Who is the legal father in this case?

[bloom]

This is a true story. (I got it second hand from one of the lawyers involved in the court case. The facts of the case are not disputed...)


There were 2 couples out on a double date. Parked the car somewhere.

The couple in the front seat had sex - using a condom. Then the couple in the back seat had sex and used the same condom as the couple in the front seat. The guy turned it inside out. So - of course - the woman got pregnant with sperm from the guy in the front seat.

Who is the father?

[Oceansaway]

1. i'll take a stab....

one of the two guys??

[bloom]

6. yep - it was one of them. n/t

[onehandle]

2. DNA test. nt

[bloom]

10. This is giving it away, but...

The DNA test was NOT the deciding factor in the case. It was the man who actually had sex with her who had to pay child support.

[Neil Lisst]

36. Really? I'd love to see that opinion. Have you got it?

I strongly suspect if the other man had to pay child support, he was married to the woman he impregnated, OR, there is some other factor not being disclosed by the OP.

The biological father is always on the hook to the child UNLESS there is an action to terminate that man's parental rights OR there is no determination that he is the biological father.

Like I said, please provide the opinion and the court. Then we can find out what the holding really was.

[bloom]

47. I don't think every court case

is posted on the web.

If it had gone up on appeal, maybe.

Sorry - you have to take my word on it.

The lawyer said someone wondered whether it would be appealed - but the people involved - as you remember could only muster one condom between the four of them - nobody was going to pay for an appeal.

No one was married.

[lakemonster11]

96. That makes sense to me.

I mean, this guy basically inserted the other guy's semen into her. It would be the same way if he had used a turkey baster or something.

But that's a disgusting story. Who uses a used condom? Ewww.

[Ilsa]

3. How disgusting!

Are the couples married couples or single couples? I would think that they are probably married, otherwise it is a matter of biology, not legal status.

[bloom]

5. Nobody was married. n/t

[MSgt213]

7. Disgusting is what I thought too!!! Using the same condum. They should

all go to jail for being morons.

[madinmaryland]

84. My thought exactly MORANS!!!!

:wtf:

Thats just gross.

[eyesroll]

4. Wouldn't the bio father be the father, period?

(I will learn actual laws and how to do this correctly next year. I'm guessing wildly here.)

OK, in Wisconsin (where I am), a husband is presumed to be the father of a child born within a marriage, unless proven otherwise. (That's why, if a woman gets pregnant during a divorce, it can significantly delay things, even if her ex is in another country and there's a clear father.) So, if the couple with the pregnant woman is married, it's assumed to be his, and if nobody contests it, that's what'll stand.

But, if there is something contested (or nobody's married and they need to establish paternity) I would assume the circumstances of conception are irrelevant.

And, I will add: Eew.

[Debau2005]

8. I have to second the...

EEWWWWW! And I'll add a spine shiver as well...YUCK.

[nickinSTL]

9. I'll agree with the Eew...

And, were these people complete idiots? :dunce:

The legal father's going to be the bio, regardless of the fact that he wasn't the guy the mother had sex with. Messy. :evilgrin:

[bloom]

11. ...

nope - the father is the one who had sex with her - not the one whose sperm she got.

[serryjw]

17. I guessed wrong.....

why?

[bloom]

19. I think the judge

decided that it was more important who the actual man was who had the sex - not the guy who was "nice" enough to lend him his used condom.

The judge may have also figured that it was the guy who used the condom who was responsible for using it - and should be the one responsible for the consequences - child support.

[Somawas]

23. I agree. Any judge deciding it on the basis of "the fucker's the feller"

is a fucktard.

[Yupster]

14. I don't know?

What a case.

It seems there should be a consent issue here.

If a woman impregnates herself using someone's sperm without his knowledge or consent it seems like he wouldn't be held to be the legal father.

In this weird case I would think unless the man gave his consent for the reusing of his condom, there wouldn't be consent and therefore legal responsibility.

Does that make any sense?

[bloom]

26. I don't know if any of them were thinking ? ...

if they were all drunk or what.... or if the woman even knew the guy turned it inside out ???


But it was the guy who actually had the sex with the woman in the backseat- not the one whose DNA was used who was considered to be the actual father.

I think it makes sense.

[acmejack]

12. C'mon no one is that stupid!

Not even here in Texas!

