Sperm donor fights order to support 2 children

[losdiablosgato]

Sperm donor fights order to support 2 children
Friday, May 20, 2005

By Barbara White Stack, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette



The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is weighing a case with the potential to strike fear in the hearts of sperm donors who thought they were getting $50 for their genetic material and nothing more -- certainly no responsibility for babies created with it.

The justices heard arguments this week in a case that forces them to weigh the right of children to financial aid from two parents against the right of men to provide sperm for in-vitro fertilization without the donors being held responsible for any offspring.

"There is a lot of fear surrounding this court case because if the court extends this beyond support, to rights and obligations, then I think it will create a serious chilling effect," said Lawrence Kalikow, a Bucks County lawyer who is an expert in surrogacy, sperm and egg donation cases.

The genesis of the case is a decade-old deal between ex-lovers, Joel L. McKiernan, now of Mt. Lebanon, and Ivonne V. Ferguson, now of New York. He agreed to provide sperm for babies she wanted and she agreed to absolve him of responsibility for their progeny.



http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05140/507736.stm

[LynzM]

1. That seems absurd.

People are donating sperm so that those who want to have children can choose anonymous donation as the means.

Although in this case, unless he got her absolution in writing, I can see it being different, because it wasn't an anonymous donation or anything like that.

[losdiablosgato]

2. Anonymous is not anonymous

I assure you that clinics keep records.

[LynzM]

6. Ok, even so

When you donate at a clinic, I thought (and I could be wrong) that it was with the intent of not having the responsibility for a child. My understanding was that this decision could change that... right?

[losdiablosgato]

10. Most definitely yes

It is black letter law that child support is the right of the child. If this is upheld then all donors could become liable for child support.

[losdiablosgato]

4. The fear is that if this is upheld

A couple who had invetro from donated sperm or eggs for that matter may be able to force Anouymous donors names to be disclosed. They can then sue them for support. If this is up held it is the right of th child and the supersedes all others. This could open up Pandora's box big time.

[Bridget Burke]

3. The couple had a "binding verbal contract"?

The article points out that this decision might have some effect on anonymous "donations" to sperm banks--but, surely, they use non-verbal legal contracts.

This a special case. He should have gotten it in writing. Or requested she go elsewhere....

[losdiablosgato]

7. Child support is the right of the child not the parent or guardian

If this is up held those contracts will not be worth the paper they are written on.

[bleedingheart]

5. Sounds like the reality of raising children without the help of another

finally hit home for this woman and she decided that she needed to "undo" her mistake.

Now I am not bashing single mothers or women who chose to raise children by themselves, I in fact was raised by my mother after my father died when I was a child....BUT...my mom did need help. Raising children is one of those tasks that becomes way easier when you have friends and family that you can lean upon in times of need....like when your sick with pukey flu and you don't have the energy to even lift your body out of bed...

I am married with children and we still rely on people to help us when times are a bit spastic....nothing like grandma, cousins or a aunt to help out..

[losdiablosgato]

9. You may be right, but this does open up a can of worms

Say for the sake of argument that "Bob" donated sperm in college 10 years ago, or "Mary" donated her eggs for that matter. If this is upheld, keep in mind that it is well establiched law that child support is the right of the child, and the parent can not bargian it away. What is to stop people going after these donors for child support? Also keep in mind that many state agencies are very aggressive in getting child support for any child on public assistance. This could shut down the donations period.

[bleedingheart]

14. No doubt it is a HUGE can of worms

in this case I think that it was a bad idea to negotiate a sperm donation with someone you know.....just seems a bit of an odd agreement unless you are Dave Crosby..

[losdiablosgato]

15. It is only a short legal step fron this to.....

Someone sueing a fertility clinic to open its record and then sueing anonymous donors. And if I was considering donation, I am not. I would not until this is resolved.

[Algorem]

8. They should reject this out of hand.

If they have even a splattering of good sense.

[losdiablosgato]

11. You are asking a court to have good sense?

Good luck.

[Algorem]

12. Well then this is going to get sticky.

[losdiablosgato]

13. Did you have to use that choose of words considering the donated substance

:headbang:

[Algorem]

21. Hope it's hard for them to pull off.This would be a big stain on the robes

of Justice.

[losdiablosgato]

30. Rim shot!

[DS1]

16. There's no "accidental" pregnancy at play here, someone

bought some sperm, used it, got pregnant and that's it.

This is bullshit beyond recognition.

[losdiablosgato]

17. Not under the law

Child support is the childs, and the parent has no control over it. I see if this is upheld, first one stte then all eventually suing donors for child support if the child is in anyway on public assistance. To say this could open up Pandora's box would be a gross understatement.

