Surely this will be overturned on appeal:
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.The three-judge panel ruled Thursday that the deal between Joel McKiernan and Ivonne Ferguson — in which McKiernan donated his sperm and would not be obligated to pay any support — was unenforceable because of "legal, equitable and moral principles."
Despite an agreement that appeared to be a binding contract, the father is obligated to provide financial support, the court decided.
"It is the interest of the children we hold most dear,'" wrote Senior Judge Patrick Tamalia.
McKiernan's attorney said he may appeal.
The decision could have implications for sperm and egg donors who expect anonymity, said Arthur Caplan, a professor and medical ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania.
"Anybody who is a sperm donor ought to understand that their identity could be made known to any child that's produced, and they could be seen by the courts as the best place to go to make sure the child has adequate financial support," he said Friday.
OK, so this was a specific case and the two people involved had been lovers for years, so it may be a limited sort of judgement, and Caplan may be overstating the implications. But still...
Overturned? I think not.
The courts have shown that they're perfectly happy to wipe their rear with any contract or agreement that says the man doesn't have to pay child support.
Child support doesn't work like anything else in the legal system; lies, fraud or criminal acts do not in any way remove the obligation to pay child support.
I don't think this will extend to anonymous sperm donation, since it would kill the AI industry dead and I don't think the courts would want to see that. But as for non-anonymous sperm donation, you better be darn sure the woman or family you're donating to is financially secure or you could end up on the hook.
Posted by: Chuchundra | July 24, 2004 at 12:05 PM
Stupid ruling, remind me not to donate to that lesbian who asked.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | July 24, 2004 at 12:40 PM
Stupid ruling? Remind me to introduce you to the thousands of suffering kids whose mother's don't receive child support anyway. And you want to allow a rule that allegedly verbal contracts can do away with child support obligations.
Although I don't know, I suspect that children fathered from a sperm bank are governed by some sort of statutory exemption regarding child support.
Posted by: dmbeaster | July 24, 2004 at 08:22 PM