[xmas74]

65. A few years ago there

was an article about teens using breadbags as condoms. They'd turn them inside out and reuse them.

Yes, people are that stupid.

[Acryliccalico]

70. I was thinking the same thing....... LOL ..n/t

[babylonsister]

13. Gross! I can't get beyond that! nt

[serryjw]

15. I'll give a guess

front seat sperm donor. He would legal standing for parental rights?

[bloom]

16. ...

No - the legal father is the man who had sex with her. The accidental sperm donor doesn't have to pay.

(everyone is getting it wrong)

[serryjw]

18. Sooooo what happens when he

wants parental rights?

[bloom]

21. Technically

he wouldn't have any.

But then - sperm donors generally don't. So you could it figure it could be like that.

[serryjw]

25. WOW!

Great legal question. Wonder if it would be true in all states

[bloom]

29. I don't know

that there are laws to cover such circumstances.

Sometimes the judge has to figure what makes the most sense.

I think if the judge had tried to say that the sperm donor was responsible that that guy would have had a case to dispute. So that's one way of looking at it.

The guy who had sex with the woman - who used the used condom wouldn't have much of an argument to make to get out of it.

[serryjw]

31. The more I think about it

the more I agree....Fun, how about another one from your friend

[bloom]

51. Maybe one of these days

He does come up with some interesting things sometimes.

[NV Whino]

20. There is a real easy solution to this

Sort of a reverse Solomon as it were. Both the stupid fuckers pay. Were I but a judge....

[Warpy]

22. "Too dumb to breed" comes to my mind

I mean, eeyuck, a used condom? One contaminated by spooge on the surface? Obviously, protecting the women wasn't part of this particular scenario.

Rather than determining paternity, any judge looking out after the kid's welfare would do well to terminate all parental rights and give the kid to somebody who knows the basic mechanics of reproduction.

Every time I think the dumbest stunt in the world has been done, some other idiot comes along and tops it.

[Oversea Visitor]

24. WTF

Sharing condom?
This mega spin right.

[LisaL]

27. The second guy deserves to pay child support.

If just for being so damn stupid.

[Orangepeel]

28. Huh. I guessed wrong. It would be interesting to know all the particulars

gross, but interesting.

Did the man who had sex ask to use the condom? He he take it without letting the sperm donor know? Did the sperm guy know the condom would be turned inside out?

Let me think of an extreme example where it would be clear that the second guy had responsibility for the child. Say the first guy came all over the sheets and, without his consent, the second guy sucked it up with a syringe and squirted into the woman. Keep changing elements and the question gets fuzzier.

[bloom]

30. I think that it was

the guy in the back seat whose idea it was to re-use the condom.

I don't think the guy in the front seat would have expected the guy in the back seat to turn it inside out - but I think it was the responsibility of the guy in the back seat either way.

[TrogL]

78. You are responsible for your jizz

I make sure my condoms are flushed or at least disposed of. The back seat isn't it. I'd make sure it ended up at least in a trash bucket.

[bloom]

80. A guy couldn't assume

that a judge would decide the case this way. I would agree with that.

People should take care.

[Poll_Blind]

32. Gross but logically interesting. I remember the case of a tennis...

...star who received a blowjob from a lady. One time affair. But the lady wound up becoming pregnant by the fellow! I believe in his case he, or someone, postulated that the woman saved the sperm and then turkey-bastered it inside herself shortly thereafter. If I recall, the tennis star had to pay up.

Interestingly, this is another good reason why having intercourse (or whatever) is only a good idea when you really know who it is you're dealing with.

PB

[LisaL]

35. I don't think the guy was a tennis star, but maybe there

were two similar cases.

[AngryAmish]

85. Boris becker

[lakemonster11]

97. I was thinking of this case, too.

But I think the difference is that the judge in this case (if I'm remembering right) sympathized with the guy, but thought it was in the best interests of the baby to have child support.

In the case we're discussing on this thread, it's not a choice between no child support and child support. It's just a question of which guy will pay.

[Neil Lisst]

33. This is an easy question. The father is the sperm donor, always.

Even an anonymous sperm donor or a donor who was promised by his lesbian friends that they would never hold him liable is a father under the law.

The child has a right of support from that father as well as a right to inherit from that father.

