Posted on 07/25/2004 11:05:59 AM PDT by Slings and Arrows
Is there something in the article that I missed?
Ferguson and McKiernan met while working together and had a two-year affair. The relationship waned by late 1993, when Ferguson convinced McKiernan to act as a sperm donor with no responsibility for any child born as a result, the opinion said.
There was probably nothing "artificial" about this insemination. The Courts probably viewed it that way. I would be surprised if the woman had been artificially inseminated at a sperm bank that the courts would have reacted the way they did.
From my limited legal knowledge there are laws in some places against contracting for acts of sex (i.e. marriage contracts can not specify the frequency of sex and still be valid). This contract could have been just found null and void due to some technicality and therefore the court just found that the guy fathered the children.
In short, I think that some of the details have been left out of the news article so that it gets more attension.
Actually, that's Samuel B. Goldwyn's line, but it does sound Yogi-ish, doesn't it? (g!)
If courts let any biological parent off the hook, then the government/public have to provide the benefits of support if the single parent's life goes the poverty route and the courts are looking ahead to what could happen and that brings this decision.
Think of it this way. Mom gets a sperm donor and the donor is absolved of responsibility. The mother hits a bad patch and now needs support and can't go to the father in this case. Means we the public are going to give money away based on a private contract? I don't think so.
The courtd here say that if there is a biological parent to tap, let them be tapped.
There must have been an established need, or why award monies?
It's logical.
You have such wonderful qualities. You miss out on her dancing on your grave in a red party dress I guess! LOL
They have their own life. Your spouse shares yours!
It's an OK choice to be alone, but don't fool yourself, you may die alone and as long as you don't mind dying that way, thereisn't an issue.
Some people are not meant to be married anyway.
Ya... at least 50% of the ones that try it.
The court can not see the future and it should not pretend that it can. If this is what it is basing it's ruling on then it is basing it on the wrong thing.
Let us look at another legal contract involving children, adoption. Should the biological parents (male and female) be tapped for child support if the adoptive family hits a bad patch?
My agreement with the court in this case has to do with the fact that based on what is presented in the article the claim of a verbal agreement is dubious at best. I do not believe that child support should be required if there is a legal written agreement that the custodial parent will not seek it and the non custodial parent's rights are terminated.
Actually, CNN is on the mandatory excerpting list. No selective ommission, just forum rules.
"I now take this spermatoza as my lawful wedded husband."
He said she said.
Right. Then grow a brain, come back, and try again.
..and don't EVER say "for the children" on this Forum again, damn it.
I now understand, but what a great straight line!
That is because of the modern state of our culture. I had lots of family that died married to their first spouse. My grandparents put up with each other for 72 years and welcomed becoming deaf I think! LOL
I now understand, but what a great straight line!
Snappy Answer #1: That's "om," not "em."
Snappy Answer #2: It was more of a parabola, unless he was aiming straight down.
The issue is that they tap both parents first before going to the government.
If both parents are on the skids we have temporary safety nets, yep.
That is different than having a parent out there that may have ability to pay and having them go free without obligation.
Best to donate anonymously if at all.
I think I have to agree with you on this one.
Aim small, miss small.
And yet as this transfers into adoption how would you view it?
Say it was an open adoption where the biological parents and the adoptive parents knew each other. If the adoptive parents hit a rough patch or if they died or divorced should the biological parents be forced to pay child support?
If not then how is it different then a case where a child is living with one biological parent and has an agreement where by the other noncustodial biological parent's rights have been severed in exchange for the custodial parents not requesting child support?
In cases where a person has voluntarily surrendered parental rights as part of a agreement should they be forced to take them up again simply because the other party changed their mind?
I think this would be kind of a dangerous president to set. Courts and laws should be consistent and if they take this path there are numerous places where that consistency could be destructive.
Best to donate anonymously if at all.
Ain't that the truth!
In adoption, two people usually adopt or one in some cases with an abandoned child.
In the case of a sperm donor, they knew the result would not be a pizza, so they have some responsibly.
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.