Sperm donor loses appeal on child support

The Patriot-News, Harrisburg, PA, U.S.A. ^ | July 23, 2004 | REGGIE SHEFFIELD

[Motherhood IS a career]

Follow the money.

Actually, I think it's more like "Follow the DNA."

"Poor misguided fool" {imo... IDIOT} is no excuse - there are two innocent children's lives at stake. The donor was not anonymous.

[Leatherneck_MT]

That's generally the case when dealing with family courts.

[elfman2]

”So the two gals fall in love get married in MA or SFO, and decide to have kids. They stop by the local sperm store, load and shoot. Nine months later, need some money for the kid. OK who's ammo did we get?"

If the judge’s ruling were sound, which I doubt, I think that it would form the basis for a class action against a group of anyone who’s ever anonymously donated sperm. I suppose all would share responsibility.

[Age of Reason]

SouthernFreebird

No.

If the mother was not legally married to the biological father, it is the mother's responsibility only.

If that is bad for the children, then the sin upon her head--not upon the government and society.

Should government instead do as you suggest, then government is guilty of a greater sin:

The undermining of legal marriage, and the misery and chaos that ensues to millions more children and to the nation.

[Age of Reason]

Poor misguided fool" {imo... IDIOT} is no excuse

Not an excuse.

He was poor and misguided because he didn't get away with it.

[patriot_wes]

"According to the court papers, Ferguson persuaded McKiernan to donate his sperm for in vitro fertilization in 1993, when their relationship waned. Ferguson was married, but her husband filed for divorce on the day she underwent the IVF procedure, court papers said. "

Whackos - play with fire - get your a** burned!

[Age of Reason]

Actually, I think it's more like "Follow the DNA."

OK.

Then let's get government out of the marriage business since there's no reason for it.

And from now on, any woman who says the father of her children is not supporting them, let her take the supposed father to court and let the DNA testing begin.

[Motherhood IS a career]

Any woman fool enough to make a child out of wedlock, the father(s) should be free of any responsibility.

or...why not...?

Any MAN fool enough to make a child out of wedlock should be held as equally responsible for that child's welfare as the mother.

The priority is not the FOOLS' rights, it's the children's rights... they weren't involved in this stupid decision making process.

[Leatherneck_MT]

How about

Men, in 90% of all of these cases are the ones that pay the money.

If the CHILD is the one who rates the child support, then BOTH parents should be made to pay equally.

EQUALLY

Then this bullshit in the courts and in the bedrooms might come to a halt.

[Puddleglum]

Using the same logic, every sperm bank donor would be responsible for some unknown number of children

Exactly. That's why I called it fast-food fertility. Donors to sperm banks know their sperm is intended to create children. They are knowingly entering into the business of parenthood.

[BlueMondaySkipper]

This ruling might have a chilling effect on those who flash freeze The Boys for use by other parties.

Exactly what kind of parties do you go to?? :-)

[Motherhood IS a career]

My point is that the only VICTIMS here are the children. The poor misguided sperm donor is not a victim of the courts.. he's a victim of his own actions.

But now there are two children in the world. Why don't we just cut them both in half, Solomon?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

My only question here is why the case was ruled on by just a judge and not tried by a jury...

Anybody who agrees to a trial by a judge is a fool.

[elfman2]

”Donors to sperm banks know their sperm is intended to create children. They are knowingly entering into the business of parenthood."

Unless they were informed of a precedent invalidating their donation contracts (which they weren’t because one probably did not exist) then they “knowingly” entered into nothing of the kind.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Aside from this issue, men could be removed from the entire reproductive process.
Not a pleasant thought. :(

Just think of it as preparation for life as a middle aged married man.....

[Little Ray]

No it doesn't.
The woman could have aborted and the man would have no say the in the matter. If the woman decides to bear children out of wedlock, she has no claim on the father for support.

[Little Ray]

I'd still question the ruling. If a woman can choose to have an abortion and the man has no say in the matter, then it would be just for the man to claim he has no financial responsibility. Its time this "reproductive rights" crap became a two-way street.

[Puddleglum]

Unless they were informed of a precedent invalidating their donation contracts (which they weren’t because one probably did not exist) then they “knowingly” entered into nothing of the kind.

What did they think they were donating for? To make sea-monkies? When you make a baby, you are one of its parents. That's basic biology that no contract can void.

[elfman2]

"If the CHILD is the one who rates the child support, then BOTH parents should be made to pay equally. EQUALLY "

That’s a good principle. But so is the principle of not changing the rules of contracts in such a radical way and extracting money in retrospect.

[Vinnie]

Just think of it as preparation for life as a middle aged married man....

LOL

Been there, done that, have the tee shirt( emblazoned with 'Dirty Old Men Need Love Too').