Donate your sperm.....pay child support

[Gunslinger]

Read on.  This is rather scary if you ask me.  Woman allready have too many rights when it comes to child support while the men are usually treated as slaves to the system.

Case Could Freeze Sperm Donation

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

By Wendy McElroy

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court (search) is currently considering a legal appeal that could set a wide-reaching precedent for both child support policy and fertility clinics in the United States.

As one report states, "sperm donors who thought they were getting $50 for their genetic material" — a standard clinic fee — and nothing more may be in for a real shock.

The case involves sperm donor Joel L. McKiernan (search) and his former lover Ivonne V. Ferguson (search). Ten years ago, they entered a verbal contract that a three-judge panel of the Superior Court said was valid "on its face." In exchange for McKiernan donating sperm that led to the birth of twins through in vitro fertilization, Ferguson released him from any obligation toward the offspring.

(IVF involves fertilizing a woman's eggs with sperm in a lab dish and then placing the fertilized eggs back in the aspiring mother's uterus.)

Ferguson denies that an agreement to release McKiernan from responsibility ever existed. Nevertheless, she named her ex-husband as "father" on the birth certificate. Five years after the twins' birth, she filed against McKiernan for child support.

The tangled personal circumstances of this situation constitute a legal nightmare and the sort of "hard" case that makes bad law. And bad law is exactly what may result.

Both the trial court and the Superior Court called Ferguson's actions "despicable" and expressed sympathy toward McKiernan. Yet both found him liable to pay over $1,500 a month in child support plus arrearages to the now-divorced Ferguson. (McKiernan has married, moved, and now has two other children he is raising.)explain to me how he's supposed to support THESE children if he has to pay $1500 a month to another?

Why was McKiernan considered liable? The original contract was deemed unenforceable due to "legal, equitable and moral principles." The main abrogating principle: Biological parents cannot waive the interests of a child — a third party — who has an independent "right" to support from each one of them.

It does not matter that a third party did not exist when the contract was forged and probably would have never existed without the contract. Nor does it matter that the law generally presumes a husband to be the father of any child born during the marriage. The donation of sperm alone makes McKiernan financially liable for the twins until they reach adulthood.

Or it will, if he loses the Supreme Court appeal, which weighs the extent of a sperm donor's liability. Presumably, the ruling would equally impact women who donate eggs for another's fertility treatment.

Pennsylvania, like most states, has not adopted a version of the Uniform Parentage Act, which protects sperm or egg donors from the responsibilities of parenthood. Many — if not most — donors merely presume that anonymity provides such protection.

In the case of Ferguson v. McKiernan, the identity of the sperm donor was always known. But the principle sustained by the courts could apply with equal force to anonymous donors.

Ferguson's attorney argued that her case did not threaten sperm banks or fertility clinics because such facilities had not been involved. McKiernan's attorney noted that the contract in question was virtually identical to the ones they offer: namely, anonymity or non-involvement in exchange for a donation. If a mother or father cannot waive the "right" of a potential child to support, then it is not clear how a fertility clinic could do so in its capacity as a broker for profit between the two "parents."

The danger this precedent would pose was expressed by Arthur Caplan, a professor and medical ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania. Caplan explained that anyone who donates genetic material on the basis of anonymity "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." The prospect becomes more likely if one parent is requesting support from a government agency.

Sperm banks are legally required to maintain a record of each donor's identity, often indefinitely.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Judge Ronald D. Castille was more blunt than Caplan in his assessment of the risk that donations would cease. "What man in their right mind would agree to that [sperm donation] if we decide this case in your favor? Nobody." What woman in her right mind would donate eggs?

Estimates on infertility in the United States vary but the rate is often placed at about 15 percent, even without including gay and lesbian couples. That is, 15 percent of couples fail to conceive after one year of regular, unprotected intercourse. If miscarriages are factored in, the rate increases.

According to Dr. Cappy Rothman of the California Cryobank, an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 artificial inseminations occur every year in the U.S. And that is only one form of infertility treatment. Though these procedures are usually performed using the sperm and eggs of the couple hoping to conceive, the use of donated sperm and eggs is a common solution to infertility.

