Author Topic: Precedent Setting?? (Read 745 times)

JB73 · « **on:** December 02, 2007, 03:28:46 PM »

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314564,00.html

A New York doctor who donated his sperm to help a gay colleague conceive has been ordered to pay child support for the boy, now an 18-year-old living in Oregon, the New York Post reported Sunday.

The donor was a married doctor at a Long Island hospital in the late 1980s when he donated his sperm to a female hospital resident who was trying to have a baby with her lesbian partner, the Post reported. Although the donor gave up all claims and rights to the child, he allowed his name to be put on the birth certificate.

Click here to read the full story at the New York Post.

For several years after the boy's birth in 1989, the doctor sent the child gifts and money and cards signed "Dad" and had regular contact with the child, the Post reported. However, when the boy moved to Oregon with his mother and her partner in 1993, regular contact stopped. Since then, the man's contact with the child consisted of seven phone calls and one brief meeting over the past 15 years.

A New York family court judge ruled last month that the man must now pay child support for the boy, now 18 and heading to college, the Post reported.

I say total crap. is this going to make any artificially conceived child's parents be able to go after the donor for money?? I know this is one case, but it only takes one case to make a precedent.

a few weeks ago there was a post about why guys shouldn't get married or have children in todays society. here's one more log to throw on the fire, and one more reason I would be hesitant to do either.

vorticon · « **Reply #1 on:** December 02, 2007, 03:35:45 PM »

"the boy, now 18 and heading to college"

the full article says nothing about back pay...and up here child support payments do not continue after the child is an adult.

so i'm slightly confused.

john9001 · « **Reply #2 on:** December 02, 2007, 04:29:06 PM »

the kid wants to go to college, the money has to come from somewere. Looks like the doc's ego is going to cost him,(name on birth cer't, many contacts over the years,), the doc should have tried to stay anonymous.

texasmom · « **Reply #3 on:** December 02, 2007, 04:46:18 PM »

Hm. That sounds amiss.

E25280 · « **Reply #4 on:** December 02, 2007, 05:12:22 PM »

My reading of it . . . there is no "broad precedent" being set. Most "donors" are not and will never be held to be responsible for their offspring.

In this case, the doctor set the expectation that he would act as "dad" to this kid, which one could reasonably expect would include financial support.

If he had never contacted the child or let him know he was the donor, there would have been no expectation set and therefore no support owed.

Meatwad · « **Reply #5 on:** December 02, 2007, 05:18:40 PM »

I thought child support stopped at 18

Did the boy want financial help and wanted the child support, or was it the carpet munching leechous money grubbing greedy prostitute that wanted the money to support her crack habit

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #6 on:** December 02, 2007, 05:27:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by E25280
My reading of it . . . there is no "broad precedent" being set. Most "donors" are not and will never be held to be responsible for their offspring.

In this case, the doctor set the expectation that he would act as "dad" to this kid, which one could reasonably expect would include financial support.

If he had never contacted the child or let him know he was the donor, there would have been no expectation set and therefore no support owed.

Thats right.
As soon as he sent money he made the precident of being willing to financially support the kid.

If memory serves correct this is the same princple used against a man whom later found out through DNA tests that he was not the father of a child.
but because he had made an effort to support the kid financially he was agreeing to accept financial responcability for the child.

Bottom line is if you have AN Y doubt whatsoever if a kid is yours or not. Make no paymewnts untill it is provent o be your kid. cause the moment you do. You screw yourself.

Meatwad. I know in Jersey the financial responcability continues after 18 if the kid decides to go to college.

Meatwad · « **Reply #7 on:** December 02, 2007, 05:28:52 PM »

I didnt know that. Here in IL it stops when you turn 18

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #8 on:** December 02, 2007, 05:44:50 PM »

Doublechecked and you are indeed correct. in Ill it stops at 18.
But there is a petition around to try and change that

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/555713850

Maverick · « **Reply #9 on:** December 02, 2007, 05:54:53 PM »

Child support to age 24 is not uncommon provided the kid is a full time student. The full time student has been the key factor in the cases I have heard of. The terms will be whatever the judge feels inclined to set them at. This guy chose to be a "father" in more than just biology when he had a relationship with him early in the kids life. Had he not done so the mother would likely be out of luck. It also shows that the mother is still looking for deep pockets to gold dig in. She was ready to take on all the responsibilities of being a parent but now that the money is more than she is comfortable with she has gone after "dad".

vorticon · « **Reply #10 on:** December 02, 2007, 06:12:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Child support to age 24 is not uncommon provided the kid is a full time student. The full time student has been the key factor in the cases I have heard of. The terms will be whatever the judge feels inclined to set them at. This guy chose to be a "father" in more than just biology when he had a relationship with him early in the kids life. Had he not done so the mother would likely be out of luck. It also shows that the mother is still looking for deep pockets to gold dig in. She was ready to take on all the responsibilities of being a parent but now that the money is more than she is comfortable with she has gone after "dad".

if he's over 18, shouldnt any child support go directly to him, not the mother?

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #11 on:** December 02, 2007, 06:21:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Meatwad
I thought child support stopped at 18

Did the boy want financial help and wanted the child support, or was it the carpet munching leechous money grubbing greedy prostitute that wanted the money to support her crack habit

It's assumed that Child Support stops at 18. However the courts can pretty much set ANY age they see fit as to when it stops.

Given the Child Support system's BLATANT violations of the 5th amendment, they can hold a court case to extend the child support age. With the violation of the 5th, by not telling the father that he is due in court, there is no defense against the attempt to move the age up, and the father loses regardless of law, contract or precedent.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #12 on:** December 02, 2007, 06:35:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by vorticon
if he's over 18, shouldnt any child support go directly to him, not the mother?

Here's one of the crocks of child support. If the wage was garnered through the state system then the money goes to the state.

The state system can decide not to give ANY money to the kid or the family itself if:(and these are just a few that I read about)

-The kid is going to a state funded school and has some type of subsidized grant

-the kid was EVER on state funded medicare.

state run family services can garner this child support to offset the costs it paid for in any kind of state run assistance programs. I even read on a case where a mother and father reconciled and yet still had to make child support payments to the state because the mother got on state assistance during the divorce.

Maverick · « **Reply #13 on:** December 02, 2007, 08:32:57 PM »

Vortican,

If he still has his home of record in her house, it goes to her AFAIK. Child support is supposed to "help" the child enjoy a similar lifestyle to what they would have if the parents were still together.

It is an interesting question though if he is considered an adult, it depends on the state's regs covering it. Maybe it would go to him directly. I think it is driven by still being in the custodial parents household. If he's on his own I'd think there is no justification for "child suport".

FrodeMk3 · « **Reply #14 on:** December 02, 2007, 08:40:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Here's one of the crocks of child support. If the wage was garnered through the state system then the money goes to the state.

The state system can decide not to give ANY money to the kid or the family itself if:(and these are just a few that I read about)

-The kid is going to a state funded school and has some type of subsidized grant

-the kid was EVER on state funded medicare.

state run family services can garner this child support to offset the costs it paid for in any kind of state run assistance programs. I even read on a case where a mother and father reconciled and yet still had to make child support payments to the state because the mother got on state assistance during the divorce.

That happens' more than most people know, Gunslinger. I have friends' that I work with, that married their girlfriend after they had a child with them, but since for a while the GF had to use Medical or WICK or some other program to get by, they wound up having to pay the state back for the time they were on it.