Sperm Donors Liable for Child Support?!? AYFKM?

[Overpaid Slacker]

Be careful how you make a fast buck... you could be on the hook for child support payments for baby batter donations.

Unfreaking real. Men are just f*cked in our legal system.

My favorite is the "reasoning" in the first case cited -- that a parent can't "bargain away" a child's "right" to support. Even if there could be no child without the "bargain"? The parent can bargain away the "right" to claim child support... it's not the kids that brought suit, it's the cyount "mom", violating the express terms of the agreement that got her pregnant in the first place.

Hmmmm.... the broad gets everything she wants, without accountability or responsibility. The courts will force the guy to pay for her to have the kids she wanted and promised not to seek support for..... And why are womyn so f*cked up in America?

Is anyone here familiar with the cases (many in CA) where men are found responsible (sometimes in absentia) for paying child support, a later DNA test proves they're not the father, and yet the court still forces the guy to pay the cyount who freaking lied, falsely accused him of being the parent?... And why are womyn so f*cked up in America?

We're just f*cked.

JP

[legion]

Yep.

I love how left-leaning politicians and judges can remove accountability from those who deserve it (see RE thread) and place it on people who do not (see above).

[Jim Richards]

Every sperm is sacred.





Seriously, this sucks.

[Overpaid Slacker]

.... and the thing is, this type of judicial activism will (or SHOULD) have a chilling effect on men's willingness either to donate anonymously or to seek to assist directly a woman that he knows who wants a child.

No matter what he signs, or what she signs/promises/swears/covenants/etc., she can decide, at any time "nope, I just want the money now... this isn't the entirety of bliss that I wanted it to be, and I could use $1500/month for manicures and spa treatments and cosmetic surgery to help me feel better about my useless life and the decision that I made, of my own free will, whose consequences I'm not totally thrilled with."

JP

[dtw]

Whatza cyount?

[304065]

Interesting.

It looks like the original decision was affirmed on appeal.

A cornerstone of the decision rested on a prior decision called Kesler v. Weniger

A couple of thoughts. First, how the hell did they find the "oral" agreement to forbear child support a valid contract? Doesn't that fall squarely within Statute of Frauds as a contract requiring performance in excess of a year? Bizarro. (Despite the fact that a "valid" contract had been made, the Court deemed it unenforceable for public policy reasons.)

I cannot say, however, that I am persuaded by the notion that the mother can contract away the child's rights under the law. Consider an alternative scenario in which the mother enters into a contract absolving the father of an ongoing support obligation in favor of a lump sum payment equal to the present value of support payments until the age of majority. She then pisses away the money and goes back into court claiming that the contract is invalid, citing all the PA precedent on the subject?

How would you rule? Can she enter into a contract that binds a person not yet born? Seems to me that such a contract would be prima facie invalid due to the fact that one of the "parties" intended to be bound did not yet have the legal status afforded a fetus let alone a natural person. Again, Bizarro.

I agree with you that the whole thing is offensive to the principles of Contract. However, my point is, despite our desire to make people live up to their contracts, there is another more important agenda at work, which is providing for the welfare of children by ANY MEANS other than having them become wards of the State. Which is a bit of a 600-pound-gorilla: any identifiable source of support gets tapped for the benefit of a person who can't support themself. Unfair? Certainly through the lens of Contract, but that kind of pragmatism is a fundamental of family law.

I'm not persuaded by the "if the contract wasn't in place you wouldn't have been ever born so you don't have the right to support" line of reasoning. The point is, the child HAS been born and We have to figure out what to do.

Which opinion of mine, by the way, is in no way intended to absolve her of such horrific behavior in the first place. In today's value-relativistic society the tendency is to regard all behavior short of overt criminality as acceptable-- well, for those of you watching at home who "know immorality when you see it"-- this is it. My first thought on reading this was, "O brave new world, that has such people in't."

There is no question that there is a gross structural inequity when it comes to the rights of Fathers, but that seems to be a different set of cases, which we could go on and on about.

[Jim Richards]

Be careful with your sperm, boys.

[legion]

Originally posted by john_cramer
I agree with you that the whole thing is offensive to the principles of Contract. However, my point is, despite our desire to make people live up to their contracts, there is another more important agenda at work, which is providing for the welfare of children by ANY MEANS other than having them become wards of the State. Which is a bit of a 600-pound-gorilla: any identifiable source of support gets tapped for the benefit of a person who can't support themself. Unfair? Certainly through the lens of Contract, but that kind of pragmatism is a fundamental of family law.

Between insurance litigation in the gulf and this, the idea of a "contract" is being slowly dissolved. In both cases, there is one party that is bound by the terms of the contract (fathers and insurers) and one party who is allowed to adjust the terms to suite their wants (mothers and insureds).

