So I fail to see what bearing that prior relationship had since it was apparently over and didn't produce the child. The he said, she said was strictly about whether there was an agreement, not that it wasn't a sperm donation (as opposed to a couple's infertility treatment).

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

This is pretty clearly a case of a judge ruling based not on the law but on emotion, agenda, or whatever. The fact that it's a shitty lowblow for the rights of the sperm donor only lowers my opinion. It's a pretty damn thing they did.

[Darth Wong]

Except it seems quite clear that the relationship was over before she asked him to be a sperm donor. It doesn't even seem that point was even contested according to the article. So I fail to see what bearing that prior relationship had since it was apparently over and didn't produce the child. The he said, she said was strictly about whether there was an agreement, not that it wasn't a sperm donation (as opposed to a couple's infertility treatment).

So? He was not an anonymous donor. He had a prior relationship with the mother, and if he knocked her up the natural way, he would certainly be legally considered the child's father regardless of whether he had renounced his claim as such.

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

This is pretty clearly a case of a judge ruling based not on the law but on emotion, agenda, or whatever.

Bullshit. The law is very clear on this: he is not an anonymous donor, therefore he does not gain the special "anonymous donor" status in which he is not legally considered the father of the child.

The fact that it's a shitty lowblow for the rights of the sperm donor only lowers my opinion. It's a pretty damn thing they did.

Wow, more emoting in lieu of facts.

[Stormbringer]

o? He was not an anonymous donor. He had a prior relationship with the mother, and if he knocked her up the natural way, he would certainly be legally considered the child's father regardless of whether he had renounced his claim as such.

Again, so what if he had a relationship? Just because she knew him means that it wasn't a sperm donation (and intended as such)?

Bullshit. The law is very clear on this: he is not an anonymous donor, therefore he does not gain the special "anonymous donor" status in which he is not legally considered the father of the child.

No sperm donor is truly anymous. Does that mean that every sperm donor should be forced to take legal responsibility for the child?

[Darth Wong]

o? He was not an anonymous donor. He had a prior relationship with the mother, and if he knocked her up the natural way, he would certainly be legally considered the child's father regardless of whether he had renounced his claim as such.

Again, so what if he had a relationship? Just because she knew him means that it wasn't a sperm donation (and intended as such)?

What part of "not an anonymous donor" do you not understand, exactly? The fact is that you made a statement of fact, that the judge ignored the law and ruled on emotion, and I showed that your claim was utterly false and that you obviously didn't bother researching it at all before making your bold and ultimately vacuous emotive statement.

Bullshit. The law is very clear on this: he is not an anonymous donor, therefore he does not gain the special "anonymous donor" status in which he is not legally considered the father of the child.

No sperm donor is truly anymous. Does that mean that every sperm donor should be forced to take legal responsibility for the child?

Black/white fallacy. There are certain criteria for being an anonymous donor, and he did not meet them. The fact that there's no such thing as perfect anonymity does not change that at all. Try to grow up and admit it when you're wrong.

[The Kernel]

Does anyone know what the specific criteria for being a sperm doner are? It might be pertinent to this discussion.

[Darth Wong]

Does anyone know what the specific criteria for being a sperm doner are? It might be pertinent to this discussion.

A donor whose identity is not known to the mother and who donates his sperm to a licensed sperm-bank for the purpose of anonymous donation, although that may vary from country to country.

[The Kernel]

A donor whose identity is not known to the mother and who donates his sperm to a licensed sperm-bank for the purpose of anonymous donation, although that may vary from country to country.

So do you think that biological fathers should always be held responsible for children conceived from their sperm? Does this mean that a woman cannot get a male friend to go with her to a fertility clinic and act as a sperm donor without taking financial responsibility for the child? I'm not sure this is all that common an occurance, but I can see a situation where the woman would want sperm donated from a friend rather than a complete stranger.

[Darth Wong]

A donor whose identity is not known to the mother and who donates his sperm to a licensed sperm-bank for the purpose of anonymous donation, although that may vary from country to country.

So do you think that biological fathers should always be held responsible for children conceived from their sperm?

Since there are numerous precedents indicating that they retain certain legal rights with regard to the children, yes. You don't get rights without responsibilities.

Does this mean that a woman cannot get a male friend to go with her to a fertility clinic and act as a sperm donor without taking financial responsibility for the child? I'm not sure this is all that common an occurance, but I can see a situation where the woman would want sperm donated from a friend rather than a complete stranger.

And if she simply had sex with him in order to conceive this child, he would have certain rights that an anonymous donor would not have. It would be perverse for him not to have certain responsibilities as well, and the physical means of insemination should not make any difference.

