Posted on 08/12/2008 12:47:07 PM PDT by PercivalWalks
Recently on Fox's nationally-syndicated Morning Show with Mike and Juliet we debated a New Mexico case where a man who had donated sperm to a lesbian couple is now on the hook for child support to the children's biological mother. The case is detailed in New Mexico Court Orders Sperm Donor to Pay Child Support (Fox News, 7/31/08):
A court battle over whether a sperm donor should pay a higher rate of child support has ended with a ruling that the man is liable because he has taken an active role in raising the children.My views on the case are as follows:Kevin Zoernig had argued he was not required to pay child support because he is a sperm donor and is protected under the state's Uniform Parentage Act.
But the state Court of Appeals noted in its July 25 opinion that this was not a case involving an anonymous donor or a known donor who provided sperm to a licensed physician under an agreement in which he agreed to have no parental rights...
Zoernig agreed in 1994 to donate sperm so that Mintz and her partner at the time, Deborah Mrantz, could have a child. After the couple broke up, Zoernig fathered another child for Mintz, again as a sperm donor.
Zoernig, Mintz and Mrantz had entered into an agreement in 1994 in which the female couple would be the child's primary custodians. Zoernig would serve as a male role model but not be financially obligated to support the child.
Mintz and Zoernig entered into a similar agreement for the second child, born in 1997, court records show.
Although Mintz is the children's primary custodian, they stay with Zoernig every other weekend during the school year and half the summer. Zoernig, 50, now is married and has three children with his wife.
In February 2000, Mintz sought child support payments from Zoernig. The parties agreed the following year that Zoernig would pay $250 a month in child support, plus $50 a month toward arrears, according to court documents.
In 2004, Mintz filed a motion to raise those payments, saying her financial situation had changed. A state district judge adopted a new rate of $670 a month.
Zoernig turned to the Court of Appeals, challenging his obligation to provide any support as well as the higher rate, since the children were conceived through artificial insemination.
The appellate court said he must pay support for both children.
The court said he "enjoys the rights of parenthood," and that the agreements entered into prior to conception "that purport to absolve him of his responsibility to pay child support" are not enforceable.
In this ABC story, Mintz said "It was shocking to me when his lawyer showed up with arguments that he shouldn't have to pay child support because he was a sperm donor. It seemed quite preposterous."
1) Zoernig, Mintz, and Mrantz made an agreement. Zoernig held up his end of the bargain and then some. Why is it that mothers are so often able to toss agreements aside in family court as soon as they become inconvenient?
2) Zoernig did Mintz and Mrantz a favor. Mintz returned the favor by handing Zoernig an invoice.
3) Some have dismissed the amount of child support that Mintz is demanding of Zoernig as insignificant. Well, when it was $250, I can understand that. Once the child support went up to $670 a month -- remember that's 670 post-tax dollars -- it's no longer insignificant. Zoernig is a musician who apparently does not make much money. Also, he is married and has three children of his own. This is doubtlessly causing him problems with his family.
4) The mother and those who sympathize with her, including two of the guests on the show, argue that Zoernig is enjoying the rights of a parent without any of the responsibilities. When we're speaking of fathers, of course, "responsibility" is a polite word for child support. I pointed out that this man has been supporting his children for 14 years by playing an active, positive role in their lives. This is far beyond anything that the mother could have reasonably expected, and we can all see how grateful she is.
5) If you want to put it simply in monetary terms, I have no doubt that Zoernig has spent plenty of money on the kids over the past 14 years. For one, they have spent much of their time with him, and he has had to provide a living place for them and cover expenses while they are with him. He has probably also bought them and provided them countless things over the years.
6) Given that Zoernig is not a high earner, even if this were a straight divorce case as opposed to a sperm donor case, there is still no reason why Zoernig should be paying Mintz money. I do believe that there are cases where child support is appropriate. For example, if one parent has been the primary caregiver during a marriage and upon divorce earns significantly less than the other parent, I believe that there should be child support. I do not see any indication of this in this case.
7) If there is anybody in this case who should be obligated for child support it is Mintz's former lesbian partner Deborah Mrantz. It is Mrantz who agreed to have the child with Mintz and the two of them agreed to raise their child. Deborah Mrantz is apparently no longer in the picture, and nobody involved in the show seem to know what had happened to her. Perhaps she left after their breakup and abandoned her child. Perhaps she was driven out of the child's life by Mintz, as is common in lesbian breakups. [To learn more about this issue, see my co-authored column Lesbian Child Custody Battles and Heterosexual Divorce (World Net Daily, 8/5/08)].
8) I'm not surprised that the New Mexico court ruled as they did. Courts will almost always rule that fathers have to pay child support because it is "in the best interest of the child."
