Posted on 08/12/2008 12:47:07 PM PDT by PercivalWalks
Recently on Fox's nationally-syndicated Morning Show with Mike and Juliet we debated a New Mexico case where a man who had donated sperm to a lesbian couple is now on the hook for child support to the children's biological mother. The case is detailed in New Mexico Court Orders Sperm Donor to Pay Child Support (Fox News, 7/31/08):
A court battle over whether a sperm donor should pay a higher rate of child support has ended with a ruling that the man is liable because he has taken an active role in raising the children.My views on the case are as follows:Kevin Zoernig had argued he was not required to pay child support because he is a sperm donor and is protected under the state's Uniform Parentage Act.
But the state Court of Appeals noted in its July 25 opinion that this was not a case involving an anonymous donor or a known donor who provided sperm to a licensed physician under an agreement in which he agreed to have no parental rights...
Zoernig agreed in 1994 to donate sperm so that Mintz and her partner at the time, Deborah Mrantz, could have a child. After the couple broke up, Zoernig fathered another child for Mintz, again as a sperm donor.
Zoernig, Mintz and Mrantz had entered into an agreement in 1994 in which the female couple would be the child's primary custodians. Zoernig would serve as a male role model but not be financially obligated to support the child.
Mintz and Zoernig entered into a similar agreement for the second child, born in 1997, court records show.
Although Mintz is the children's primary custodian, they stay with Zoernig every other weekend during the school year and half the summer. Zoernig, 50, now is married and has three children with his wife.
In February 2000, Mintz sought child support payments from Zoernig. The parties agreed the following year that Zoernig would pay $250 a month in child support, plus $50 a month toward arrears, according to court documents.
In 2004, Mintz filed a motion to raise those payments, saying her financial situation had changed. A state district judge adopted a new rate of $670 a month.
Zoernig turned to the Court of Appeals, challenging his obligation to provide any support as well as the higher rate, since the children were conceived through artificial insemination.
The appellate court said he must pay support for both children.
The court said he "enjoys the rights of parenthood," and that the agreements entered into prior to conception "that purport to absolve him of his responsibility to pay child support" are not enforceable.
In this ABC story, Mintz said "It was shocking to me when his lawyer showed up with arguments that he shouldn't have to pay child support because he was a sperm donor. It seemed quite preposterous."
1) Zoernig, Mintz, and Mrantz made an agreement. Zoernig held up his end of the bargain and then some. Why is it that mothers are so often able to toss agreements aside in family court as soon as they become inconvenient?
2) Zoernig did Mintz and Mrantz a favor. Mintz returned the favor by handing Zoernig an invoice.
3) Some have dismissed the amount of child support that Mintz is demanding of Zoernig as insignificant. Well, when it was $250, I can understand that. Once the child support went up to $670 a month -- remember that's 670 post-tax dollars -- it's no longer insignificant. Zoernig is a musician who apparently does not make much money. Also, he is married and has three children of his own. This is doubtlessly causing him problems with his family.
4) The mother and those who sympathize with her, including two of the guests on the show, argue that Zoernig is enjoying the rights of a parent without any of the responsibilities. When we're speaking of fathers, of course, "responsibility" is a polite word for child support. I pointed out that this man has been supporting his children for 14 years by playing an active, positive role in their lives. This is far beyond anything that the mother could have reasonably expected, and we can all see how grateful she is.
5) If you want to put it simply in monetary terms, I have no doubt that Zoernig has spent plenty of money on the kids over the past 14 years. For one, they have spent much of their time with him, and he has had to provide a living place for them and cover expenses while they are with him. He has probably also bought them and provided them countless things over the years.
6) Given that Zoernig is not a high earner, even if this were a straight divorce case as opposed to a sperm donor case, there is still no reason why Zoernig should be paying Mintz money. I do believe that there are cases where child support is appropriate. For example, if one parent has been the primary caregiver during a marriage and upon divorce earns significantly less than the other parent, I believe that there should be child support. I do not see any indication of this in this case.
