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
Actually, I think it's more like "Follow the DNA."
"Poor misguided fool" {imo... IDIOT} is no excuse - there are two innocent children's lives at stake. The donor was not anonymous.
That's generally the case when dealing with family courts.
If the judge’s ruling were sound, which I doubt, I think that it would form the basis for a class action against a group of anyone who’s ever anonymously donated sperm. I suppose all would share responsibility.
No.
If the mother was not legally married to the biological father, it is the mother's responsibility only.
If that is bad for the children, then the sin upon her head--not upon the government and society.
Should government instead do as you suggest, then government is guilty of a greater sin:
The undermining of legal marriage, and the misery and chaos that ensues to millions more children and to the nation.
Not an excuse.
He was poor and misguided because he didn't get away with it.
Whackos - play with fire - get your a** burned!
OK.
Then let's get government out of the marriage business since there's no reason for it.
And from now on, any woman who says the father of her children is not supporting them, let her take the supposed father to court and let the DNA testing begin.
or...why not...?
Any MAN fool enough to make a child out of wedlock should be held as equally responsible for that child's welfare as the mother.
The priority is not the FOOLS' rights, it's the children's rights... they weren't involved in this stupid decision making process.
How about
Men, in 90% of all of these cases are the ones that pay the money.
If the CHILD is the one who rates the child support, then BOTH parents should be made to pay equally.
EQUALLY
Then this bullshit in the courts and in the bedrooms might come to a halt.
Exactly. That's why I called it fast-food fertility. Donors to sperm banks know their sperm is intended to create children. They are knowingly entering into the business of parenthood.
Exactly what kind of parties do you go to?? :-)
But now there are two children in the world. Why don't we just cut them both in half, Solomon?
My only question here is why the case was ruled on by just a judge and not tried by a jury...
Anybody who agrees to a trial by a judge is a fool.
Unless they were informed of a precedent invalidating their donation contracts (which they weren’t because one probably did not exist) then they “knowingly” entered into nothing of the kind.
Just think of it as preparation for life as a middle aged married man.....
No it doesn't.
The woman could have aborted and the man would have no say the in the matter. If the woman decides to bear children out of wedlock, she has no claim on the father for support.
I'd still question the ruling. If a woman can choose to have an abortion and the man has no say in the matter, then it would be just for the man to claim he has no financial responsibility. Its time this "reproductive rights" crap became a two-way street.
What did they think they were donating for? To make sea-monkies? When you make a baby, you are one of its parents. That's basic biology that no contract can void.
That’s a good principle. But so is the principle of not changing the rules of contracts in such a radical way and extracting money in retrospect.
LOL
Been there, done that, have the tee shirt( emblazoned with 'Dirty Old Men Need Love Too').
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.