[happyslug]

18. Support is the Right of the Child NOT the Child's Mother.

And as such she can NOT sign away the child's rights. Until 1988 Pennsylvania actually had a law (that went back to Colonial Days) that said a Mother could only file for Support from a Child's father within six years of the Child's birth. The US Supreme Court ruled that Unconstitutional on the grounds support was a right of a CHILD, and since a CHILD could NOT sue in their own name till age 18, any statute of Limitation could NOT start to run till the child turned 18 (and could sue in their own name). (See CLARK v. JETER, 486 U.S. 456 (1988)
486 U.S. 456, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=486&invol=456

The rationale behind this is simple, you have the right to support from your parents, and one parent can NOT deny you support from the other. This comes up often in Divorce cases, the non-custodial parent wants a lesser child support payment in exchange for giving the custodian parent the family home. This is acceptable to the custodian parent, but technically is violating the concept that Child support and division of martial assets are two different actions. It is done all the time but with both sides understanding that legally it is NOT enforceable (i.e. if the custodial parent wants to increase child support the Custodial parent can and the court will increase the support to what it is suppose to be). Remember division of Marital Assets is a right of both parents, but Child support is the right of a Child. Thus these two items are NOT to be mixed, but often are. The Court will permit such agreements only if the Court believes it is in the best interest of the Children (i.e. they get a house to live in) but with both sides understanding that the restriction on child support payment is NOT enforceable through the courts (Through the non-custodian parent can than ask for the Marriage settlement agreement to be re-opened).

The same logic can be applied to sperm donor cases, the Father can NOT challenge the CHILD'S right to support, but can demand back any money he paid to the Mother for the right to use his sperm. The problem is most sperm donors do NOT get paid for their sperm, thus no contract to litigate. I foresee the Court ruling the Father is out of luck, he could have protected himself by buying insurance but the State has a duty to make sure all children received support from their parents. The fact he was only a sperm donor does NOT stop his duty to support his off-spring.

[bleedingheart]

27. Thanks for the legal info.

[PRETZEL]

19. Heard a slightly different story,

I saw a news report yesterday on this story. What I didn't see (or is disputed from the P-G)was that the actual agreement wasn't verbal, but a written contract. Also, Ms. Ferguson was married at the time of the agreement and that the birth certificates name her ex-husband as the father. I'm only assuming that at the time Ms. Ferguson decided that the affair should not be disclosed nor the nature of the agreement. I don't know for sure if her ex-husband knew who the sprem donor was. For all I know he thought it was an anonymous donor. It appears that now Ms. Ferguson is in need of support for the children and is now trying to reneg on this agreement. I'm not sure I'd agree with the court in that Mr. McKiernan should be held responsible. If he was an anonymous donor, I doubt he would be and I'd tend to agree that even though he was known to Ms. Ferguson I believe the intent was pretty clear through her actions that the intent was to keep him anonymous, which I believe would absolve him of responsibility.

[zanne]

20. Ridiculous.

A sperm donor has to carry a child's financial burden for 18 years? And what about college tuition? And for this they're paid $50?

[losdiablosgato]

22. If this is upheld and the law is not changed then yes he will

And so will egg donors.

[Tansy_Gold]

32. Looking at it from several sides

From the child's point of view, he/she didn't ask to be born from the union of a loving mother's egg and an anonymous donor's sperm. The child, regardless of how she/he was conceived, is entitled to support.

Thus, the "anonymous" donor is legally and, in some respects, morally obligated to take care of the child, again regardless how conception is effected.

If we had a society in which public support was the norm -- day care for working parents, universal health care, education that didn't cost an arm and a leg -- there might be less incentive for custodial parents to pursue egg/sperm donors through the courts. It might also help if we didn't have a work culture that overtly and covertly discriminates against women to the point that they are often bypassed for promotion, paid less, etc., etc., etc.

But if we also had a society in which biological motherhood was less exalted and physical motherhood (i.e., doing the actual work of parenting an adopted or foster child) was more promoted, we might see fewer cases of donor-fertilized conceptions and surrogacy, with fewer opportunities for litigation for support.

Of course, that then opens the can of worms for the adopted child who is still entitled to support. How is that any different from the child of an "anonymous" sperm donor?

Two examples -- my sister-in-law and her ex-husband adopted a three-year-old who had been removed from his mother's care by CPS. The biological father reliquished all rights because he was married to someone else at the time. Ten years later, the boy is 13, the husband becomes an ex, and my sister-in-law is staring poverty right in the eye. Her ex-husband claims he has insufficient income to provide support. Can she then go back through the courts and sue the biological father??

