MrRant 0 Report post Posted July 25, 2004 A state appeals court ruled that a verbal agreement between a woman and her sperm donor was invalid, and ordered the man to pay child support for the woman's twins. McKiernan, who has paid up to $1,520 a month in support since losing the case at trial, said he was not pleased with the ruling, but declined to comment further. "It is the interest of the children we hold most dear,'" wrote Senior Judge Patrick Tamalia. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto..._us/sperm_donor Discuss. Should a sperm donor be required to pay child support? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted July 25, 2004 Absolutely not. If a woman goes to a sperm clinic to get artificially impregnated --- well, that is pretty much HER darned fault, no? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted July 25, 2004 Fuck no, they shouldn't. 1. Sperm donors should be kept completely anonymous. Only a limited amount of information about them (primarily their medical history) should be given to the woman. 2. It's grossly unequitable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slayer 0 Report post Posted July 25, 2004 Looks like college students better just stick to blood-donating for extra cash Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted July 25, 2004 Looks like college students better just stick to blood-donating for extra cash Odd, that is how I made money in college. The authorities always called it "Being a gigolo" and that, apparently, is illegal. I know one woman tried to claim it was my child, but I gave her a fake name. Or are you telling me that some people go into clinics and spank it, blowing their load into a cup, and get aid to do THAT? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teke184 0 Report post Posted July 25, 2004 If this is a situation where she got the sperm from Sperm In A Cup Inc. , then this is bullshit. If she asked the guy to provide a sample she could use and he did, it gets iffier. However, a verbal agreement of "If you do this, I won't expect you to support the kid" SHOULD stand up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tom 0 Report post Posted July 25, 2004 Hell no they shouldn't. Whether the woman got the sperm from a clinic or from someone she knows who donated it, the donor should not have to pay one red cent. By going the sperm-donation route, the woman is obviously saying she doesn't want to raise the child as part of a family unit, and wants to do it herself. Let her. And let her twist in the bloody wind if she changes her mind. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland 0 Report post Posted July 25, 2004 No. And it sounds to me like she planned this out, using the donor system to try (successfully) to be given more money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted July 25, 2004 The real problem is I doubt any judge will rule against her since you'll see women's groups come out of the woodwork. It was only a matter of time till this pandora's box is opened and if this one is opened then you might see one hell of a giant rush to get names unsealed at sperm clinics to force those men to pay support. My answer is no. This was a set-up and a half. It sounds like she thought "oh if I have his baby then he'll fall in love with it and ME" and when that didn't work she pulled her woman scorned act and the court folded. Also, shouldn't he have the right to sue for custody and visitation rights now? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Nelly's Bandaid Report post Posted July 25, 2004 There sounds like there's a lot more to this story, I can't see a judge ordering a man to pay simply because he donated sperm. And your link is fucked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted July 25, 2004 Also, shouldn't he have the right to sue for custody and visitation rights now? Too bad I don't already have my law degree, because I'd love to handle the father's case. I'd sue for FULL custody and NO visitation rights. After all, if he's fucking paying for the kid, it ought to be his and his alone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mr. Wrestling Report post Posted July 25, 2004 Wouldn't you be a bit disturbed though knowing you have a kid running around that you don't know about? I couldn't live knowing that I have a son/daughter that I never got a chance to bond with and that I don't even know exists. Same deal for the kid, he has brothers and sisters that he/she doesn't know about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricMM 0 Report post Posted July 25, 2004 The Judge does raise a point, if perhaps "illegal"; the point being, isn't the child better off with an extra thousand dollars a month to help it along? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted July 25, 2004 The Judge does raise a point, if perhaps "illegal"; the point being, isn't the child better off with an extra thousand dollars a month to help it along? Does the dad get visitation? Nope. Did the mother know EXACTLY what she was doing? Yup. Perhaps the judge should slap the woman for being a moron. Wouldn't you be a bit disturbed though knowing you have a kid running around that you don't know about? I couldn't live knowing that I have a son/daughter that I never got a chance to bond with and that I don't even know exists. Same deal for the kid, he has brothers and sisters that he/she doesn't know about. If you spank it at those clinics, I'd imagine you're aware that it's a good possibility. Hell, how DID they get his name? I thought that was under pretty tight lock-and-key. He oughta sue the clinic. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricMM 0 Report post Posted July 25, 2004 I'm not agreeing with the Judge. But what if the mother is really pressed for money right now? what if it wasn't from a clinic? What if she sees the dad everyday? Whats going on? we need FACTS. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted July 25, 2004 I'm not agreeing with the Judge. But what if the mother is really pressed for money right now? what if it wasn't from a clinic? What if she sees the dad everyday? Whats going on? we need FACTS. The mother knew of the potential problems when she decided to get artificially inseminated with an anonoymous donor's love butter. All consequences are HER problem. -=Mike ...It'd be like asking a couple who had a woman donate an egg to allow them to have children to pay child support... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricMM 0 Report post Posted July 25, 2004 I'm not BLAMING the father, I'm just SORRY for the kid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Metal Maniac 0 Report post Posted July 25, 2004 the point being, isn't the child better off with an extra thousand dollars a month to help it along? I'd be better off with a few extra thousand a month. But that doesn't mean anyone is gonna give it to me, now does it? I'd like to actually see this story though - there's gotta be something going on here that we're missing, since the link appears fucked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted July 25, 2004 This can't be real. It just can't. Our courts are messed up, but they can't be THIS bad... