• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Wow... fvckin ridiculous: Sperm donor must pay child support

Turkish

Turkish

Lifer
Does anyone else think this is ridiculous?

:roll:

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- 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.

According to the trial judge's opinion, Ferguson and McKiernan met while working together and had a two-year affair. The relationship waned by late 1993, when Ferguson convinced McKiernan to act as a sperm donor with no responsibility for any child born as a result, the opinion said.

McKiernan, who has paid up to $1,520 a month in support since losing the case at trial, said he was not pleased with the ruling, but declined to comment further.

Ferguson's lawyer, Elizabeth Hoffman, said there was never evidence of an agreement between the two in which McKiernan would not have to pay any support.

"There was no evidence except his word and her word and it was a matter of credibility," he said.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/23/sperm.donor.ap/index.html
 
Note to self.....

Next time I'm asked to be a sperm donator make sure I
write up a disclaimer contract.

Got to love our legal system......
 
According to the trial judge's opinion, Ferguson and McKiernan met while working together and had a two-year affair. The relationship waned by late 1993, when Ferguson convinced McKiernan to act as a sperm donor with no responsibility for any child born as a result, the opinion said.
Click to expand...
If this is even true, the guy is really stupid and deserves to pay for that reason alone 🙂
 
its his dumbass for only doing a verbal agreement
Click to expand...
Note that the trial court ruled based on the contract just being a verbal agreement, and that it came down to a matter of credibility. In that scenario, had there been a written contract, things might be different. Howerver, the appeals court basically ruled that a contract (written or oral) really didn't matter, because it would be unenforceable for "legal, equitable and moral" reasons. Yipes. That's truly a dangerous ruling, it means that anyone who's ever donated sperm to a sperm bank (for example), could potentially be liable for child support for the entire life of the child. My guess is the ruling would be overturned, but with our wacky legal system, who knows.
 
Originally posted by: tagej
its his dumbass for only doing a verbal agreement
Click to expand...
Note that the trial court ruled based on the contract just being a verbal agreement, and that it came down to a matter of credibility. In that scenario, had there been a written contract, things might be different. Howerver, the appeals court basically ruled that a contract (written or oral) really didn't matter, because it would be unenforceable for "legal, equitable and moral" reasons. Yipes. That's truly a dangerous ruling, it means that anyone who's ever donated sperm to a sperm bank (for example), could potentially be liable for child support for the entire life of the child. My guess is the ruling would be overturned, but with our wacky legal system, who knows.
Click to expand...

yea thats not good
 
Not that the guy shouldn't have gotten a signed, written contract.. but how can none of you blame the woman at all?
 
man, that would piss me off so much. Luckily, I'll (hopefully) never have to consider donating...that's just weird, knowing your seed is floating around out there.
 
Originally posted by: tagej
its his dumbass for only doing a verbal agreement
Click to expand...
Note that the trial court ruled based on the contract just being a verbal agreement, and that it came down to a matter of credibility. In that scenario, had there been a written contract, things might be different. Howerver, the appeals court basically ruled that a contract (written or oral) really didn't matter, because it would be unenforceable for "legal, equitable and moral" reasons. Yipes. That's truly a dangerous ruling, it means that anyone who's ever donated sperm to a sperm bank (for example), could potentially be liable for child support for the entire life of the child. My guess is the ruling would be overturned, but with our wacky legal system, who knows.
Click to expand...



Sperm donors could have several dozen children. Or more...

At about $1,500/month, that adds up. Otoh, there's a lot more contract signing, and usually steps are taken to obscure the donor. I suspect the right court orders/warrants would get through that, however.
 
It's like a comedian once said, possibly Martin Lawrence. Every woman is born with unlimited money making potential between her legs. Too bad some of them choose to exploit it for BS reasons. <NOTE: see the use of the word "some"? That indicates a minority or less than majority number of women.>
 
Originally posted by: Gurck
Not that the guy shouldn't have gotten a signed, written contract.. but how can none of you blame the woman at all?
Click to expand...
I agree. If the guy's story is true (and I'm not saying it is because there is a question of credibility) then the girl is a real POS. And for the judge's panel to site equitable and moral principles is just absurd. Legal principles, yes, because there was no written contract.
 
comparing this to legal sperm donation programs is ludicrous.

to imply that this ruling sets a precedence for going after sperm donors with all the proper papers and signatures borders on malpractice.

htf can you compare a stupid moron that can't even put anything down on paper and signed to legitimate sperm/egg donor programs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top