[The Kernel]

Since there are numerous precedents indicating that they retain certain legal rights with regard to the children, yes. You don't get rights without responsibilities.

Granted, I'm just a little disturbed that the father couldn't waive those rights with the mother's consent. From the ruling it appears that even if the father had the alleged agreement in writing, he still would have been held financially responsible.

And if she simply had sex with him in order to conceive this child, he would have certain rights that an anonymous donor would not have. It would be perverse for him not to have certain responsibilities as well, and the physical means of insemination should not make any difference.

But it DOES make a difference for anonymous donors. Why shouldn't such an arangement that can be made between strangers be made between friends with both parties consent?

[Darth Wong]

Granted, I'm just a little disturbed that the father couldn't waive those rights with the mother's consent. From the ruling it appears that even if the father had the alleged agreement in writing, he still would have been held financially responsible.

Because there's a third party involved: the child. These discussions tend to revolve around the rights of the parents as if the child is a piece of meat or something, without any rights of his own.

But it DOES make a difference for anonymous donors. Why shouldn't such an arangement that can be made between strangers be made between friends with both parties consent?

It's not the mechanism of insemination: it's the anonymity. Married couples use artificial insemination all the time; it makes no difference to the father's paternity rights.

[The Kernel]

Because there's a third party involved: the child. These discussions tend to revolve around the rights of the parents as if the child is a piece of meat or something, without any rights of his own.

But the child doesn't exist at the time of insemination. If the father agrees to ceede his rights and duties to the child at that time with the only other parties consent, then why shouldn't he be allowed to do this?

It's not the mechanism of insemination: it's the anonymity. Married couples use artificial insemination all the time; it makes no difference to the father's paternity rights.

What about anonymity is so inviolate that this status couldn't be transfered to a parent that has a casual relationship with the mother as long as both parties agree to it?

I understand what you are suggesting, I just don't see it as a compelling reason to prevent the father from signing away his rights with the mother's consent so long as the child does not exist yet.

[Howedar]

But the child doesn't exist at the time of insemination. If the father agrees to ceede his rights and duties to the child at that time with the only other parties consent, then why shouldn't he be allowed to do this?

If Wilkins had an ex and a kid, could his ex arrange for permanent full custody when Wilkins was off in Iraq? After all, he isn't there.

[Darth Wong]

Because there's a third party involved: the child. These discussions tend to revolve around the rights of the parents as if the child is a piece of meat or something, without any rights of his own.

But the child doesn't exist at the time of insemination.

Irrelevant. The child exists now. And a child doesn't exist at the time of natural insemination either.

If the father agrees to ceede his rights and duties to the child at that time with the only other parties consent, then why shouldn't he be allowed to do this?

Because a contract must have mutual consideration, and in this case, the consideration is being made on behalf of the child. That's why you can't just bargain away child support; it's not YOURS to bargain away; it's the CHILD'S property.

It's not the mechanism of insemination: it's the anonymity. Married couples use artificial insemination all the time; it makes no difference to the father's paternity rights.

What about anonymity is so inviolate that this status couldn't be transfered to a parent that has a casual relationship with the mother as long as both parties agree to it?

Nothing. The law exists not because of some sacred principle but because without it, nobody would ever donate sperm and in-vitro fertilization for couples who want to have children but whose male partner is shooting blanks will become impossible. Many laws have origins in practicality and societal benefit rather than constitutional principle.

I understand what you are suggesting, I just don't see it as a compelling reason to prevent the father from signing away his rights with the mother's consent so long as the child does not exist yet.

You could make the exact same argument with respect to naturally conceived children.

[The Kernel]

If Wilkins had an ex and a kid, could his ex arrange for permanent full custody when Wilkins was off in Iraq? After all, he isn't there.

Excuse me but how does unable to be at a court hearing because you are away at war compare to a party that does not exist yet?

[Darth Wong]

If Wilkins had an ex and a kid, could his ex arrange for permanent full custody when Wilkins was off in Iraq? After all, he isn't there.

Excuse me but how does unable to be at a court hearing because you are away at war compare to a party that does not exist yet?

The fact that the party does not exist at time of signing the contract has no bearing on the fact that the party DOES exist at the time the provisions of the contract are to be enforced. Otherwise, you could have asinine bullshit like rich guys making their wives sign pre-nuptial agreements never to seek child support, because the children don't exist yet. See where your logic leads?

[Howedar]

If Wilkins had an ex and a kid, could his ex arrange for permanent full custody when Wilkins was off in Iraq? After all, he isn't there.

Excuse me but how does unable to be at a court hearing because you are away at war compare to a party that does not exist yet?