9) What's ironic here is that Mintz, by acting as she did, probably cost the children money in the long run. Research shows that when fathers' custody rights are respected, they are quite generous with their children as they enter their college years. In my column New Study Punctures Myth of Uncaring Divorced Dad (Newsday, 6/23/03), I discussed a study which showed that, adjusting for all other factors, fathers actually provide more financial support for their children's college educations than mothers. Zoernig probably would have supplied a substantial amount of money over the kids' teen and college years and into their adult would. Now that Mintz has poisoned the well, I wonder if this will still be true.
10) Mintz was invited to come on the show by the Fox producers. She refused. That's a shame -- I would've enjoyed debating her. Apparently she didn't think she would enjoy debating me.
To watch the video of the show, click here. Also on the show with me were Chicago family law attorney Enrico Mirabelli, who made some good points about the need to respect contracts, as well as two women who sided with the mother, Melissa B. Brisman, Esq. and child advocate Trenny Stovall.
Glenn Sacks, www.GlennSacks.com
[Note: If you or someone you love is faced with a divorce or needs help with child custody, child support, false accusations, Parental Alienation, or other family law or criminal law matters, ask Glenn for help by clicking here.]
What are your thoughts?
Because we compete with them for the hot babes -- and we're much better-equipped to please the hotties.
The child in question removed from the mother and given to a family to adopt.
The father stupidly thought he could make babies on the cheap. He was wrong and any lawyer could have told him so. Had they used the services of a doctor to perform the insemination, the agreement would have been valid.
the agreement could have been enforceable under New Mexico’s adoption of the Uniform Parentage Act, but the failure of the parties to involve a doctor in the insemination process when there was a "known donor" took these conceptions outside the jurisdiction of the Act’s provision on donor insemination. What remained in the absence of the Act was the clear public policy of New Mexico that a biological father of a child has a legal obligation of support if he has held himself out as the child’s father, and any purported agreement to the contrary is unenforceable as a matter of public policy
Are you out of your freakin mind??
This loser deserves what he gets (or pays) as far as I am concerned.
a. He was not a random sperm donor. It was a private arrangement the first time between a man and two women. The second time, it was a man and one woman. They might even have known each other biblically.
b. It is vitally important that sperm donors be identified so that everyone knows to whom he is related.
In days of old when knights were bold and rubbers weren’t invented;
The men used socks upon their ***** and babies were prevented.
Man, that sounds like a lot of fun. /s
So does the same thing apply if I donate blood that is used to save a gang bangers life, and the gang banger kills a family? Am I liable for the murder?
Why is there no father on Hunter’s baby’s birth certificate? And she is fighting against any DNA testing for the father.
No, it will not. The couple didn’t use a sperm bank. They used a friend/acquaintance.
Exactly!
I made several assumptions based on the title, a bad habit of mine, but the content of the article corrected a lot of my thinking.
Since there's no way to remove or edit posts without bothering an admin (that I know of), a lot of my silly comments are out there embarrassing me for years to come. :(
An inordinate no. of posters haven’t read the article. That’s the only reason I can think of for the tremendous no. of inane comments on this thread.
I don’t know the answer, but I think it’s because, convinced as she appears to be that ‘he has the power to change the world’, she would like to see him, the father of her child, ascend to the Presidency and be seated at his own right hand. She’s protecting him so that he’s not disqualified from further runs at the Presidency in the court of public opinion.
No need to be embarrassed ‘for years to come’, for crying out loud! I have to say the hyperbole on FR is getting hard for me to handle. Take it easy already! ;-)
I am curious to know from a 'law dog' if a written contract regarding custody and support between partners and then, with the gentleman beforehand would have done anything to ward off this court case......
If this agreement was in writing, that should be that. The judge would be completely out of line for overriding the written agreement. Zoernig should appeal the decision.
If this was just a verbal agreement between them, then I guess Mr. Zoernig has learned a valuable (and expensive) lesson. Get it in writing!
There was a case some years back where a man had been having sexual relations with a woman and agreed to pay child support when she became pregnant. She had the child but he played no part (other than paying the child support) in the child’s upbringing.
The man subsequently discovered that the woman had been having sexual relations with a number of men at the time of the child’s conception. DNA testing (or perhaps blood typing) conclusively ruled out the man as the father of the child.
He petitioned the court to stop paying child support but the judge denied the request ruling, in effect, that the law was primarily focused on the welfare of the child and that, even though he was not actually the child’s father, he had been acting as if he were and that alone was sufficient connection for him to continue making support payments until the child came of age. IIRC, the ruling was upheld on appeal.
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.