Posted on 01/03/2008 7:16:39 AM PST by grjr21
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- A woman who promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot renege on the deal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled.
The 3-2 decision overturns lower court rulings under which Joel L. McKiernan had been paying up to $1,500 a month to support twin boys born in August 1994 to Ivonne V. Ferguson, his former girlfriend and co-worker.
"This court takes very seriously the best interests of the children of this commonwealth, and we recognize that to rule in favor of (McKiernan) in this case denies a source of support to two children who did not ask to be born into this situation," Justice Max Baer wrote in the majority opinion issued last week.
"Absent the parties' agreement, however, the twins would not have been born at all, or would have been born to a different and anonymous sperm donor, who neither party disputes would be safe from a support order," Baer wrote.
Ferguson and McKiernan met while working together at Pennsylvania Blue Shield in Harrisburg and had a sexual relationship that had waned before Ferguson persuaded him to donate sperm for her. Courts found that the two agreed McKiernan would not have to pay child support and would not have visitation rights, but Ferguson later changed her mind and sued. Ferguson's lawyer has disputed that the agreement existed in the first place, but courts have agreed with McKiernan on that issue.
Between the time of the donation and when Ferguson sought support in 1999, McKiernan moved to Pittsburgh, got married and had a child.
A county judge called Ferguson's actions despicable but said it was in the twins' best interests that McKiernan be required to support them. In addition to monthly payments, McKiernan was also ordered to come up with $66,000 in back support, although he was not required to do so until the appeal was resolved.
McKiernan noted that the Uniform Parentage Act, a model law adopted in some form by at least 19 states but not Pennsylvania, did not require anonymity in order to protect the donor from financial responsibility.
His lawyer, John W. Purcell Jr., said Wednesday an adverse decision would have jeopardized the entire system of sperm donation.
"That wouldn't just include Pennsylvania, because we found out in the course of this trial that many doctors order their sperm for their artificial inseminations out of state," he said.
Justice J. Michael Eakin, in a dissent, said a parent cannot bargain away a child's right to support and argued that the viability of sperm banks was not the issue.
"The children point and say, 'That is our father. He should support us,"' Eakin wrote. "What are we to reply? 'No! He made a contract to conceive you through a clinic, so your father need not support you.' I find this unreasonable at best."
Arthur Caplan, chairman of the Department of Medical Ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said the decision runs counter to the pattern established by similar cases, where the interests of the progeny have generally been given great weight.
"It sounds like the Pennsylvania court is trying to push a little harder into the brave new world of sperm, egg and embryo donation as it's evolving," Caplan said.
Despite the ruling, donors should still be cautious about informal agreements that ostensibly insulate them against having to support children they help conceive, Caplan said.
He called it an area ripe for legislative action.
"The principle of trying to spell out what a contract might be, what's a legitimate contract ... is not one the state Legislature should ignore," he said. "They should think about this."
Elizabeth Hoffman, Ferguson's lawyer, did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment left at her Harrisburg office on Wednesday.
Excellent point.
But, it was never his intent to become a parent, just a sperm donor. The Parenting was and is the responsibility of the mother, who in this country is allowed to be a single parent, which was her original intent.
It is not the same thing as having a relationship in which resulted in a pregnancy, intended or unintended.
In the later case, yes he would be responsible for child support and hopefully step up and be a parent.
Sperm donors however, should not be made responsible for child support when women fail in their misguided ambitions of being single parents.
If anything, he should be offered the opportunity to become a parent of his biological children, but in no way should he be obligated to be. That is his decision and moral challenge which he has to weigh with what would be in the best interests of those children. He may not even be a suitable parent.
They might be better off with adoption to a 2 parent family, and that decision should not fill him with regret on his deathbed. In fact making a wrong decision, choosing to raise them himself which he may not be very capable of doing may just as well fill him with regret on his deathbed, knowing that they could have has a better life than the one he provided.
I agree with all your posts. However, wasn't the exception to this rule the illegitimate child born to a cheating woman within a marriage? The child was legally the child of her husband, and he was obligated to raise the child if he continued to live with the woman as his wife.
You're right. If your dating includes fooling around with people you've only known briefly you're asking for trouble.
Sorry. All I see is a little blue square with a ? in it! Max Baer Jr played Jethro in The Beverly Hillbillies.
Because he is their father and is capable of providing this support. In the example I gave, if the divorced father is a professional man with two or more degrees and comes from a line of professional men in his family, it is only common sense that, should his child be capable of a college education, the father would most likely pay some of the costs. The divorce is from the wife, not from the child.
“Here’s the bottom line....the guy NEVER should have agreed to such a thing. NEVER. The repercussions, besides this interesting one, go on forever.
Parents....tell your sons.”
This entire mentality opens up the children to crazy scenarios. Both parents have to be nuts to think this will not harm the resulting children. The Mom, who thinks that she must have a child by any means possible /or she thinks it will bring they guy back into her life - and the guy who thinks his sperm donation will result in children who have no claim or emotional ties to him as their biological father. Ludicrous is the word for these types of parents. Another word also comes to mind - heartless.
We're trying - with special emphasis on the need to be prepared for parenthood.
My point is that if the law does not require married parents to fund college, it should not require a divorced parent to fund it.
I've seen more than one well off family require that their kids fund their own college education as part of that education.
Nonsense. The "parental support" falls on the mother. The sperm donor was never a "parent". He didn't sign away their right to parental support whatsoever. It just doesn't fall on him because he was only the sperm donor. The mother and any boyfriend she was living with, even though he wasn't the biological father would be more liable as "parent" as he would have imprinted on the children. In fact there are cases where a non- biological fathers have been made to make child support payments, because as far as the children were concerned, they were the only "father" they knew before the relationship collapsed.
Unless this guy was in their lives after they were born and actually parented them in some way, he can't be called a "parent".
“The children point and say, ‘That is our father. He should support us,”’ Eakin wrote. “What are we to reply? ‘No! He made a contract to conceive you through a clinic, so your father need not support you.’ I find this unreasonable at best.”
A practical example of an activist judge in action...
Time to recall this idiot.
Having raised 7 children, I can tell you it isn't easy. Every one of them will need individual instruction and careful supervision as they go through that "stage", which can last from they time they hit puberty till they are in their 20's!! My youngest son (22 now) is still driving us nuts. He's fallen in "love" 3 times this past year (with some real trashy "girls). We keep hoping a "nice" girl will come along and tame this one. Seems to be a rare thing these days.
Best wishes! I’ve got 8 children, but my oldest is only 16. After all these years of helping with babies, she wants to be an old maid with cats! (So did I at her age, so I’m not giving it too much weight.)
Keep your pants zipped up.
The other thing is: Why would you ever date someone who would lay a trap for you? There is no obligation to date someone with no morals.
You may have a point; however, the tendency is for many wealthy fathers to abandon their "former family" but lavish education and many other benefits on subsequent children by the second or third wife. Do you think that is just?
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.