[LisaL]

34. Well, how come sperm donors aren't paying child support, then?

The second guy did impregnate the woman, even if it wasn't his own sperm. He should pay.

[Neil Lisst]

38. That is an issue of negligence, an entirely different cause of action.

Can the guy who used the used condom be held negligent in a civil proceeding held as an adjunct to the child support issue? Probably, but that is not child support, it's damages to the man who must pay support, the biological father.

This sounds like the sort of tale that isn't what it is represented to be. I'm still waiting to hear who the source was for this tale. Most stories like this are badly bungled repeating of a case that held something entirely different than represented by those who repeat the story.

The question posed by the OP was who is the legal father. I've answered that, and I'm quite confident of the answer. Believe what you will.

[LisaL]

42. The biological father did not have sex with the woman.

Sperm donors do not pay child support because there is no sex involved.

[Neil Lisst]

45. You're misinformed.

You're talking about your misperceptions, not the law.

If I contribute sperm to a woman who wants to have a child, who then uses a turkey baster to impregnate herself, that child has full rights of inheritance, and full rights of child support against me.

[LisaL]

48. I am not sure WTF are you even talking about?

I am mis-informed, and sperm donors pay child support? There are men who anonymously donate sperm, and no one says they should be paying child support, or leaving some sort of inheritance to their biological offsprings. These men could have hundreds of biological offsprings, by the way. Who in their right mind would donate sperm, if they were made to pay child support for hundreds of children?

[Neil Lisst]

56. Why don't you cite the law that says they aren't liable?

There may be some law in some state that holds certain sperm donors are immune from paying child support. I'm not aware of any, but it could be the case.

The general proposition in every state is that the biological father is legally responsible to the child as a matter of law. Whether that father is required by the child or its agent to pay child support is a different issue entirely.

Did you ignore the turkey baster story? It really happened.

You're confusing what the law is with what you either think it should be or misperceive it to be.

[LisaL]

59. Ever heard of sperm bank? These men donate sperm,

and anyone can use it. If these men were legally responsible for their children, do you think they would donate sperm?
LOL.

[bloom]

41. ...

Not always - as this case shows - it was the man who actually had sex (who happened to use a used condom) who is considered the legal father who pays child support. The sperm donor is just that - and is not being held responsible.

There are cases of casual sperm donors who have sex with lesbians - who are held liable - as you say.

I think the difference here is that there was an actual man who it made sense to have bear the responsibility for his side of the pregnancy - even though it wasn't his sperm. It was him having the sex. It was him who used the condom.

[Neil Lisst]

46. Why don't you provide the opinion?

... and I'll tell you what it says.

[bloom]

49. Sorry you can't get a transcript

you're not a party to the case (I hope).

And neither can I.

Paternity cases are not public record unless they are appealed.

[Neil Lisst]

53. Then who told this tall tale?

How do you know it's true? How do you know the person who told you understands it? How do you know you understand what you were told?

This sounds like an urban legend. Unless you have something besides your say-so, I call bullshit.

[bloom]

57. I know that it is true

because I believe the lawyer who told it to me. He has a history of truthfulness. Being a lawyer - I'm sure he understands it. And I understand English - thank you very much.


It's funny how sure you are that it is not true.

I think you watch too much television.

[Neil Lisst]

61. Then have the lawyer show up here. We can continue this then.

The man who used the condom and turned it inside out cannot be held liable for child support.

Like I said, there is more to the case and the decision than you have conveyed. The judge can't simply pull decisions out of his ass, like some modern day Solomon. He must have a statutory basis, and there isn't one.

Tell your lawyer friend to register here, and I'll prove to you in one thread that you're in error, or that the story is bullshit as presented.

[bloom]

67. You would not be able to prove anything of the sort

because you are wrong.


It is not pulling decisions out of ones ass to decide that a man having sex is responsible for his actions.

[Rootseller]

76. Judges' keesters

OK, here I am. I signed up just for this. The story is true; Bloom had the facts right. Go ahead and offer your proof.

[Neil Lisst]

77. Let's begin

1. What jurisdiction is it?

2. What statute did the judge base his or her decision upon?

3. Was this strictly a paternity action, or was it part of a divorce?

4. Was the case appealed, and if so, what was the holding on appeal?

5. Did the judge make FINDINGS?

6. Did the judge find that the man who turned the condom inside out was the "father?"

7. Did the man who turned the condom inside out SEEK status as the father, or did he admit judicially to being the father?

