JayB Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Court says no. How would you call this one? "Sperm Donor Wins Case Over Child Support January 3, 2008 - 5:26am By MARK SCOLFORO Associated Press Writer HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a woman who promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot renege on the deal. 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. "Where a would-be donor cannot trust that he is safe from a future support action, he will be considerably less likely to provide his sperm to a friend or acquaintance who asks, significantly limiting a would-be mother's reproductive prerogatives," Justice Max Baer wrote in the majority opinion issued last week. 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. McKiernan's lawyer, John W. Purcell Jr., said Wednesday an adverse decision against his client 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. Ferguson and McKiernan met while working together at Pennsylvania Blue Shield in Harrisburg and had a sexual relationship that 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. A county judge said it was in the twins' best interests that McKiernan be required to support them. In addition to monthly payments, McKiernan also was ordered to come up with $66,000 in back support. The appeal reverses that order. Elizabeth Hoffman, Ferguson's lawyer, did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment left at her office Wednesday. Justice J. Michael Eakin, in a dissent, said a parent cannot bargain away a child's right to support. "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." ___ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountainstyle Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Shit, if you can't have the little beasts naturally, why have 'em at all. There is no way the "sperm donor" should be legally responsible for the progeny of conception via artificial insemination. It would be different if the two people were in a relationship and agreed to have children together via artificial means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Women who choose to have a child by a sperm donation should expect to receive no support from the donor unless otherwise ageed beforehand. If this is not upheld then there is no such thing as a sperm doner. There is just mother and father who should have equal custody rights and to decisions on how the child is raised. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 I say he who smelt it dealt it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 I say he who smelt it dealt it smell the glove! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Weird. Given the emphasis on the childrens' needs in these cases (assuming the mothers in question are suing out of desperation to satisfy them), will we see applicants for artificial insemination subject to a similar scrutiny as applicants for adoption any time soon? That is, given the mothers' implicit inability to raise these children on their own (that is after all why they are suing?), should The Man have stepped in to make sure they were prepared to raise children in the first place? My gut says no, but rulings for the mother in such case, which are a essentially a retroactive attempt to simulate an originally suitable child-rearing situation, suggest otherwise. One could imagine a Brave New World-like scenario based on such an extension of the government's jurisdiction over procreative relationships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 This is not really an issue of child support. It is an issue of contracts. If your contract with a person states that they do not have to pay you in the future, then they do not have to pay you. Seems simple enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 My contract was with my Urologist. No more larvae. The world is safer that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.