Sperm donor must pay child support

CNN ^ | 7/23/04 | AP

[Slings and Arrows]

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- A state appeals court ruled that a verbal agreement between a woman and her sperm donor was invalid, and ordered the man to pay child support for the woman's twins.

[chudogg]

More reason to end child support. Maybe gals would pick their mates more carefully.

[Balto_Boy]

OK, I'm back. I still have no problem with this, and I still say the child support is for the children.

[FITZ]

The child support is for the children, and they never agreed to grant the father an exemption.

Yes --- a sperm donor makes a decision to bring a life into the world --- why should they not take any responsibility for their own offspring --- it really isn't just about the money they make from donating, the child needs to be supported by his parents.

[Balto_Boy]

More reason to end child support. Maybe gals would pick their mates more carefully.

So what about the children? They're the ones who suffer if we end child support.

[Tahoe3002]

Since my moniker leaves me relatively anonymous, I will share this: After my first wife and I divorced, stupidity on my part (divorce due to nothing except my selfishness, but no children) I went looking for wife #2. Found her, a single mother with a great ten year old son, we married. Today is our 21st anniversary, my step-son and I are great friends and he and his wife are expecting their second.

But I passed up a lot more female "offers" than I accepted because I did not want to pay for children, if my next love did not last.

[Gunrunner2]

Problem is. . .the money is paid to the "mother" and she uses the bucks for gawd-knows-what. As in ALL cases of child-support payments, there is no assurance the bucks go to the child.

[Balto_Boy]

Then whose money is she using? Kids aren't cheap.

[FITZ]

Or more likely --- it's the taxpayer who suffers. Let the child's own father support him --- others who had nothing to do with the conception should not have to pay.

[Gunrunner2]

Just basing my comment on the obvious: No way to ensure the money is used for its intended purpose---to support the kid. Nothing complicated and too many times the bucks are used by the "mother" to buy booze, drugs, support the current boyfriend, whatever. Child support payments in that case only give the woman a higher level of disposable income to be wasted. If I was ever in the position to provide child support payments, I'd sure like some sort of receipts to prove the money is being used for it's proper reason (education, clothes, food, whatever). Any Budweiser beer receipts would not be honored. Like food stamps, the potential for abuse is tremendous.

[FITZ]

Child support and child custody should be changed so that the better parent gets custody and both have to provide financial support. Still these twins are the offspring of this sperm donor --- he should provide for his own offspring and their mother should also. Who else's responsibility are they?

[Gunrunner2]

Not gonna get into this any deeper. Just offering my observation regarding lack of accountability when it comes to child support payments.

[chudogg]

"The children" will be much better off when women stop having unwed babies left and right knowing they can get a blank check from some emotional-based feminized code of laws.

Two, this bears repeating - TWO - parents are necessary for a child. No amount of money for shopping sprees from some judge will replace one.

If some lady wants to be single, get a sperm donor, and raise a child on her own, thats her perogative, she can be the example to the rest.

[chudogg]

And i agree with RightOnline. "for the children" is a line that does not belong on free republic. That line has been used to many times to legitimize ignorant legislation and quell logical thinking!

[FITZ]

I agree about that --- and I think both parents should be held equally financially responsible unless they had made a written agreement between themselves otherwise.

[Balto_Boy]

"The children" will be much better off when women stop having unwed babies left and right knowing they can get a blank check from some emotional-based feminized code of laws.

And men get off (no pun intended) without having to accept resposibility for their part in this.

If some lady wants to be single, get a sperm donor, and raise a child on her own, thats her perogative, she can be the example to the rest.

And if men want to bring these children into the world, let them support them. As an example to the rest.

And i agree with RightOnline. "for the children" is a line that does not belong on free republic. That line has been used to many times to legitimize ignorant legislation and quell logical thinking!

It doesn't impress me that you're more bothered by this expression than by fathers abandonning their children, and there is nothing ignorant about holding parents accountable for their children's support?

[CobaltBlue]

If it has to be in writing then it has to be in writing.

There are two sources of law, common law (judge made law) and legislatures.

The common law says, if you get a woman pregnant, you have to support the kid.

The legislature says, if you get a woman pregnant, you have to support the kid, unless you're a sperm donor with a written agreement or waiver.

What is the judge supposed to do, write new law all by himself/herself? Isn't that judicial activism, which conservatives claim they hate?

[CobaltBlue]

too many times the bucks are used by the "mother" to buy booze, drugs, support the current boyfriend, whatever

Maybe you should consider hanging out with higher class women.

[CobaltBlue]

No amount of money for shopping sprees from some judge will replace one.

You, too, need to hang out with higher class women.

[Iron Eagle]

As usual, the press does a damn crappy job of reporting the story, so we are left to guess the most critical facts.

First, the newspaper reports that the "verbal agreement is non-binding."

Then, at the bottom of the article, it is said that "There was no evidence except his word and her word and it was a matter of credibility," he said.

These are entirely different findings.

If the Judge found no evidence of an agreement, then the ruling is: there was no agreement -- therefore he is dad with dad obligations. (That is not newsworthy).

If however, the Judge found that there was an agreement, but that an agreement not to pay child support for a child born from sperm donation is unenforceable, well that's a damn big deal. Hell, its a damn big deal even if he found the agreement was unenforceable unless in writing.

As usual, I can't trust the reporting of stories on Court decisions without some real record of the facts and the actual holding.

[chudogg]

A HA! So i condone fathers abandoning their children? Nice try. Perhaps you weren't listening when i wrote:

Two, this bears repeating - TWO - parents are necessary for a child.

So what happens when you end the kleptocratic child support system?

As i already wrote:

Maybe gals would pick their mates more carefully.

Hence, the fathers that are likely to abandon a wife and children (c'mon, you can profile them from a mile away) get picked last in mate selection. Evolution in action!

Don't try to pick and choose which comments to cut and paste to make my arguement something its not. That so.. so.. MichaelMoorian!