At the time of insemination it is known that, barring unforseen complications, a child will be around in nine month's time. Rather like we know that Wilkins will be back in several months barring injury or death.

[The Kernel]

Irrelevant. The child exists now. And a child doesn't exist at the time of natural insemination either.

And a child has no say in whether or not it is aborted either. I don't see how you can confer property rights on something that doesn't yet exist.

Because a contract must have mutual consideration, and in this case, the consideration is being made on behalf of the child. That's why you can't just bargain away child support; it's not YOURS to bargain away; it's the CHILD'S property.

But there is no child at the time of contract, so how can the child have property rights?

Nothing. The law exists not because of some sacred principle but because without it, nobody would ever donate sperm and in-vitro fertilization for couples who want to have children but whose male partner is shooting blanks will become impossible. Many laws have origins in practicality and societal benefit rather than constitutional principle.

Which I understand completely. What I don't understand is why a man must automatically assume responsibility that an anonymous donor does not merely for being familiar with the mother.

You could make the exact same argument with respect to naturally conceived children.

From a practical standpoint, it would be overly complicated to apply such a waiver to naturally conceived children. Considering however that the only difference between the two scenarios in question (artificial insemination through and anonymous donor and a familiar donor) it would be quite easy to create a possible exemption for familiar donors if both parties agree.

I have one question that I think is at the heart of this matter: what is it about being familiar to the mother that makes it impossible to have the same arangement as an anonymous donor?

[The Kernel]

The fact that the party does not exist at time of signing the contract has no bearing on the fact that the party DOES exist at the time the provisions of the contract are to be enforced. Otherwise, you could have asinine bullshit like rich guys making their wives sign pre-nuptial agreements never to seek child support, because the children don't exist yet. See where your logic leads?

Alright, I see where you are going with this now and you have a valid point. Conceeded.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Quote:
I understand what you are suggesting, I just don't see it as a compelling reason to prevent the father from signing away his rights with the mother's consent so long as the child does not exist yet.

You could make the exact same argument with respect to naturally conceived children.

If this was an agreed to before the copulation, what would be the problem? Why should we force a man into paying child support when its the woman who wants a sperm bank with the first-hand "quality assurance" that she can't get in a "regular" sperm bank? Why can't a woman start an independant one parent household, with sperm from someone she knows, if that is her desire?

[Darth Wong]

Irrelevant. The child exists now. And a child doesn't exist at the time of natural insemination either.

And a child has no say in whether or not it is aborted either. I don't see how you can confer property rights on something that doesn't yet exist.

OK, what part of "the child exists NOW" do you not understand?

Because a contract must have mutual consideration, and in this case, the consideration is being made on behalf of the child. That's why you can't just bargain away child support; it's not YOURS to bargain away; it's the CHILD'S property.

But there is no child at the time of contract, so how can the child have property rights?

See above. I grow tired of repeating myself. Of course the child has no rights before he exists, but HE DOES NOW.

Nothing. The law exists not because of some sacred principle but because without it, nobody would ever donate sperm and in-vitro fertilization for couples who want to have children but whose male partner is shooting blanks will become impossible. Many laws have origins in practicality and societal benefit rather than constitutional principle.

Which I understand completely. What I don't understand is why a man must automatically assume responsibility that an anonymous donor does not merely for being familiar with the mother.

Then you obviously DON'T understand completely, or even partially. The law grants a special EXEMPTION for anonymous donors, for a very specific social reason. The responsibility is the DEFAULT condition.

You could make the exact same argument with respect to naturally conceived children.

From a practical standpoint, it would be overly complicated to apply such a waiver to naturally conceived children.

Bullshit; you could easily sign the exact same contract with a naturally conceived child.

Considering however that the only difference between the two scenarios in question (artificial insemination through and anonymous donor and a familiar donor) it would be quite easy to create a possible exemption for familiar donors if both parties agree.

There is no pressing social reason to create special legislation for this purpose.

I have one question that I think is at the heart of this matter: what is it about being familiar to the mother that makes it impossible to have the same arangement as an anonymous donor?

Again, you don't seem to understand that parental responsibility is the DEFAULT CONDITION, not something which must be justified. It is the EXEMPTION which must be justified, not the responsibility.

[Darth Wong]

If this was an agreed to before the copulation, what would be the problem?

The mother is signing a contract on behalf of a third party who did not agree to the provisions of the contract, and who is a legal participant in the contract. The non-existence of this party at time of contract signing merely makes it even MORE null and void, since all participants in a contract must agree for it to be binding. Contract law is not your strong suit, is it?