If the Pennsylvania Supreme Court finds the sperm donor to be liable for child support, then many forms of infertility treatment in most states could become less available and more expensive. Those donors who step forward will want to be compensated for their increased legal risk.

The courts have pitted a child's "best interests" against the rights of biological parents to contract with each other on the terms of reproduction. They may have also opened a Pandora's box of complications involving a child's claim on a sperm donor's data and wealth.

But the worst consequence may be the denial of life itself to children who are desperately wanted by infertile couples. The law should not obstruct their chances of conceiving.

[ASTAC]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
explain to me how he's supposed to support THESE children if he has to pay $1500 a month to another? .

Alot of states just do not care about the children you have later on in life. My child support was raised to a point that I had to file bankruptcy just to get out of financial obligations I had so I could afford the support. I tried to argue that I now have two other children I need to support and the court would not hear it.

This man should have no liability..if they were not together as a couple when she decided to use Invetro...then regardless of any agreement they would have had, he should not be liable. These children were only born because she willingly went and used the sperm after their relationship is over. The juddges that are making this man pay the support should be hanged like most of our ACTIVIST judges. I can only hope their state supreme court has a little more common sense. I mean come on..filing 5 years after the children are born? She's just after a state sponsored handout.

[Gunslinger]

well what makes it worse is, as the article does state, when woman go on some kinda of state support.  Once it starts costing the states they go after fathers with avengence.  I read a story once were a man and wife got back together and reconciled and the man STILL had to pay back owed child support.....not to her....not to the children but to the STATE because the mother when on an assistance program.

Another instance I read about is were a man found his children on his porch one night after there mother had abandond them there and ran away.  The man payed child support for children he had in HIS custody for over a YEAR.  The wife just never showed up to court and kept collecting checks.  Part of the money went to the state and not the children wich of course HE had to take care of.

[ASTAC]

I know what you are talking about. When me and my wife seperated, even though she had no real expenses, she applied for welfare from the state.,then waited almost a year before filing for support (all this time I was providing support unofficially). We had tried a few times to reconcile so I stupidly thought it was no big deal. I paid a years worth of back support and the welfare. They took my tax refund 2 years in a row and garnished my military paycheck until it was paid off.

Fathers have no rights in the courts. No matter what they try to say about judges being more fair. It's a BS. They still favor the mothers in EVERY aspect. A father can lose visitation based on hearsay. To get a child away from a mother you have to have solid evidence that the mother is an abuser, criminal, or drug addict.

My ex married a guy that beats her on a regular basis, and I still cannot convince the courts that it is in the best interests of our child that she should live with me. I have a good income, no criminal record, am remarried with 2 other children and am financially stable. Yet I can do nothing because the courts don't care. From all the research I've done I find that this sort of short-sightedness of the courts happens 99.99999999999999% of the time.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by ASTAC
I know what you are talking about. When me and my wife seperated, even though she had no real expenses, she applied for welfare from the state.,then waited almost a year before filing for support (all this time I was providing support unofficially). We had tried a few times to reconcile so I stupidly thought it was no big deal. I paid a years worth of back support and the welfare. They took my tax refund 2 years in a row and garnished my military paycheck until it was paid off.

Fathers have no rights in the courts. No matter what they try to say about judges being more fair. It's a BS. They still favor the mothers in EVERY aspect. A father can lose visitation based on hearsay. To get a child away from a mother you have to have solid evidence that the mother is an abuser, criminal, or drug addict.

My ex married a guy that beats her on a regular basis, and I still cannot convince the courts that it is in the best interests of our child that she should live with me. I have a good income, no criminal record, am remarried with 2 other children and am financially stable. Yet I can do nothing because the courts don't care. From all the research I've done I find that this sort of short-sightedness of the courts happens 99.99999999999999% of the time.

sorry to hear about your situation I definatly sympothize for ya.  One of my roomates was a ret. USMC MSgt.  His wife got 95% of his retirment check.  Half of it was child support/back child support (she screwed him the same way, verbal agreement wasn't enough for the courts) and because they were married more than 10 years in his 20+ years of service she is ENTITLED to HALF of his retirement income.  

Last I talked to him his kid was about to turn 20 and he was still paying child support to HER because he was living at home and going to college.