7) If there is anybody in this case who should be obligated for child support it is Mintz's former lesbian partner Deborah Mrantz. It is Mrantz who agreed to have the child with Mintz and the two of them agreed to raise their child. Deborah Mrantz is apparently no longer in the picture, and nobody involved in the show seem to know what had happened to her. Perhaps she left after their breakup and abandoned her child. Perhaps she was driven out of the child's life by Mintz, as is common in lesbian breakups. [To learn more about this issue, see my co-authored column Lesbian Child Custody Battles and Heterosexual Divorce (World Net Daily, 8/5/08)].
8) I'm not surprised that the New Mexico court ruled as they did. Courts will almost always rule that fathers have to pay child support because it is "in the best interest of the child."
9) What's ironic here is that Mintz, by acting as she did, probably cost the children money in the long run. Research shows that when fathers' custody rights are respected, they are quite generous with their children as they enter their college years. In my column New Study Punctures Myth of Uncaring Divorced Dad (Newsday, 6/23/03), I discussed a study which showed that, adjusting for all other factors, fathers actually provide more financial support for their children's college educations than mothers. Zoernig probably would have supplied a substantial amount of money over the kids' teen and college years and into their adult would. Now that Mintz has poisoned the well, I wonder if this will still be true.
10) Mintz was invited to come on the show by the Fox producers. She refused. That's a shame -- I would've enjoyed debating her. Apparently she didn't think she would enjoy debating me.
To watch the video of the show, click here. Also on the show with me were Chicago family law attorney Enrico Mirabelli, who made some good points about the need to respect contracts, as well as two women who sided with the mother, Melissa B. Brisman, Esq. and child advocate Trenny Stovall.
Glenn Sacks, www.GlennSacks.com
[Note: If you or someone you love is faced with a divorce or needs help with child custody, child support, false accusations, Parental Alienation, or other family law or criminal law matters, ask Glenn for help by clicking here.]
Another reason to just use your sock.
Welcome to Family Court.
ummmmm... for what?
Now this is just plain wrong. Makes for a good reason NOT to identify the sperm or egg donors.
No good deed goes unpunished.
yeah... but when the guy takes an ACTIVE role raising the children... who is he kidding?
“Sock” as in:
In days of old when knights were bold and rubbers weren’t invented;
The men used socks upon their ***** and babies were prevented.
????????
It wasn’t a good deed.
Well, this is going to be one heck of a cold shower for sperm donor banks. ;)
Why isn’t this author telling his readers to stop throwing their sperm all over the landscape? Isn’t that an obvious way to avoid most child-support issues?
And he seems awfully supportive of lesbians’ “having a child together” for a writer who professes to support the interests of males. One article it’s “children need Dads,” and the next it’s “but a butch ‘mom’ is okay, too.”
Here's the relevant section of the referenced article:
Mintz and Zoernig entered into a similar agreement for the second child, born in 1997, court records show.Although Mintz is the children's primary custodian, they stay with Zoernig every other weekend during the school year and half the summer. Zoernig, 50, now is married and has three children with his wife.
IOW, Mr. Zoernig is not "out of the picture" in any sense.
I cannot comment on the decision itself, and child support law is rather abstruse in any case. But in his haste to bash the decision, it appears (as usual) that Mr. Sacks cannot seem to address a rather relevant portion of the case.
Didn't work out well for him, did it? But I take your point, the whole lesbian mother business wierds me out.
every child has a mother and a father.
No matter what the recreational sex of the parties, this does not change the laws of reproduction.
Mintz and Mrantz
Now separated. How wonderful.
child support does not belong to the mother, it belongs to the child and the mother has no power to waive it.
The next step is to pierce the veil of anonymous donations and hold those fathers for their child support obligation.
“In 2004, Mintz filed a motion to raise those payments, saying her financial situation had changed. “
She became a deadbeat mom???
I’d like to know if her lover ever sought visitation after they separated and even if not, why is the woman she shacked up with not financially responsible for child support?
At a point, he should just go to court for full custody to raise the children at home with their siblings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.