Posted on 01/03/2008 7:16:39 AM PST by grjr21
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- A woman who promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot renege on the deal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled.
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.
"This court takes very seriously the best interests of the children of this commonwealth, and we recognize that to rule in favor of (McKiernan) in this case denies a source of support to two children who did not ask to be born into this situation," Justice Max Baer wrote in the majority opinion issued last week.
"Absent the parties' agreement, however, the twins would not have been born at all, or would have been born to a different and anonymous sperm donor, who neither party disputes would be safe from a support order," Baer wrote.
Ferguson and McKiernan met while working together at Pennsylvania Blue Shield in Harrisburg and had a sexual relationship that had 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. Ferguson's lawyer has disputed that the agreement existed in the first place, but courts have agreed with McKiernan on that issue.
Between the time of the donation and when Ferguson sought support in 1999, McKiernan moved to Pittsburgh, got married and had a child.
A county judge called Ferguson's actions despicable but said it was in the twins' best interests that McKiernan be required to support them. In addition to monthly payments, McKiernan was also ordered to come up with $66,000 in back support, although he was not required to do so until the appeal was resolved.
McKiernan noted that the Uniform Parentage Act, a model law adopted in some form by at least 19 states but not Pennsylvania, did not require anonymity in order to protect the donor from financial responsibility.
His lawyer, John W. Purcell Jr., said Wednesday an adverse decision 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.
Justice J. Michael Eakin, in a dissent, said a parent cannot bargain away a child's right to support and argued that the viability of sperm banks was not the issue.
"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."
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.
Despite the ruling, donors should still be cautious about informal agreements that ostensibly insulate them against having to support children they help conceive, Caplan said.
He called it an area ripe for legislative action.
"The principle of trying to spell out what a contract might be, what's a legitimate contract ... is not one the state Legislature should ignore," he said. "They should think about this."
Elizabeth Hoffman, Ferguson's lawyer, did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment left at her Harrisburg office on Wednesday.
The kids need support but its high time that fathers have equal protection under the law.
From the get go this was a sick situation.
Their mother should support them.
bttt
“Their mother should support them.”
I’m a firm believer that children need a mother and a father. Not two mommies or two daddies. Step parents are ok but the ideal should be mom and dad.
This woman should not have done this deal unless she could afford it. Its tragic for the children who will probably be supported with our tax dollars BUT men always seem to get screwed in these situations.
IMO, juding from the “previous relationship” they had the woman thought this would bring him back into her life. When it didn’t she had to go to plan B.
Yes, that’s exactly right. I have never understood how a man could agree to such a thing in the first place.
Wow. What a mess.
Here’s the bottom line....the guy NEVER should have agreed to such a thing. NEVER. The repercussions, besides this interesting one, go on forever.
Parents....tell your sons.
Yup. Fathers need to make it clear to their sons that the wallet on their hip is tied to their whip.
I agree. I think that this whole situation is dreadful and should never have happened. If there were some way to penalize the man for being an absolute dingbat, without allowing the woman to stick him up for lifetime earnings, I think it should be done. (Maybe he could contribute to a fund to inform other men of how stupid it is to donate sperm outside of marriage?)
It's tragic for the children who will probably be supported with our tax dollars ...
What's tragic is that they don't have a father in their lives. The mother presumably has a job, since she and the donor were co-workers, so there's some level of self-support.
No way would I support this in actuality, but...
If a woman has the “right to choose” and chooses to give birth to a baby when the sperm donor chooses NOT to be a father - he should have NO responsibility for supporting the child.
“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.”
In other words, ‘never mind the settled matter of the underlying contract; my feeeeeelings as a judge are more powerful. And I am above the law’
Infuriating.
“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.”
In other words, ‘never mind the settled matter of the underlying contract; my feeeeeelings as a judge are more powerful. And I am above the law’
Infuriating.
This is another reason why I’m hesitant on dating.
In another situation, a relationship could be going fine for a few months, at least to me, yet failing to her. One day she could suddenly cry rape to somebody, and have me thrown in jail for a while. Then I’d be the one in jail screaming rape, while security guards don’t help me.
It's getting to a point where guys should start thinking of freezing some sperm for future considerations of parenthood, then getting a vasectomy to protect themselves from women looking for a free ride.
Of course there is another way which works very well, but considering children are being taught to think of sex as a recreational activity, rather than a part of marriage, love and the completion of God's design.
I don't think that this is what my father had in mind when he taught me that a woman is always allowed to change her mind
You mean, "Don't donate sperm unless you want to be a full-time father for the rest of your life."?
In my opinion, any legal provisions that make it easier for either men or women to evade responsibility for the children they conceive should be eliminated.
Eve was suckered in by her own desire ... suggested by evil ... and induced Adam to fall.
Same ole / same ole ..
Now, we're not talking spiritual application here, but all scripture IS given (to us) by inspiration of God, and is profitable (among others) for instruction.
The law is given for the law breaker, and in this case .. the law sides with the man.
Eve wanted a baby from Adam and induced him to give her one ... she promised everything just to have his baby.
This time Adam was smart enough to CHA, and Eve now has two lovely kids that will probably suffer because of her dementia.
Sticky wicket, eh? ... but dems da' breaks, baby.
GOOD POINT! Most are unaware that the overwhelming MAJORITY of rape victeims are MEN...sodomized by force in prison, and swept under the rug by the Fed.gov and State.gov . Not a good place to be!
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.