[StarOfAfrica2]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
well what makes it worse is, as the article does state, when woman go on some kinda of state support.  Once it starts costing the states they go after fathers with avengence.  I read a story once were a man and wife got back together and reconciled and the man STILL had to pay back owed child support.....not to her....not to the children but to the STATE because the mother when on an assistance program.

Yep.  When I divorced my ex, I paid in money "off the record".  Without receipts to prove it, all that is owed as back support.  When we set up a fully legal support arrangement, where my checks went each month to the courthouse in the county where she lives in Illinois, everything was kosher with the court.  But then she applied to the state for a medical assistance card because neither one of us had insurance, and suddenly the Dept of Public Aid DEMANDED control of our support case.  And the court had absolutely NO way to deny them.  The law gives the DPA complete control in Illinois over child support cases when the mother recieves any assistance.  The payments still went to the same courthouse and the same office where she picked them up before, but now they had to go to the DPA office in Springfield first, THEN to the courthouse for her.  Not only that, under the previous agreement in our divorce papers, I sent checks every month.  Under DPA rules, they garnished my checks, no arguments.  When payments had to be adjusted, after the back support was paid?  They didnt process the paperwork and kept withholding the larger amount for 6 months.  But because they were only allowed to disburse what the legal agreement called for, they had "extra".  I never saw that money back, and neither did my ex.  They told me "prove it".  I had payments dissapear, that never reappeared.  Only my employer's records saved me in those cases.  Changing jobs was a legal nightmare because they required garnishment.

[rpm]

Child support is messed up. Not one penny of it LEGALLY has to be spent on the child. It's the woman's money to spend as she wants on whatever she wants. My ex used to throw parties on the weekends she got her check.

[Cougar68]

I'm a .000001%'er in that I got custody of my son when my ex and I divorced.  Considering that this happened in the bible belt of Nashville, TN I was quite suprised.  I won't go into the details, but I had a strong case.  

I can understand that the child support money doesn't necessarily have to be spent on the children directly.  I get a check once a month.  However, all month long I'm paying lunch money, clothes, haircuts, groceries, etc.  As far as I'm concerned, the check I get for child support is paying me back for the money that had already gone out of my pocket.  I don't throw parties on the third of every month, but I don't hesitate at all to drop it on utilities or any other bills.  

Cougar

[Drunky]

The guy from the linked article was abso-gnikcuf-lutely stupid.

Why the kcuf would you give an ex-lover your sperm to do as she wishes???

That's like blaming gun manufactureres when you shoot yourself playing Russian rhoulette.




BTW, child support laws have changed for the better.  Yes, women can still screw men relatively easy but it is changing.


[edit] $1,500 a month should be taken with some factual knowledge.  As I understand it, this is a percentage of his wages.  It doesn't matter how many kids are involved in the child support case and his percentage should actually go down should he have other children.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Drunky
The guy from the linked article was abso-gnikcuf-lutely stupid.

Why the kcuf would you give an ex-lover your sperm to do as she wishes???

That's like blaming gun manufactureres when you shoot yourself playing Russian rhoulette.




BTW, child support laws have changed for the better.  Yes, women can still screw men relatively easy but it is changing.


[edit] $1,500 a month should be taken with some factual knowledge.  As I understand it, this is a percentage of his wages.  It doesn't matter how many kids are involved in the child support case and his percentage should actually go down should he have other children.

as I read the article it did mention something about a legal agreement between the two.  If someone I know wants to have a baby and can't and asks for my sperm with no strings attached and a legal document to waive my right to the child as well as my legal obligations to support them I shouldnt have to and it should be a done deal.

WIth this precidence somone could steal someone's sperm get pregnant and then get child support from them based on "best intrests of the children".  It's taking the whole "two to tango" factor out of it.  

My opinion is that this guy is a sperm doner not a father, if the woman can't financially support HER children than the state should place them with a him or a family that can.

[Drunky]

There was no 'legal document'.  That's why the dude is brain dead.  Blindly agreeing to anything from an ex-whatever is dumb.

Oh sure baby, I'll give you my extra key to my car and house just in case of emergency.  Oh yeah, I'll just give you my credit cards just in case also.  Just promise you won't let your new boyfriend know about this, okay?

