Sperm donor wins child support battle

[Lord Anubis]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22488113

HARRISBURG, Pa. - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a woman who promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot renege on the deal.

The 3-2 decision overturns lower court rulings under which Joel L. McKiernan had been paying up to $1,500 a month to support twin boys born in August 1994 to Ivonne V. Ferguson, his former girlfriend and co-worker.

“Where a would-be donor cannot trust that he is safe from a future support action, he will be considerably less likely to provide his sperm to a friend or acquaintance who asks, significantly limiting a would-be mother’s reproductive prerogatives,” Justice Max Baer wrote in the majority opinion issued last week.

Arthur Caplan, chairman of the Department of Medical Ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said the decision runs counter to the pattern established by similar cases, where the interests of the progeny have generally been given great weight.

“It sounds like the Pennsylvania court is trying to push a little harder into the brave new world of sperm, egg and embryo donation as it’s evolving,” Caplan said.

McKiernan’s lawyer, John W. Purcell Jr., said Wednesday an adverse decision against his client would have jeopardized the entire system of sperm donation.

“That wouldn’t just include Pennsylvania, because we found out in the course of this trial that many doctors order their sperm for their artificial inseminations out of state,” he said.

Ferguson and McKiernan met while working together at Pennsylvania Blue Shield in Harrisburg and had a sexual relationship that waned before Ferguson persuaded him to donate sperm for her.

Courts found that the two agreed McKiernan would not have to pay child support and would not have visitation rights, but Ferguson later changed her mind and sued.

A county judge said it was in the twins’ best interests that McKiernan be required to support them. In addition to monthly payments, McKiernan also was ordered to come up with $66,000 in back support. The appeal reverses that order.

Elizabeth Hoffman, Ferguson’s lawyer, did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment left at her office Wednesday.

Justice J. Michael Eakin, in a dissent, said a parent cannot bargain away a child’s right to support. “The children point and say, ’That is our father. He should support us,”’ Eakin wrote. “What are we to reply? ’No! He made a contract to conceive you through a clinic, so your father need not support you.’ I find this unreasonable at best.”

A victory for men's rights in my mind. Thank god for some brains inside some judges.

[Qwerty 42]

Was this through a sperm-bank? The article seems unclear.

[Johonebesus]

I'm glad it's not up to me to decide such a case, because both sides are right. If both parties agreed he would not be responsible for the offspring, it isn't fair to come back and change the deal. I find the $66,000 awarded earlier in back support downright offensive. On the other hand, the children's best interest should come first, and I'm not sure that a father should be able to sign away his responsibilities. If a guy knocks a girl up on a one night stand due to a faulty condom, he's still responsible. Why should he get out of it when it's a business deal? This is an area that needs to be codified. Common Law is too chaotic for this sort of situation, especially with our federal system.

[Darth Wong]

A victory for men's rights in my mind. Thank god for some brains inside some judges.

Don't be retarded. It's not about "men's rights". It's about the social imperative of making the sperm-bank system work. The judge said precisely that in his ruling. Of all the groups to worry about their rights, males have the least justification to do so.

[CaptainChewbacca]

If this ruling had been upheld, women could go to sperm banks and hope for the 'jackpot' of having a wealthy donor's baby, then suing him for child support.

I am glad for the decision made.

[Noble Ire]

If this ruling had been upheld, women could go to sperm banks and hope for the 'jackpot' of having a wealthy donor's baby, then suing him for child support.

I am glad for the decision made.

The article isn't clear, but it implies that the donor knew the mother before donating his sperm to her; thus, its not comparable to a situation in which a woman receives sperm from an anonymous source. A system that actually worked that way would be quite self-defeating; I doubt very many men would donate their genetic material if it meant paying child support to a woman that they'd probably never even met before, for an infant they might not ever even see. I would hope such a ruling, were it made, wouldn't carry over (then again, considering the plethora of ridiculous rulings that get made in the US Court system, one couldn't be sure).

[Soontir C'boath]

I can understand cases when parents get divorced as the income dwindles to the sole parent with custody and would need continued support of the severed parent, but this woman took it upon herself to raise children without the father in the equation (no visitation rights and asked him to donate). It sucks that the family are running into financial problems but the father never had any true obligations to them; he was just a donor even though he is a former boyfriend.

[CmdrWilkens]

The ruling comes down to the simple fact that the agreement was made principally because the man was providing a service but expecting to incur no cost to himself. By suing and seeking money in breach of that agreement the mother was taking the frightening step of discouraging individually arranged sperm donation because if the mother can breach the contract essentially at will then there is no contract and that is scary.

[Darth Wong]

As I said, the judge was thinking of the social consequences, in terms of potentially discouraging sperm donation across the entire nation in future. I'm actually glad to see someone citing social consequences as a justification for a ruling; it gets tiresome to see people constantly trying to justify anything and everything as a "contest of rights".

What would concern me is if this ruling gets extended in future to apply to similar agreements made after insemination. The rationale of enforcing a contract made before insemination is that the child would not exist at all without the contract, hence the child literally owes his existence to the contract. This is an extraordinary circumstance which can reasonably be said to nullify a child's inherent claim on the parents. But if such an agreement is made after insemination has already taken place, that does not apply. The judge's reasoning about discouraging sperm donation also would not apply.

[Metatwaddle]

A victory for men's rights in my mind. Thank god for some brains inside some judges.

Yeah, men's rights are threatened by teh ebil feminazis every day! Won't anyone think of the white males?

I agree that the decision was a good one, but "men's rights" has nothing to do with it.

[Death from the Sea]

Well to me it sounds alot like entrapment on the womans part. She asks for a sperm donation and agrees that the donor will not be responsible for the child in any way and then after the donation is made turns and asks for financial support.... I seriously doubt the donor would have donated if he knew that would happen.

The one case that really got me was the one where the woman performed oral sex on the guy and he came in her mouth, she then took the sperm and impregnated herself with it and sued the guy for child support. The court decided in her favor because him coming in her mouth constituted a "gift" which she could do with as she pleases and he is legally responsible for his own offspring.

This kind of stuff makes me wonder how it would work out if a woman raped a man and got pregnant from it and sued the victim for child support...