Posted on 12/01/2007 2:01:29 PM PST by ChildOfThe60s
Court says sperm donor liable for child support
BY SOPHIA CHANG
sophia.chang@newsday.com
December 1, 2007
A Nassau County man who said he donated sperm to a female co-worker as a friendly gesture -- and then sent presents and cards to the child over the years -- is legally considered the father and may have to pay child support for the college-bound teenager, according to a judge's ruling.
Still, he took the unusual step of allowing his name to appear on the child's birth certificate because he thought it was in the child's "best interests that he would have an identity when he grew older," he said in court documents.
--snip--
He also sent the child money, gifts, and cards and letters signed "Dad" or "Daddy," and spoke to him by phone about seven times in the past 15 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
He thought of it as a “friendly gesture”.
Kind of sucks, have the kid without all the fun.
He was a father in absence.
Without following the links, did she ever marry or was this a same sex couple?
Will David Crosby be hit up for child support later?
“He thought of it as a “friendly gesture”.”
Sorta like Monica’s actions with Slick Willy!?!?!?
He should have just had himself cloned. Then the kid could call him “Clone Daddy”.
Didn’t I see this moron on TV at the Nevada debate?
Probably at the company's Christmas party.
Egad....the poor guy is screwed without getting laid!
The only way to donate sperm is the way nature intended.
"After learning the woman and her female partner wanted to have a baby, the man donated his sperm and the woman gave birth on July 26, 1989. Married at the time, the man agreed that he would not have any rights or benefits in raising the child, but the verbal agreement was never put in writing, according to court documents."
The guy made a lot of mistakes but he shouldn’t be held responsible for the child support. As much as I hate acnknowledging it, the kid had “parents” which were the biological mother and her partner. Since both women’s income is being factored in, it is clear the court considers the second woman a “parent”. With open adoptions these days, it makes no more sense to rule this than to force a parent who placed a child for adoption to support that child years later.
If these aren't recognized by the court, then they're de facto admitting he's not the legal Father, and that they're just trying to commit extortion.
the “mommy” lesbian, proves that men are required for children to be spawned, and “daddy’s” are required for raising
If he has to pay child support, the kid should be required to play catch with him every day.
No good deed goes unpunished when you are dealing with the mentally disturbed percentage of Democrats.
He should never put an acknowledgement in writing that he was the father of the child. Putting your name on the birth certificate is an acknowledgement of paternity, it is not something to be done because you are being "nice". He should have just walked away and sought out the child at age 21.
“Kind of sucks, have the kid without all the fun.”
Depends on how he made the donation.
If the child is already 18 years old it's kind of late for 'decision making' I would say, unless he says, "no college for you!".
[From the article; Married at the time, the man agreed that he would not have any rights or benefits in raising the child, but the verbal agreement was never put in writing,]
He obviously didn't think this through as far as possible future legalities, he was just a 'nice guy' who got 'done wrong', lol!
Hope he wasn't 'nice' to any others....!
As Dr. Laura whines when a man learns through paternity tests that the child he’s been funding all of his/her life is not his, “you” are still accountable to see that the child is brought up well, for all intensive purposes you HAVE been “daddy” even if there is no legal visitation, lots of slurring of your name that the child has heard from the mother, and no blood relation.
I do not agree with that stance but there are a lot of women who do.
Perhaps they are suing FOR BACK CHILD SUPPORT.
[Perhaps they are suing FOR BACK CHILD SUPPORT.]
Yes, I thought of that and that would be gruesome, wouldn’t it? I did read the article, the judge had to be a bleeding heart liberal.
Years and years ago I had a business associate who lived in PA,,,,,he and his wife had seperated, not divorced, the wife became pregnant by another man, however, my associate was deemed liable for supporting this child. He went to court and the court ruled that even though this child was not his, he was still responsible because his marriage had not been dissolved....my associate knew who the father was, had the guy standing beside him in court, but the judge would not allow the evidence presented in court. Sounds like something they’d do here in MA, fathers get screwed about 99.9 percent of the time in this State. There was a case a long long time ago here in my town,,,,the couple was seperated, the woman was a whackjob, she was a known druggie, her MO was as follows, she’d call her husband and tell him one of the kids had been seriously injured and he needed to get over there right away, he would show up, she would call the cops and say the guy was trying to break into the house. She did this on more than one occasion, the last time the guy had enough sense to call the cops to meet him at the house so they could see exactly what was going on....of course they saw but nothing was done to this woman, nothing at all. One of these incidents landed this guy in jail for B&E even though he never did it, he lost his job, etc. and when he got out of jail he was cited for non payment of child support so they put him back in jail for 30 days, it was a vicious circle, it went on for years, finally the kids were old enough to be legally on their own, after that the wife tried unsuccessfully to blame this guy for all kinds of things but he always had an alibi that could be proved.