[Rootseller]

79. General info

1. I hesitate to provide info that could lead to the people involved for confidentiality reasons.

2. I really think the judge just did what he thought was right. I don't think he based his decision on the statute. There is a statute in our jurisdiction which says a negative test is conclusive evidence that the man is not the father but it goes on to say that the judge can exclude the test for "good cause". But again, I really think the judge just did what he wanted.

3.paternity

4. No, these people couldn't afford a condom, much less an appeal!

5. In our jurisdiction lower court judges are not required to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law unless specifically requested to do so for appeal purposes.

6. yes

7. Neither. He only admitted having intercourse with the used condom.

[Neil Lisst]

81. Let's continue

You're a lawyer and you don't know the basis of the judge's decision?!

You won't cite the statute, but you acknowledge that a negative test is CONCLUSIVE on the issue. If you are a lawyer, you know that CONCLUSIVE means summary judgment.


1. What jurisdiction is it?
You refuse to answer. I'm dubious of your bona fides.

1a. Are you a lawyer?
1b. An entire state and an unreported case, and you can't identify the statute involved, but you can tell Bloom the story and talk about it at a major site online?
1c. Were you involved in the case, or are you repeating facts told to you by someone else?

2. What statute did the judge base his or her decision upon?
You don't know the basis. Now I'm really dubious of your bona fides.

2a. How can you NOT know this if you know the answers to the other questions?

3. Was this strictly a paternity action, or was it part of a divorce?
You say it was a paternity action.

3a. Was the STATE a party to action?
3b. Who initiated the action?
3c. Were both men parties to the action?
3d. Were there any sanctions involved for failure to answer the lawsuit, discovery, or otherwise obey the court's order?
3e. Did both men have attorneys representing them?


4. Was the case appealed, and if so, what was the holding on appeal?
You say there was no appeal.

4a. Then will you acknowledge it has no precedential value?

5. Did the judge make FINDINGS?
You say NO, not required.

5a. There was no ORDER? The order has to contain some recitation of findings, irrespective of the rules in your state

6. Did the judge find that the man who turned the condom inside out was the "father?"
You say YES.

6a. Did the mother and the man found to be the father ever live together, or hold themselves out as husband and wife?
6b. Did the man found to be the father ever represent himself to be the father of the child or act in accordance with a belief that he was the father?

7. Did the man who turned the condom inside out SEEK status as the father, or did he admit judicially to being the father?
You say NO.

7a. Did he file an Answer?
7b. Did he appear at the hearing/bench trial to contest paternity?
7c. Did he seek any parental rights?

[Rootseller]

89. You're dubious? I'm "Bona Fide"

I’m sorry, I thought I posted a response yesterday, but I must’ve gotten timed out or something and it didn’t show up. Then I had trouble finding the thread. I’m new at this.

First I want to point out that I won’t answer questions which could help someone identify the case. It isn’t that I’m afraid you will go find these people, but rather that someone who knows them could read this on the internet and recognize something. Their privacy is of paramount importance. Further there are ethical constraints that prohibit me from doing so and this is made even more serious by the fact that paternity cases are not public record by law. There are also potential criminal penalties. In short, I’m not sticking my neck out for your sake. You can be “dubious” of my “bona fides” all you want, but I’m not risking my career to satisfy you.

Another thing you don’t seem to understand is what real life is like here “in the trenches” as they say. Sanctions for failure to answer a lawsuit? Discovery? Attorney’s? Findings of Fact? Appeals? This isn’t LA Law. People are poor, sometimes lacking intelligence or knowledge, have problems and they come to court hoping to get a just and quick solution. This is real life. You strike me as a person who has had a year of law school. Just enough to think you know what is going on, but really just enough to make you dangerous. You're obviously not practicing in court on a daily basis or you'd be more in touch with reality.

You say that I didn’t tell you what the judge based his decision on. I did tell you but you couldn’t believe it. He based it on common sense. I base this assessment on comments he made to me personally and upon knowing his personality. True, I can’t read his mind. If you can read minds maybe you can get out and do a Kreskin act somewhere. You were right; an order would have findings. First let me tell you these orders by statute are confidential but I can tell you how the findings almost always read: “The Court, having heard the evidence and being duly advised in the premises now finds that Joe Schmoe is the father of Katie Doe…" I don’t think this is exactly what you are looking for.