Second example -- A woman I worked with and her husband had a biological child, then adopted a second. Five years later, she up and left the husband with the two kids. When the adopted child developed a serious health condition, the adoptive father obtained some information on the biological parents in case an organ transplant was needed. The biological mother agreed to release her identity to be contacted, and it turned out she was quite wealthy, had had this baby as a teen-ager and gave it up rather than forgo her social life. Could this now-single father sue the biological mother for support?

Another point of view -- It's my understanding that children given up for adoption have no rights of inheritance. My son-in-law was given up for adoption at birth and although he was able to locate his biological mother several years ago and has regular contact with her, even she has no idea of the real identity of his father, who was pretty much a "one week-end in the Poconos" encounter. If by some chance he learns that his biological father is a wealthy investment banker who dies and leaves a fortune to his acknowledged children, my son-in-law has no claims on it.



I feel very sorry for the children who are born into these situations, bizarre as some of them might be, but I think it's more the fault of a society that so highly values pregnancy but treats living, born women and children like crap. The only ones who win are the lawyers.

[northzax]

37. ahh, another idea

where is the legal liability (not in this case) for the sperm bank that helped impregnate a woman incapable of providing support for the child. that might be interesting...

[David__77]

23. This is extremely reactionary and dangerous.

The Christian fascists want, at all costs, to strengthen the bonds between sex and reproduction. They want to close the door on alternatives to reproduction and alternatives to sex for reproduction. Of course if this is upheld, men will simply not anonymously donate sperm and a wonderful option for women will be closed. This must be fought tooth and nail.

[losdiablosgato]

25. This is in a Blue state.

[FlaGranny]

24. Just imagine a college student

who has donated sperm 50 times, has 50 potential offspring, and potentially 50 offspring demanding child support. Whew! That, indeed, would put an end to sperm donation.

[losdiablosgato]

26. My fear this too.

[rocktivity]

28. The best argument for artificial fertilization from STRANGERS

The...judge...acknowledged that the couple had a binding verbal contract that released McKiernan from the normal responsibilities of fathers. But he decided the contract was invalid because the two had wrongly bargained away rights of the twins, particularly their right to child support from two parents.
I totally agree with the ruling, and it should have no effect on anonymous sperm donations. I find it very peculiar that the mother was married at the time, yet wanted to the donor to be someone she not only knew, but had known intimately.

:headbang:
rocknation

[fasttense]

29. What people forget about when they swap sperms, eggs and birth mothers

is that the end result is a human baby that grows up into an adult. If you were that baby wouldn't you want to know exactly who your bio and surrogate parents are? Not only that, wouldn't you want to know them intimately enough to know if you're in for some devastating genetic disease? Or know them well enough to understand that your crocked nose is known as the "Smith" nose and all your male relatives have it?

I never understood this anonymous sperm donor. What about the child you just created? Yeah, sure you want a baby so bad you're willing to put up with the inconvenience of not knowing the father. But if your child had a choice would he/she want to know? People create these human beings and don't consider what kind of convoluted, difficult situations the babies will be in when they grow up.

I don't know if the sperm donor should be held responsible. It sounds stupid to make them pay for what the woman decided to do. But then again, did the man ever consider that the child made from his sperm would one day want to know who his bio father was?

[losdiablosgato]

31. I could not agree more.

[BiggJawn]

33. It ain't the "contract", it's the $1500 a month...

Cheap-assed son of a bitch. Lip service, that's all he was paying.

" But he decided the contract was invalid because the two had wrongly bargained away rights of the twins, particularly their right to child support from two parents.

Then the court ordered McKiernan to pay $1,500 in support a month."

Gotcha, Bud!

I don't think the story is telling everything here. "Ex-lovers"? In-vitro? What's up wit dat?

[insane_cratic_gal]

34. So what if they had Triplets?

Or sextuplets and all of sudden the parents cant afford it now want compensation from the donor. What if that Man or Woman has a family of their own?

How is the right on any level? This is not consensual sex or obligation. It's a turkey baster sex with a stranger with the intent to become pregnant with the knowledge that the donor doesn't have anything to do but drop off a load =p

We don't ask people who give their children up for adoption to start kicking in for child support payments do we?

This is rather absurd.

The verbal contract the case is based upon.. I don't know how I feel about that one.

If she did go back on her word that's low on her part.

[losdiablosgato]

35. I agree, but the law apparently does not

[doodadem]

36. Responsible for hundreds of children?

Seriously, if you have a guy who is a regular donor, he could have a hundred offspring floating around out there. Now he's going to have to support all of them?
To me, this is the same argument as for abortion--people want that fetus like crazy, but when it's an actual child, not so much. You choose to have a child, or you choose to FORCE someone to have a child, then it becomes your responsibility to support.