[Purrybonker]

Originally posted by john_cramer
...Unfair? Certainly through the lens of Contract, but that kind of pragmatism is a fundamental of family law.

I'm not persuaded by the "if the contract wasn't in place you wouldn't have been ever born so you don't have the right to support" line of reasoning. The point is, the child HAS been born and We have to figure out what to do.

Which opinion of mine, by the way, is in no way intended to absolve her of such horrific behavior in the first place. In today's value-relativistic society the tendency is to regard all behavior short of overt criminality as acceptable-- well, for those of you watching at home who "know immorality when you see it"-- this is it. My first thought on reading this was, "O brave new world, that has such people in't."

There is no question that there is a gross structural inequity when it comes to the rights of Fathers, but that seems to be a different set of cases, which we could go on and on about.

Brilliant, thanks for that.

[TheMentat]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
Be careful with your sperm, boys.

Don't be a dummy... blow it on her tummy!

[Jim Richards]

Pull out! Pull out!

[RickM]

vas deferens valve...kind of like a Fumoto setup.

[Overpaid Slacker]

John -
I don't disagree with your characterization of that particular "pragmatism"... in fact, I think it's obvious. But I disagree with that particular pragmatism.

And I'm aware, at the margins, of the "fact that the child HAS been born." And if WE need to figure out what to do with it, I'd say WE hold the mother accountable for it, including all of the financial responsibilities involved. There are "poor" kids all over the place -- the solution is to tap this unlucky b*stard for the expenses of those kids whose care he was specifically absolved of as a precondition to their conception? That's wrong. It's unconscionable. Plain and simple; pragmatism or no.

Why not make the child a ward of the state... the same state that so cavalierly refuses to enforce the agreements between consenting, informed adults. The same state that would blithely ruin some poor, blameless b*stard's life b/c of a demented cyount. If the state wants to absolve her of these burdens and her past idiocies, the state can pick up the f*cking tab for its high moral principles.

Take the child(ren) away from the mother that can't be bothered to make good on prior commitments. Many if not MOST people shouldn't be having kids to begin with. And, unlike many single women parents, she KNEW going in there wouldn't be any help or support! But she went ahead anyway, because she weally weally wanted kids. Now this poor bastard gets to underwrite her fantasy? That's stretching "pragmatism" beyond its elastic limit.

If the state wants to absolve her of the "burdens" under that agreement, or create burdens relating to the welfare of the child that she had under her own volition, then the f*cking state can assume those burdens... rather than foisting them on the guy who did nothing wrong (other than trust a twist cyount).

It is the "mother" that sues for support -- the mother's choice to do so, as it was the mother's choice to promise not to seek any $ from the father, a critical inducement for him to provide her with seed. A "distinction" that she is "only" enforcing the childrens' "rights" is ridiculous ... she waived her ability to enforce rights for payment. Hers or the kids.

Now, she won't make good on her promises, so he has to... She can ruin his life b/c she was stupid and ruined her own, AND pulled the kids into her dysfunctional world. Yeah. Justifiable Jersey Divorce, IMHO.

Speaking of which, is it a logical extension of this "ruling" that if she were to, let's say, fall on a knife 8 or 9 times, that he would be required to take custody of and raise these children?

This is in no way to say that under the more "traditional" (oooh... it's sad to be able to use that word here) divorce or paternity settings, the father should not have to bear some expense of the children -- though, I think usually he gets A$$-reamed in the amount of the support.

JP

[Rick Lee]

JP, you are my hero. 100% right.

[Jeff Higgins]

I see donations to sperm banks coming to a rather abrupt end. I may have considered such in the past, to help out a couple unable to conceive, but certainly not in light of these rulings.

I wonder if men that currently have "accounts" can demand their donations be returned or destroyed? If I had made a donation somewhere along the line, I would no longer feel comfortable having it made available.

I see all kinds of potentially bizzare twists and turns to all of this. A sterile man divorces his wife, after she has borne a child or two through artificial insemination. He is a no good lout; not likely to be able to provide support as ordered by the court. But the donor, well, he happens to be quite wealthy (and unfortunately for him, somewhat philanthropic...). How about an unhealthy baby/child, or disabled in some way, requiring a lifetime of expensive care? This could go on and on.

The bottom line is people need to be held to the agreements they make. We have seen a shift from personal responsibility in our society that simply is not healthy. The idea that a woman can make such a monumental decision as to start another life, agree to certain terms to do so, and later break that deal while holding some one else responsible is wrong.

I just love the argument that she is making a decision for a life not yet born. A decision she has no authority to make. Priceless. So what, then, is abortion? She cannot make the decison of who supports the child when it is born, yet she can make the decision of whether it is born or not? What a crazy, mixed up world it is.

