Sperm Donor Must Pay Support

[scribblet]

Sperm donor must pay support, this should give people pause for thought before donating to a bank. I thought donor info was confidential, if it no longer is, then who in their right mind would get involved.

http://www.pennlive.com/patriotnews/storie...4480.xml&coll=1

State court rules dead man is liable for women's 2 kids

Thursday, May 10, 2007

BY REGGIE SHEFFIELD f The Patriot-News

A man who donated sperm for a lesbian couple's two children must pay support, the state Superior Court ordered in a ruling that legal experts called a precedent.

[Peter F]

Sperm donor must pay support, this should give people pause for thought before donating to a bank. I thought donor info was confidential, if it no longer is, then who in their right mind would get involved.

http://www.pennlive.com/patriotnews/storie...4480.xml&coll=1

State court rules dead man is liable for women's 2 kids

Thursday, May 10, 2007

BY REGGIE SHEFFIELD f The Patriot-News

A man who donated sperm for a lesbian couple's two children must pay support, the state Superior Court ordered in a ruling that legal experts called a precedent.

and left out of the quote:

"While these contributions have been voluntary, they evidence a settled intention to demonstrate parental involvement far beyond merely biological," the judge wrote.

Robert Rains, who teaches family law at Penn State Dickinson School of Law in Carlisle and is a co-director of the school's family law clinic, said the decision should not intimidate men who contribute to sperm banks.

"This should be entirely different from a guy who goes to a sperm bank and makes a donation with the understanding that he will remain anonymous," Rains said.

But don't let your own story stop the show.

[scribblet]

Sigh, we are not allowed to post the whole thing, you know that. Either way, it could pave the way for other people to go after sperm donors.

[sharkman]

Sperm donor must pay support, this should give people pause for thought before donating to a bank. I thought donor info was confidential, if it no longer is, then who in their right mind would get involved.

http://www.pennlive.com/patriotnews/storie...4480.xml&coll=1

A man who donated sperm for a lesbian couple's two children must pay support, the state Superior Court ordered in a ruling that legal experts called a precedent.

and left out of the quote:

"While these contributions have been voluntary, they evidence a settled intention to demonstrate parental involvement far beyond merely biological," the judge wrote.

Robert Rains, who teaches family law at Penn State Dickinson School of Law in Carlisle and is a co-director of the school's family law clinic, said the decision should not intimidate men who contribute to sperm banks.

"This should be entirely different from a guy who goes to a sperm bank and makes a donation with the understanding that he will remain anonymous," Rains said.

But don't let your own story stop the show.

Did you miss the part of this story where legal experts are calling this a precedent? And they only have one person saying anonymous donors shouldn't worry. That doesn't make it set in stone.

That the donor was at the birth and good enough to donate money for the child's upbringing was enough for the judge to make it manitory, even though the child has 2 parents already. A dumb ruling by an activist judge.

[Riverwind]

That the donor was at the birth and good enough to donate money for the child's upbringing was enough for the judge to make it manitory, even though the child has 2 parents already. A dumb ruling by an activist judge.

This ruling is not really new. Women have been collecting child support from multiple fathers for years. The court will assign financial responsibility to any man who took on a 'father-like' role in a relationship with the mother. The fact that the child may already receive support from prior step and/or biological fathers is irrevelevant as far as the court is concerned. It is all about maximizing the income for the poor little single mom.

There was another case where a doctor had oral sex with a woman who latter impregnented herself with the sperm. He was ordered to pay child support even though he did not give his permission for the sperm to be used in that way.

[Peter F]

http://www.pennlive.com/patriotnews/storie...4480.xml&coll=1

"While these contributions have been voluntary, they evidence a settled intention to demonstrate parental involvement far beyond merely biological," the judge wrote.

Did you miss the part of this story where legal experts are calling this a precedent? And they only have one person saying anonymous donors shouldn't worry. That doesn't make it set in stone.

That the donor was at the birth and good enough to donate money for the child's upbringing was enough for the judge to make it manitory, even though the child has 2 parents already. A dumb ruling by an activist judge.

Not dumb at all. The judge did the job he was required to do, settle the dispute based on the evidence.

Obviously you failed to note " While these contributuions have been voluntary, they evidence a settled intention to demonstrate parental involvment far beyond merely biological"

To repeat: They evidence a settled intention to demonstrate parental involvment far beyond merely biological.

So the judge is actually smart and deciding the issue based upon the facts. Not being activist at all.

[sharkman]

That the donor was at the birth and good enough to donate money for the child's upbringing was enough for the judge to make it manitory, even though the child has 2 parents already. A dumb ruling by an activist judge.

This ruling is not really new. Women have been collecting child support from multiple fathers for years. The court will assign financial responsibility to any man who took on a 'father-like' role in a relationship with the mother. The fact that the child may already receive support from prior step and/or biological fathers is irrevelevant as far as the court is concerned. It is all about maximizing the income for the poor little single mom.

There was another case where a doctor had oral sex with a woman who latter impregnented herself with the sperm. He was ordered to pay child support even though he did not give his permission for the sperm to be used in that way.

That is crazy. So a couple has a one night stand, he wears a condom which she insists on so she 'won't get pregnant' then later pulls the condom out of the trash and...gets herself pregnant. Now all she has to do is go through the process of proving he's the dad, which he denies since he wore a condom, and she gets child support for the next 18 years. No wonder celebrities get hit up so often for child support.

[sharkman]

Not dumb at all. The judge did the job he was required to do, settle the dispute based on the evidence.

Obviously you failed to note " While these contributuions have been voluntary, they evidence a settled intention to demonstrate parental involvment far beyond merely biological"

To repeat: They evidence a settled intention to demonstrate parental involvment far beyond merely biological.

So the judge is actually smart and deciding the issue based upon the facts. Not being activist at all.

The judge could have easily decided either way on these facts, there wasn't only one path to take since there were already 2 parents.

I read the WHOLE story twice and did indeed notice what you quoted. You don't seem to be concerned about a precedent in this case, but along with Riverwind's example it appears that some judges are getting obsessed with semen.

Personally, I believe men should be responsible for their actions. But in these 2 examples, one of recreational sex( where the agreed goal was not children, but the woman lied to the man) and one of sperm donor, where the child had 2 parents aside of the donor, it seems vindictive to force the man to be responsible.

Soon lawyers will be inventing a new temporary insanity that's related to the desire for sex to deal with this, and so the craziness will continue.

[Peter F]

... and one of sperm donor, where the child had 2 parents aside of the donor, it seems vindictive to force the man to be responsible.

The donor in the second case was not being vindictivly forced. His estate is. Apparently the man in question had (to again quote the judge) "... a settled intention to demonstrate parental involvment far beyond merely biological"

[noahbody]

... and one of sperm donor, where the child had 2 parents aside of the donor, it seems vindictive to force the man to be responsible.

The donor in the second case was not being vindictivly forced. His estate is. Apparently the man in question had (to again quote the judge) "... a settled intention to demonstrate parental involvment far beyond merely biological"

Next they'll be going after deadbeat sperm donors.