Anonymously!
I did it the old fashioned way, got screwed out of everything anyway. Parenting is vastly overrated.
“friends with benefits” alert.
Funny, the way fertility rates PLUMMET the more women are protected, eh?
I guess it's better for you and I as taxpayers to pay that lil'gal's way through school than here very own daddy.
More like a loan.
Good reason to not get a "Catholic Divorce" ~ that's the one where you simply legally separate.
Gotta' be the whole thing or it's nothing.
Nothing stops the court from forcing the babydaddy to ALSO pay.
And, best thing of all is that any legal presumption that relieves the taxpaying public (you and me) from having to pay for some other man's whelping habits, that's all good.
The part that really creeps me out is that he sent cards to the kid signed “Daddy.” I can only imagine how confusing/hurtful that must have been for the child.
Very sad case for your friend. The general law around the country has always been that any child born to a married couple was deemed the child of the couple. The idea was to stop others from disrupting the marriage by claiming the child was theirs. It was never intended to be a situation where the real father was willing to claim paternity and assume responsibility. I assume your business associate had the guy in court but that “father” was not willing to assume financial and legal responsibility for the kid. Given that one guy was definitely on the hook (your friend) the wife, court went for him and not bio dad. It once made sense to have such a rule but it is certainly anachronistic now.
Sadly, too many women see men as simply a paycheck and sperm donor. The socialist welfare programs have not discouraged this view and so-called women’s rights group downright require that attitude. Men are getting the raw deal more and more these days. It pays to be VERY careful when dealing with procreative powers.
I’ll bet you a housekeeper playing doctor would do something equally stupid.
In this case I can see the court’s decision.
From wsu.edu:
FOR ALL INTENSIVE PURPOSES
FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES
Another example of the oral transformation of language by people who don’t read much. “For all intents and purposes” is an old cliché which won’t thrill anyone, but using the mistaken alternative is likely to elicit guffaws.
that’s true....he should be entitled to full parental rights
he could even sue for custody
if it’s a boy, he might get him after aged 12 if the lad desires it too
before that they only give custody to dad if mom is a crack whore
..who threatened the President
...and got caught with a nuclear weapon
...and ate her other kids
then maybe the judge might give dad custody
Ok, the ruling is pretty outrageous, I agree, but here's the reality, gentlemen: if you manage to deposit 100 million live spermatozoa up a woman's genital tract by any means whatsoever, there will be consequences.
Bank on it. The Babymama did.
So I guess the lesbian decided that men are necessary for at least two aspects of child rearing: biologically and financially.
I decided early, 19-20, never to be a father. I did not want to raise kids the way I had been raised, plus risk losing them in divorce. So, the second time to wed, I married a lady with a 10 year old son. Pretty much raised him and now get to play with his kids a few times per year.
I did make many “donations”, but no way would I break my rule about becoming a father. And it cost me my first marriage.
The bio dad was willing to take on the financial responsibility, he was not aware the child was his but after seeing the child he knew right away that he belong to him,,,,the court didn’t care, they would not allow any evidence to that fact to be heard.....but, the end was this, the bio dad (unbeknownst to the mother of the child) gave the husband the child support money and in turn he gave it to the wife....after a year or maybe two the couple divorced and the bio dad just paid the money directly to the child’s mother. There was a paternity test involved at some point so the mother could not go after her ex-husband anymore. Live and learn!
Glad to hear the bio dad was a stand-up guy. The “legal” dad was very lucky. It pays to protect yourself as much as possible these days, unfortunately.
.
LOL!
Thanks potlatch!
One I’ve missed!
Anonymity has been the defining factor in accountability regarding sperm donation in all court precedent that I’m aware of. Regardless of country, anonymous donor = no support requirement. Named donation usually gets you screwed (in the bad sense of the word).
One of the nasty cases I’ve heard of is a woman saving sperm from oral sex to use to impregnate herself. The judge ruled that the sperm was a “gift” that she could do what she wished with, and the father was on the hook.
I think that’s one that I had to ‘rework’ or else it was the one of him with Snoopy flopping around in his lap. Perhaps both, lol, been awhile.
Doh!
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.