[RickM]

I think a major difference is that it was done on a one-to-one basis. If through a bank the donor would (should) be kept anonymous. If not and the mother goes after the father the bank would be on the hook (as well?)

Add: I can see both sides to the argument but lean strongly towards JP's line of reasoning.

[304065]

I think there's an Elephant in the room, which is that the PA court's ruling was a shot over the bow against the practices of this Brave New World. But let me riff for a minute. . .

On the one hand, we have The Law, which generally awards custody to the mother for the simple expedient of identification. Krier (our old Property professor in Law School) went on about how at the Common law, the calf belongs to the owner of the cow, not the bull, merely because it's easier to determine maternity than paternity. Going along with that is the responsibility of the noncustodial parent to pay child support to the custodial parent, and depending on the jurisdiction, a matching contribution from the custodial parent and an accounting of expenditures are required.

The fact that the female is usually the custodial parent does little to dispel the implication that the law contains an inherent gender bias. But I suspect that most fathers don't have a problem with paying support for, for example, their own children in the custody of their divorced spouse; it's the fact that the divorced spouse is controlling the funds that causes frustration. Frustration often leads to garnishment but that's another story. . .

The fact that there are "poor" kids all over the place is argumentation Tu Quoque I think. What we do about THEM is a separate discussion.

So is everybody in agreement with the policy behind custody and child support? The State is trying to allocate responsibility equitably among the biological parents of the child, in a balance between custody and money.

Now take a step into the shadowy corner of Domestic Relations into the area of sperm donation, and just to really get everybody's emotions into a froth, let's throw in contracts for Surrogacy also. In the typical case, a woman seeking a sperm donation is NOT looking for anything more than the donation and the donor isn't looking for custody or visitation rights with respect to the later-born child, so you have the intentions of the parties reinforcing whatever "contract" is made. Also, the anonymity of the donation makes it difficult to enforce the entitlement of the child to support.

Does that change the law? Should society's interest in encouraging the economic and moral benefits of sperm donation and the interest of women (I haven't said "married couples" yet) in becoming inseminated outweigh the right of the child to economic and custodial support from its biological parents?

I don't think it should. I don't think that we taxpayers should have to foot the bill for the upbringing and maintenance of the offspring of a known sperm donor father who had had a prior extramarital relationship with the deceitful (in the instant case) mother who had an impostor pretend to be her husband for the purposes of insemination.

I am deliberately "loading" the policy-balancing argument with those actual facts because what I really think happened, what the Elephant in the room really was in this case, was that the Court took a dim view of the behavior of both father and mother and interpreted their behavior as something more than an anyonymous donation relationship. One wonders whether a similar outcome would have been reached had the father been an anonymous donor identified by a subsequent DNA test. Although I freely admit that under this decision, such an alternative scenario would arrive at the same result.

Policy argument: Given a choice between honoring the contractual agreement among the parties for their individual economic benefit and creating a ward of the state, I would break the agreement. We should not punish the taxpayer nor the child for the behavior of the parents.

I would distinguish between the custodial spouse's demand for alimony and the demand for child support, although I acknowledge that these are often commingled and perceived as the same thing. Once that distinction is accepted, so too are the "rights" that ascribe to the born child, although again the question of guardianship blurs the facts.

So if you accept that argument, what are we left with? Well, for one thing, sperm donations will be conducted only by the truly judgment-proof. Not exactly Olympians of the Gene Pool, these. Well-meaning married couples who divorce would have their estranged spouse, an intermediate "shallow pocket," interposed between the sperm donor and the custodial parent's demand for support. What about the enforceability of contracts of Surrogacy? Seems to me you can't have it both ways: once the "veil" of contract between biological mother and father is pierced, NO contract of surrogacy would withstand challenge under these rules.

See what I mean by a shot across the bow?

[Purrybonker]

Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker
...blithely ruin some poor, blameless b*stard's life b/c of a demented cyount. ...relating to the welfare of the child that she had under her own volition, then the f*cking state can assume those burdens... rather than foisting them on the guy who did nothing wrong (other than trust a twist cyount).

...Speaking of which, is it a logical extension of this "ruling" that if she were to, let's say, fall on a knife 8 or 9 times...
JP

Hey, that misogyny counselling is coming along pretty well, I see!

Bravo!

Keep fightin' the good fight...

[304065]

Hey JP, your Canadian cheering section is looking for attention again. . .

[Purrybonker]

oh, actually I was cheering for you, did you miss it?

Sheesh, no more positive feedback for you if you're going to start copping attitude young man.

This clash of the titanic egos is just too engaging not to encourage.