Replies

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.

I think I should have gone into a bit more detail before. IIRC, a contract to waive child support is not enforceable, because child support is an obligation to the child, rather than the parent. The sole exception is in the case of a legally recognized sperm donation, in which case the father's obligation is nada. Obviously, IANAL.

This story got my attention because it suppoted my theory that there is no such thing as "legal protection" when it comes to sperm donation, no matter what happens to be on (or not on) the books.