You’re right about another thing; an unreported lower court case has no precedential value. What is your point? You didn’t say you were going to prove it wasn’t precedential, you said you were going to prove it didn’t even happen.

Let’s cut to the chase. Here’s what you can’t believe. You think there is this solid firm thing called “THE LAW” and judges abide by it regardless of what is fair or just. In the real world judges often do what they think is fair. In real life, law is flexible. In fact, that’s how things change. For example if a judge does something different because he thinks the standard way of doing things would reach an unjust result and if somebody appeals it and if the appellate court agrees with the lower court, the law is changed. You say judges can’t just “pull decisions out of their ass”. Try telling that to a judge! They do it all the time and it normally is a good thing.

I was nice enough to tell you about the “conclusive” statute for negative DNA tests. Most states don’t have such a thing. So stop acting like I’m stupid because I don’t know what “conclusive” means. I thought it might make you feel better to know there was some statutory rationale for your position. But even that statute gives the judge an out, as I said. Regarding the reverse situation, positive DNA tests, most if not all jurisdictions have a statute which provides that a positive test establishes a presumption that a certain man is the father. Do YOU know what “presumptive” means? The judge still does not have to follow it! It means it is NOT “conclusive”.

I don’t appreciate you criticizing me for posting on this forum. I did it because you asked me to. You undertook to “prove” this case is untrue. I take it that what you really intended to prove is that the facts and the judge’s order are impossible. Note that I can’t prove it did happen because of ethical constraints. But then, I did not post here to prove it was true, I posted here because you said if I did you would prove it was not true. Surely you understand the concept of “burden of proof”. The ball is in your court, not mine.

[AngryAmish]

86. Judges can and do pull decisions out of many orifices

Judges are only wrong if something is appealed.

[philosophie_en_rose]

91. That's only sometimes true.

A child has a right of support from his or her parents, but it's not always that easy to define who is or isn't a legal parent.

Remember that a child always has a right to support, but that parental rights can be terminated. (abuse, adoption, surrogacy, etc). Although there may be some cases where a child is still entitled to support, there is are still other cases where the relationship is definitely cut off.

[mountainvue]

37. The condom part doesn't make any sense.

In this case, why would they even use a condom?

[LisaL]

39. The guy probably didn't want the woman to get pregnant.

But being a complete idiot, he didn't realize that because the condom was used, the woman can still get pregnant from the first guy.

[Blue-Jay]

40. That's the stupidest thing I ever heard!

seriously. Who has sex in a car nowadays?

[bloom]

44. "Who has sex in a car nowadays?"

:spray:

I don't know. It never sounded like a good idea to me, either.

[RagingInMiami]

64. Nothing wrong with having sex in a car

I wouldn't do it with another couple in the car with me, much less use a used condom.

[Blue-Jay]

66. pssst.

My post was an (apparently unsuccessful) attempt at absurd humor. Of all the disgusting facets of this story, I jokingly pointed out the least reprehensible, and made a fake issue out of it.

jeez. some people.

[RagingInMiami]

68. Oh Damn it

Now I'm the guy no sense of humor.

:banghead:

[AnnieBW]

43. Ewwww...

:puke:

[DURHAM D]

50. What state please ? eom

[bloom]

52. It was in the midwest

And that's all I'm going to say - to protect the stupid - and those of us who live near them. :P

[uppityperson]

54. disgusting. I am open minded, but this guy was too disgustingly stupid

:rofl:

[LisaL]

55. That kid is lucky he/she didn't actually get this guy's genes.

[bloom]

60. That's a good point

:rofl:


I hope the mother teaches her child about condom use.

There was a study that was done around here recently that said what a large percentage of people used condoms improperly - though generally not THAT improperly.

[LisaL]

62. Used condoms improperly? Like that lady who put flour in them,

took them to the airport, and then cried and whined when she got arrested.

[bloom]

69. There were all kinds of things

and then - on top of that - they can't teach the proper way to use them in schools - so people are supposed to figure it out. I guess these guys got creative :eyes:

That was an interesting use - the flour things. I'll have to see if I have any extra condoms lying around :)

[Wilber_Stool]

58. Is it possable to get the name and phone number

of these women buy any chance?

