Posted on 04/12/2006 11:49:48 AM PDT by 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.."
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
Donate through a reputable bank. They'll keep your identity confidential. Men who go along with these informal arrangements with "friends" are out of their minds.
here is the deal. If you want to give your sperm away and don't want to be responsible for the child later, than make sure you do it legally. Verbal contracts are worthless!
Give him a shaving kit and tell him to do the right thing.
This is so ridiculous.
She'll get the $$$...this case is a slam dunk for her,legally speaking.
Parents have an obligation to their children. Social liberals can not get past this basic concept. The social liberal position is that parents can freely renounce this obligation and kill/abandon/hand off their children and forget about them.
I seem to recall that there was a sperm bank which accepted donors that were Nobel prize winners. I wonder if these guys have been hit up for child support?
LOL...There is a strong resemblance.
I'd like to see that one. The only cases I've seen are where the man knew the woman beforehand (so to speak), and agreed to aid in fertilization procedures.
No, though in some states that wouldn't hold up anyway, given that he readily admits that they had the sort of relationship from which they could "break up". He was stupid to do it, and she was stupid to use somebody stupid as a donor. Heck, it only costs about $300 to use a reputable bank, and get a sharp PhD or MD or JD who's been screened for a raft of diseases and genetic problems. This poor kid will probably have an IQ of about 60, given the parents' mental abilities.
There are two crimes here.
Both parties are too stupid to breed...
However, only one party is compelled to involuntary 20-year participation.
Personally, I would rephrase that...
Was the attorney there?! How does he know whether or not it was a "good deed"?
He provided her with the semen and broke up with her three months after the birth?
He's on the hook and will pay for the next 19 years for his stupidity in relying on a verbal promise from the mother.
Somehow I don't think these two dim bulbs would have had much success with the "simple, one man/one woman/marry/have kids/stay together forever" route either. Some people are just too dumb to make anything work out right.
I agree with you. This guy sounds like a real heel!
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.