Posted on 04/12/2006 11:49:48 AM PDT by Orlando
I agree with that statement, but it often comes up in the context of a single mother who got a no-fault divorce. If we aren't going to abolish no-fault divorce we at least need to modify custody laws. The person who does not initiate the no-fault divorce should get custody unless he/she wants to waive it. If someone wants to leave the marriage, fine. But the person committed to the marriage should get custody.
It was if it was the original with Traci Lords.
"I know what you mean it happen to me too.
Pay child support,plus lawyer costs, court cost,AFDC cost, plus interest rates on all of them, and no visistion rights.
A slave for life with no rights as a father but $$$"
Not only that but the whole anonymous sperm donor thing is creating a whole generation of people who don't know if that's their 1st cousin or half-brother/sister they're standing next to in line or be matched up with on e-harmony.com.
Or one that you are married to or just living with....
Maury Povitch doesn't have those "who the baby daddy" shows for nothing! The primary reason for those women to go on that show 10-11-12 times is to find the poor fool that actually IS the baby daddy so she can take his ass to court for child support!
the couple broke up three months after Harris gave birth
This isn't your standard anonymous sperm donor scenario. He was dating a girl and he got her pregnant. The fact that he donated his sperm via a doctor instead of naturally should be completely irrelevant here... especially if they were sleeping together (seems to be a safe assumption... wouldn't you agree?)
The notion that they agreed that he wasn't going to have anything to do with the child is absurd unless there's some sort of evidence of that agreement. C'mon... she wanted him in her life and, therefore, in the child's life up until three months after the child was born (roughly one year after the donation). Sounds to me like he's trying to use the fact that she couldn't get pregnant naturally to avoid his responsibilities as father.
And yes, the mother is the guardian of the child, so if she changes her mind and decides to exercise the option of seeking support for the child it is as legal as church on Sunday.
Should be repeated. You can't sign away your kid's rights. (Unless the child is unborn and the right is to life.)
This guy wasn't just a sperm donor, though, he was a live-in boyfriend. And a chump.
I think you are correct.
Rarely does a kid have the right to grow up and repeatedly biatch-slap his/her parents, and this is a rare kid.
"Not only that but the whole anonymous sperm donor thing is creating a whole generation of people who don't know if that's their 1st cousin or half-brother/sister they're standing next to in line or be matched up with on e-harmony.com."
That's really a pretty small risk. Research has shown that first cousins have only a very slightly higher risk of genetic disorders in their children. It's something less than 2% higher than in unrelated persons.
Half the states in this country have no restrictions on first cousin marriages, and that number is growing.
As for the half-brother or sister, the risk is slightly higher, but not hugely higher. In reality, it's quite possible for half-brothers and half-sisters to get married. It happens quite often, since men tend to distribute their genetic material rather haphazardly.
I think that sounds very reasonable.
Took the words right outta my mouth/keyboard.
Yep, that changes everything. Say hello to your kids daddy.
Nice try Dude! Next time a woman wants your sperm, give it to her orally.
A bank which violated a contract by releasing identifying information would be liable to the donor for any resulting support awards.
As for the "child's right" argument, I don't buy it. Legally speaking, this is exactly the same theory by which unethical lawyers like John Edwards have put thousands of obstetricians out of practice. No matter how many liability waivers the woman signs before the obstetrician assists in the delivery, these creepy lawyers get them all thrown out on the grounds that the mother didn't have the capacity to waive the child's right to sue the obstetrician. This same theory results has led to the insanity of many schools enforcing "no running" policies on their playgrounds -- if a child sustains a serious head injury after running headlong into a wall, ambulance-chasing lawyers will successfully sue the school (or district, if it's public) for millions, saying that the liability waivers the parents signed when the child was enrolled aren't valid, because they didn't have the right to waive the child's rights.
Children don't come into the world with a "right" to money. Their biological father is free to shoot himself the day the child is born (and for that matter, so is the mother), and plenty of children in the third world are born to parents who don't a dime between them. In a case like this, where it was clearly the mother's decision to bring these children into the world (she accomplished it via an IVF clinic, and paid for it herself), a written contract absolving the donor of support obligations should be enforced. But alas, these two dim bulbs didn't bother with a contract. Hope the court leaves him with enough cash to get himself fixed :-)
"Harris, who failed to get pregnant in two earlier in-vitro attempts with anonymous donors, acknowledged that Wilford fit profiles of earlier donors she had sought."
Any agreement between a mother and father (read: sperm donor) that supposedly prohibits any claim of child support isn't worth the paper it's written on.
Legally, the child support belongs to the child (Yeah, I know. Hold your laughter.) The mother may not enter into an agreement to prevent said child from receiving his or her legally entitled support from a non-custodial parent.
At least, that's what the lawyer I hired told me after a friend asked me to provide sperm so she could get pregnant without a pesky husband around.
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.