There exist so many egregious and flagrantly bizarre cases of child support-related court decisions, that it takes me an entire day just to sift through them. This case should scare the crap out of anyone wishing to avail themselves of IVF or donating to a sperm bank.
Case Could Freeze Sperm Donation
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
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
The case involves sperm donor Joel L. McKiernan (search) and his former lover Ivonne V. Ferguson. 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,
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. They may have also opened a Pandora's Box of complications involving a child's claim on a sperm donor's data and wealth.
Here you have it folks. Just as I thought. Woman makes promise not to hold man liable. Man is stupid enough to trust her without getting it in writing. Woman places egg in uterus, has baby. Five years pass and she is having some money problems. What does she do? She rides the child support money train right to the poor guy’s checking account, hitting him up for $1500 a month retroactive to the child’s birth. Lying bitches make me sick. Judges who cannot recognize a scheming whore when they see one, make me sicker. Yes, I know. Judges don’t judge by the law or the litigants, they judge by the arguments presented. Even so, this makes me vomit.
Now the court seems to have recognized that there was some agreement, but they waived the agreement in light of the overriding need to support the child. The outcome will decide if biological parents can enter into agreements prior to conception that conflict with the alleged ‘best interests’ of the child. No one is saying that the child should go unsupported, but if the custodial parent, birth mother in this case, conceives without even having sexual contact with the father, how can she, in good conscience, go after him years later for support? She took full responsibility upon herself from the beginning.
This case has another twist. The child’s legal father is not the sperm donor, but the husband of the woman! There happens to be many cases where presumed parentage is decided by the mother’s and father’s acquiescence to parentage when signing a birth certificate. By any standard, the husband should be the one to pay any support. In some states, a biological father has no rights to a child if another man signs the birth certificate claiming parentage.
Another problem is that from state to state the law varies. Pennsylvania, as well as Michigan, has not yet passed the Uniform Parenting Act, which would protect sperm donors from retroactive child support claims and, at the same time, make it possible for biological fathers to trump the rights of presumptive fathers in visitation and custody. At the least, it would give them a voice.
And ladies, if you’re been wondering why so many men aren’t willing to commit to marriage or don’t want children, this case is another good reason why men stay single and not ever reproduce. Men aren’t afraid of marriage, they are scared shitless of divorce and unfair child support and visitation enforcement. I would never put myself through that bullshit ever again.