[bloom]

63. i guess this got moved to the lounge. n/t

[Blue-Jay]

71. How will you ever get over the indignity?

[bloom]

72. It really isn't the indignity

(and I realize you're trying to be funny)

but there is someone on a campaign to prove that I am lying and that is annoying.

[Blue-Jay]

75. Ooooo! Intrigue!

Listen - If someone here is dogging you just say what I always say: "Fuck 'em."

Seriously. Fuck 'em.

[rug]

73. Next stop is matcom's inbox.

[Acryliccalico]

74. Thank you bloom for this post

I really enjoyed it :popcorn: :rofl: :popcorn: People really are this stupid and we know that for a fact because of the last election. :kick:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

82. well the bio father doesnt sound like the one "responsible"

for getting her knocked up...the man who turned condom inside out was

however to think that such utterly stupid people will bring a child into this world is scary

[Orsino]

83. I know this one...

The surgeon is a woman.

[huskerlaw]

87. I'm not surprised

by the outcome. Yes, it was the other man's sperm, but the guy who screwed her provided the vehicle by which the sperm was deposited in her uterus. At least, that's the argument the judge probably accepted in an attempt to do what was correct from a human standpoint.

[bloom]

88. ...

[philosophie_en_rose]

90. Not a lawyer, but I understand how it could be the back seat guy.

If they were married, I think some states presume that a husband is the father of the wife's children, unless proven otherwise. If the DNA is inconclusive, then it seems logical to conclude that only a person that she actually had intercourse with could be the father.

Probably was the front seat guy, but I can see how it could go the other way.

[bloom]

92. The DNA

showed that the sperm was from the front seat guy.

What happened here was that all four people related the story the same way. If the back seat guy had had a lot of money he might have tried to lie his way out of it - appeal it - yadda yadda yadda. As it was - the story was the story and it wasn't disputed. The back seat guy admitted being the one to actually engage in intercourse with the woman - and he was the one who was found to be the legal father.

[philosophie_en_rose]

98. There's still the presumption.

Also, if the back seat guy wanted to adopt the kid and front seat guy's rights were terminated - i could see how it would happen.

[bloom]

99. as it was

the front seat guy didn't have any rights (or maybe you're getting the front seat guy and the back seat guy mixed up LOL) - but yeah - I could see that if something happened and the front seat guy "wanted" to get involved - it's not out of the realm of possibility if the other parents were ok with it.

It would be interesting to know what all happened. Like esp. if the back seat women ended up with the front seat guy after all and the back seat guy still had to pay support!!! :silly:

[LynneSin]

93. The husband of the adoptive couple who Child Services gave the kid to

seriously anyone who would grossly enough consider using a used condom should really have that child taken away from them for the safety of the child

:scared:

[petronius]

101. That's exactly the answer I wanted to post...

(I guess I need to start posting before reading the thread, that way I won't know if I'm duplicating anyone! :) )

[LynneSin]

102. Better to know you're not the only one thinking it

:D

[SoCalDem]

94. Frankly BOTH guys seem too stupid to be the "father".

One may have been the "donor", but any woman who would have sex under those circumstances, seems a bit on the LOONEY side to be the "Mom" too :puke:

Poor kid..:(

[Kali]

95. First of all - GROSS!!! but my guess is the guy that had sex with her

is legally the father - he impregnated her by having sex with her, even though it was not his sperm. I can see the law holding him responsible. and now back to my original reaction:


GROSS :puke:

[gollygee]

100. What's the opposite of a Darwin award?

where extreme stupidity causes pregnancy rather than death.

It's both guys' fault. I mean, didn't the guy in the front seat know better than to hand his used condom to the back seat?

I can see how it's idiot B rather than idiot A despite DNA since idiot A didn't actually have sex with her and therefore didn't actually engage in the activity that got her pregnant. Still, they both could have some responsibility as far as child support goes in my opinion.

[bloom]

103. I could see a judge

making that decision also. Though it seems like people tend to hold onto the idea that there can only be one father - that wouldn't have to be the case.

With biological fathers, and adoptive fathers and step-fathers and on and on - there can be lots of them. The legal father in this case (and as dumb as this was - I wouldn't be surprised if this is NOT the only time this happened) just about needs a name of his own.