Sperm Donor Sued For Child Support

The Chicago Sun-Times ^ | 4-12-06 | Sun-Times

[Orlando]

By: Steve Patterson (Chicago Sun-Times Reporter)

... Michael Wilford says he was simply a sperm donor. Christin Harris says he was much more than that to her.

Now, the Glenview woman wants him to provide child support and college fund and pay medical expenses for the 2-year-old twin daughters he fathered.

But the Downers Grove man says it's a case of "involuntary parentage" as he had no intention of doing anything more than provide his ex-girlfriend with the semen she needed to conceive. "No good deed goes unpunished," his attorney Enrico Mirabelli, said in court Tuesday.

'I Just Want Your Semen'

Wiford said he was asked to pay nothing toward the in-vitro fertilization or related pregnancy costs and the couple broke up three months after Harris gave birth and he was never asked to provide a thing or to act as a father."

"....She was a lady with a plan-and that plan wasn't marriage," Mirabelli said, "He trusted her, why?" Because she said " I Don't want anything from you. I just want your semen.."

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Excessive child support is slavery. Being fraudulently fingered as a father for purposes of providing support is slavery.

[Orlando]

http://echoes.devin.com/zoon.html

In Ephesians it is written

http://altreligion.about.com/library/bl_nephilim.htm

[Old_Mil]

We've been over this DOZENS of times. His pro-life record is as good or better than any of the other viable candidates...

...unless you have a job, and a particular type of plumbing.

[Orlando]

On the Pro-Father, Pro-Family site most of the civil rights leaders agree with Freerepublic members. There might still be some hope only if these two groups unite forces to save America and shine the light on evil and expose their plans and attacks into the light, because these evil forces that are destroying God creation hate the light and the truth.
Today is Friday, April 14th(Passion of the Christ)

http://www.standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9079

and for more news on our fight to survive check out:

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com

#1 Mens site in the world.
It's about GOD, FAMILY and Country and maybe, maybe working together we might be able to save ourselfs and family ?
Have a good Easter weekend
vet out.....111

[mlc9852]

I hope you're freed soon.

[Orlando]

FROM meditations and prayers led by the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI on Good Friday 2006.

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/popepage.html

Listen to these Godly words, we are at war with powerful spirtual forces, that want us dead and destroyed.
Here's one site that shines the light on the front-line daily battles, these are mostly Americans Fathers/Veterans/Soldiers/dads and they are out numbered by thousands, millions to one, but they still stand there ground like soldiers of old.

They need your help and support, and together, maybe we can save this nation.

http://www.standyourground.com/forum

take is all. vet out..111

[BJungNan]

he had no intention of doing anything more than provide his ex-girlfriend with the semen she needed to conceive.

Correction: He had no intention of doing anything other than helping his ex-girlfriend bring a child into the world.

Pay up buster. You made a mistake.

[BJungNan]

He agreed to what?

To bring a child into the world - in this case, two of them. Seems pretty obvious.

[BunnySlippers]

That's like asking the blood donor to pay for the surgery.

[BJungNan]

No, he should sue the doctor that did not ask where the sperm came from...or did she do it herself?

[demkicker]

She'll get the $$$...this case is a slam dunk for her,legally speaking.

Ditto. And it should remind men to be more responsible with their semen. Donating it for reproductive purposes has a price, and I don't mean what a man can make monetarily. Innocent lives that are affected for a lifetime.

[supercat]

And she (like the father) has the serious obligation--- adding up to 18 years and thousands of dollars --- to either personally provide, or make arrangements for adoptive care, for the child they brought into existence.

In Illinois, I'm pretty certain a woman can give a newborn baby up for adoption without any further obligation. Is that not true in all states? My understanding--someone please correct me if I'm wrong--is that if an unmarried girl or woman found her self pregnant without means of support, there was a very strong expectation that she would give the child up for adoption. The notion that anyone (including the father) had any obligation to help the woman raise the child herself was largely unknown, in part because the existence of such support might discourage the girl or woman from giving the child up for adoption (a course of action that would likely be best for all concerned).

The fact that crazy courts have effectively denied adoptive parents any assurance that a child they take in will be really "theirs" hasn't help things either.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think this varies from state to state. But regardless of what the various states say, morally as a matter of justice, parents (both mothers and fathers) are obliged either to support their children, or to put them in the hands of those who will.

I agree that the laws are crazy. Mr. Don-o and I ended up adopting a son internationally, after our attempts at domestic adoption became too frustrating and humiliating (having to abjectly court pregnant birthmothers, fend off "open adoption" schemes which had the birthmothers dreaming that they could step into and out of our lives whenever they wanted to, etc.)

[supercat]

I think this varies from state to state. But regardless of what the various states say, morally as a matter of justice, parents (both mothers and fathers) are obliged either to support their children, or to put them in the hands of those who will.

Agreed. And it used to be that most single mothers would recognize that they couldn't really manage the former obligation and would thus exercise the latter. I think the world was a better place for such recognition (my wife was adopted, BTW, by two wonderful and loving parents).

I agree that the laws are crazy. Mr. Don-o and I ended up adopting a son internationally, after our attempts at domestic adoption became too frustrating and humiliating (having to abjectly court pregnant birthmothers, fend off "open adoption" schemes which had the birthmothers dreaming that they could step into and out of our lives whenever they wanted to, etc.)

Too bad I don't know any good way to undo the damage liberals and the courts have done. While I don't disparage your decision (it's not your fault the domestic system is so [bleep]ed up), I find it morally reprehensible that the system makes it necessary to go outside the country when there are babies in this country awaiting adoption.

[supercat]

BTW, if I had my druthers, I'd probably abolish 90% of the adoption bureaucracy. I'd have adoption agencies publish their criteria for prospective parents, and let people sign up. Expectant mothers who did not want their children would be given a list of agencies and thier criteria and allowed to choose one. The baby would then be given to the first person on the appropriate agency's list. True, some babies might be given to unfit parents, but the a baby's odds would still be better under that system than the one we have now.

I'd also pass a law to make explicit that if a child is adopted under age one, and kept by the adoptive parents until age two, the only bases for revoking the option would be if either:

1. The adoptive parents are shown to be unfit
2. The adoptive parents knew, or should have known, that the adoption was improper

I can think of no exceptions. Even if a baby was kidnapped from the hospital, if the adoptive parents had no reason to suspect such a thing and raised it until age two, I would suggest it should be theirs. The parents from whom it was stolen should have grave recourse against the kidnapper, but that should not justify disrupting the child's life.

BTW, just for good measure, I would make explicit that any court order seeking to revoke custody other than for the above reasons is void, any attempt to enforce such order constitutes kidnapping, and use of deadly force to prevent kidnapping or rescue the victim is justifiable.