Posted on 08/23/2005 4:33:44 AM PDT by grundle
http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Patriot_News_Sperm_donor_loses_appeal_child_support_23JUL04.htm
Sperm donor loses appeal on child support
The Patriot News, Friday, July 23, 2004, BY REGGIE SHEFFIELD of The Patriot-News, Harrisburg, PA, U.S.A.
The state Superior Court yesterday ruled that a man must pay child support to a woman who conceived twin boys with his sperm through in vitro fertilization.
The opinion upholds a Dauphin County Court order filed in 2002.
Joel L. McKiernan now must pay up to $1,500 each month, but he argued that an oral agreement he had with Ivonne V. Ferguson protected him from any payments, according to court papers.
When McKiernan agreed to be a sperm donor for Ferguson -- a co-worker with whom he had had an affair between 1991 and 1993 -- she promised she would never seek support payments from him, court documents said. But in 1999, she began seeking support.
Superior Court Judge Patrick R. Tamilia wrote that the oral contract between McKiernan and Ferguson is essentially worthless, because the rights for child support belong to the twins, not to either parent.
"The oral agreement between the parties that [McKiernan] would donate his sperm in exchange for being released from any obligation for any child conceived, on its face, constitutes a valid contract," Tamilia wrote in a six-page decision.
"Based on legal, equitable and moral principles, however, it is not enforceable," Tamilia wrote.
Efforts to reach Ferguson and McKiernan were unsuccessful.
According to the court papers, Ferguson persuaded McKiernan to donate his sperm for in vitro fertilization in 1993, when their relationship waned. Ferguson was married, but her husband filed for divorce on the day she underwent the IVF procedure, court papers said.
On Aug. 25, 1994, Ferguson gave birth to the twins. She listed her ex-husband, not McKiernan, as the biological father on the birth certificate, according to court papers.
McKiernan had little contact with Ferguson during this time, other than visiting her in the hospital when she was in labor and spending an afternoon with her and the boys two years later, court documents said.
Elizabeth Stone, a family law attorney, said that Pennsylvania law very clearly holds that the right to child support belongs to the children and not the parents.
"Even though the child is a minor, he cannot in any way extend that right to the parent," Stone said. "So even a contract can be immediately invalidated by running to the court and filing for support."
With in vitro fertilization, a sperm cell and egg cell are combined outside the woman's body, and the resulting embryo is placed in her uterus. About 1 million children have been conceived through in vitro fertilization, which was first done in 1978.
The issue of child support and in vitro fertilization has found its way into court in other jurisdictions.
REGGIE SHEFFIELD
Copyright 2004 The Patriot-News
So wrong.
As the Hollywood mogul once said: An oral contract ain't worth the paper it's written on.
It looks like they were not in a sexual relationship.
It's a very correct ruling.....
The children were the true "plaintiff's" in this case. Both parents, regardless of level of participation, are required to support their children. Children are not an object but full people with inalienable rights.
You are responsible for your actions and contracts you enter into with third parties do not absolve you from primary responsibility.
As so eloquently put by another Freeper on this thread..."you are responsible where you send your boys"
NeverGore :^)
Artificial insemination is fornication/adultery.
That said . . .
Any woman fool enough to have a child out of wedlock, should be on her own.
Else, there is no reason for legal marriage, and society collapses.
As it has been collapsing from this and a score of other reasons.
The question should be to the woman, "Where is your marriage license?"
And by extension, anything else a judge decides to hold you responsible for without precedent ;^)
That's what I tell my boys. I hope they listen.
The true and unjust reason the state is forcing this poor misguided fool to pay child support is this:
Follow the money.
If the father isn't forced to pay, the state through social services may have to spend to help the mother and child.
Excuse me, but why is it automatically the woman's fault?? It takes two things to make a baby -- an egg and a sperm. The sperm didn't just sneak into that petrie dish by itself!
The adults in this situation are clearly idiots. It takes a total idiot to rely on an "oral agreement" when it comes to responsibilities so HUGE, an idiot to trust a woman who cheated on her husband for 2 years, and idiot to make such an agreement while the woman is STILL married to another man.
I can't even begin to find the words to describe what I think she is... idiot just doesn't do it justice. Selfish, irresponsible, self-centered.... idiot!
But I think the judge has a good point -- regardless of the stupid careless behavior of the parents, there are now two children who have to pay the price... and their interests should come first.
So lesson one boys : YOUR sperm, YOUR responsibility. Be careful where you put 'em.
I'm not an attorney but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night......
There's plenty of case law in this area....it just being applied to new social situations.....
What exactly did you not like about this ruling? " That an individual is responsible for their actions" or that the woman did not abort the baby????
NeverGore :^)
GOOD JOB!
Sex and/or reproduction by any means entails a great deal of responsibility.
But that should be only in the case of a legal marriage.
Else let's get rid of legalized marriage, as there is no reason for it.
What--did you think the state married people out of sentimentality?
Any woman fool enough to make a child out of wedlock, the father(s) should be free of any responsibility.
Artificial insemination is fornication/adultery.....
Even if you are doing it with the person you are married too?
If the legal husband is also the sperm donor and he does the insemination via syringe, then it is not adultery.
Let's have a show of hands -- would any of you willingly ahem... DONATE... your sperm (by any means) for the purpose of creating a child, to anyone (other than your wife, of course), under any circumstance?
Just wondering...
so if a husband and wife are having trouble having children and choose to undergo IVF to help them conceive...
you consider that adultery?
I found the sanctimonious internet posters sitting at home and not liking other people enjoying life more than them to be pretty amusing ;^)
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.