Next, a woman has already 'stole' someones sperm.  She gave his 'oral favors', saved the sperm, was inseminated by it, and the guy had to pay child support.

Not trying to sound callous.  Yes, the laws are not exactly unpreferential to fathers.  But, the guy in the linked article sounds to gnikcuf stupid to make enough money that 20% of his wages afford $1,500 in child support.  He sounds like he works at the mall or McD's.

[Gunslinger]

ahh I stand corrected.  It was a verbal contract

I was confused by this paragraph:

Why was McKiernan considered liable? The original contract was deemed unenforceable due to "legal, equitable and moral principles." The main abrogating principle: Biological parents cannot waive the interests of a child — a third party — who has an independent "right" to support from each one of them.

[Sparks]

I may be devil's advocate here but I got to thinking,  by donating your sperm you are enabling another life to be formed, another life which WOULDN'T be there without that donation.  Now if that life then cannot be supported by the parent / parents why should my taxes pay for it ??

I'm not religious (aetheist actually) but the fact is a sperm and an egg are two halves of a life - anyone who puts the two together has some kind of responsibility for that new life - a life that wouldn't have existed without that action.

Simple answer - don't donate.

Infertility is a tragic problem for a couple but so are many other medical conditions which wreak havoc on families.  However having "a" solution doesn't make it the right solution.

As far as financial child support and the state - don't talk to me about it ..........  My wife and I separated and I agreed to pay for all and anything they need for my daughter,  I pay the mortgage, insurances, help with food, house repairs, school stuff whatever.  We have a good relationship for a separated couple.  Now in steps the CSA and assesses me for support payments - no problem - of course my ex and daughter will get this ?  "Oh no sir - they'll only get £10 per week because she is claiming benefit" (she is disabled) - "the rest goes to the treasury".  Ehhhh ??? what if she was working ?? "Oh she would get it all ....."  So it's more important for the treasury to get my money than my child and my money goes to pay my ex's benefits which she would get by right of law even if she was a single person ??  But if she was working and didn't need the money so bad then she can have all of it ???????

F**k government

[Gunslinger]

sparks what about instances were no sperm is "donated" at all.  A decision to create life is just that a decision.  A woman has the right to put a baby up for adoption and have no more legal responsabilities.....the man doesnt?

again this gets interesting because you are removing the "two to tango" mindset here.  

If I have to donate sperm to a medical lab for testing and it get's stolen and a baby is created from it I did not "father" that child.  Why should the responsibilities fall on me because he is my biologic relative?  

This opens a whole can of worms for men everywere and our rights as parents OR if we shoose not to be parents.

Then you bring up the fact that men will probably choose not to donate sperm if this case favors the womans case.  Do you realize what that will do to all those couples out there wanting a sperm donation to have a child?

[Sparks]

The adoption point is an interesting one Gun ...... my gut feel is that the woman SHOULD have legal responsibilities equal to the man so that the mother and father morally should both contribute even if the child is put up for adoption.

Your point about concption after a theft is not really the same issue.  If you donate to research with the specific intention not to be used in fertilisation then I think you have removed your responsibilty by stating your intention. Analogy is you leave your gun at a lockup in the gun club but it gets stolen and used in a murder - are you an accessory ?? No - your intention was to keep it locked away.  If you donate for fertilisation then your known intention is to help create a life or many lives.

Then you bring up the fact that men will probably choose not to donate sperm if this case favors the womans case. Do you realize what that will do to all those couples out there wanting a sperm donation to have a child?

Yes I do which is why I said this ...

Infertility is a tragic problem for a couple but so are many other medical conditions which wreak havoc on families. However having "a" solution doesn't make it the right solution.

A tragic situation for a couple doesn't make it right to use any solution just because we have it in my opinion. This is the same debate for me as keeping people alive on machines when by all normal processes they would be dead.  We in the west have become so obsessed with the idea that because we can have we should have.  The right and wrong of having is no longer considered.  The view is "because it can be done I have the right to have it"  . We constantly attempt to remove all greif and suffering from our lives with technology, the problem being it often creates more.

Just my peculiar take on it..........