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iggymcfly 0 Report post Posted July 25, 2004 http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/9235143.htm?1c There's a real link, that describes the situation a little better. It's because they actually had an affair first that they let it go that way, but it still sets a terrible precedent. I don't think a sperm donor should ever be held accountable, unless they planned to raise the child together from the start. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland 0 Report post Posted July 25, 2004 Courts generally rule in favour of the mother, though their primary concern is the welfare of the child. This sets a very bad precedent and will cause a drastic collapse in the number of people willing to donate, especially if this can be used as cause to pay child support. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted July 25, 2004 Iggy, please post the story on this thread, too. I'm not subscribing to Philly.com for this... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest I'm That Damn Zzzzz Report post Posted July 25, 2004 I'm not subscribing to Philly.com for this... You don't need to: username: [email protected] password: imaguest For reference, this u/n and p/w or a variation (usually guest for both name and pw) works on nearly all news sites wanting a password. Story: Posted on Sun, Jul. 25, 2004 Sperm donor told to pay child support The judges cited earlier rulings that a parent may not bargain away a child's right to support. By Mark Scolforo Associated Press HARRISBURG - In a case that bioethicists say could have wide implications, the state Superior Court has invalidated an oral agreement between a Dauphin County woman and her sperm donor and ordered him to pay child support for twin boys born nearly 10 years ago. A three-judge panel said the deal between Joel L. McKiernan and Ivonne V. Ferguson that he would not be obligated to pay any child support was "on its face" a valid contract, but it was unenforceable due to "legal, equitable and moral principles." Previous state appellate rulings had determined that parents may not bargain away a child's right to support. "We agree with the trial court, 'although we find [Ferguson's] actions despicable and give [McKiernan] a sympathetic hue, it is the interest of the children we hold most dear,' " wrote Senior Judge Patrick R. Tamalia in a ruling issued Thursday. The decision should give pause to sperm and egg donors who expect anonymity, Arthur Caplan, a professor and medical ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, said Friday. "Anybody who is a sperm donor ought to understand that their identity could be made known to any child that's produced and they could be seen by the courts as the best place to go to make sure the child has adequate financial support," Caplan said. Ferguson and McKiernan had a two-year affair that had "waned" by late 1993, when Ferguson persuaded him to act as a sperm donor with no responsibility for any child born as a result, according to the trial judge's written opinion. Ferguson, who separated from her husband in 1992, maintains that McKiernan was a willing partner in the in vitro fertilization. The twins were born in August 1994. Ferguson filed for support nearly five years later. McKiernan has been paying up to $1,520 a month in support since losing the case in county court. Since the twins were born, he has married, fathered two children, and moved to the Pittsburgh area. "Obviously, I'm not happy with what occurred, but I don't want to comment any further," he said in a brief phone interview Thursday. His attorney, John W. Purcell Jr., said he might appeal to the state Supreme Court. "The cautionary tale is you can't trust anybody anymore," he said. At least 19 states, but not Pennsylvania, have adopted a version of the Uniform Parentage Act, ensuring that sperm donors cannot be forced to take on the responsibilities of active fatherhood. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slayer 0 Report post Posted July 26, 2004 At least 19 states, but not Pennsylvania, have adopted a version of the Uniform Parentage Act, ensuring that sperm donors cannot be forced to take on the responsibilities of active fatherhood. You hear that KKK? No more spunking into a cup for cash for you Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted July 26, 2004 At least 19 states, but not Pennsylvania, have adopted a version of the Uniform Parentage Act, ensuring that sperm donors cannot be forced to take on the responsibilities of active fatherhood. EVERY state in the Union should adopt this Act. What this guy's getting stuck with is, quite frankly, government sanctioned robbery. It's true what they say - it's the bitches that'll get ya's. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Metal Maniac 0 Report post Posted July 26, 2004 "Anybody who is a sperm donor ought to understand that their identity could be made known to any child that's produced and they could be seen by the courts as the best place to go to make sure the child has adequate financial support," Don't you think the best person to ensure the kid's financial future would be, I dunno, THE PERSON FUCKING RAISING THEM???? Especially when you consider that the person donating the sperm probably sold it because they NEEDED MONEY. This is beyond retarded. Does this guy even know these kids? Does he even see them? It doesn't seem like it, judging by the article. And it took her FIVE YEARS to ask for money to help with the kids? Like, Jesus....this is so stupid... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted July 26, 2004 No more spunking into a cup for cash for you Anyone that wants my baby batter deserves what they get. Well, guys have to pay child support for brats that aren't theirs -- why should this be any different?... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EdwardKnoxII 0 Report post Posted July 26, 2004 Funny seems like someone else is looking to pull this scam. http://www.craigslist.org/eby/cas/37375060.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndrewTS 0 Report post Posted July 26, 2004 At least 19 states, but not Pennsylvania, have adopted a version of the Uniform Parentage Act, ensuring that sperm donors cannot be forced to take on the responsibilities of active fatherhood. You hear that KKK? No more spunking into a cup for cash for you Me too. Argh! Damn you, PA, take action here! Oh, knocking up a woman and having to pay child support without actually having the sex?! The hell?! At the very least, if he's going to have to pay, this woman totally owes him some sexual favors. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest evenflowDDT Report post Posted July 27, 2004 Man...anyone who doesn't get something this serious in writing deserves what's coming to them. I'm not denying the woman's desperate gold-digging, but at least she's showing some common sense in the ordeal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
