July 28, 2004
Sperm donor must pay child support
The most imporant aspect of this ruling: “This 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.”
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.
Source: CNN.com © 2004 CNN.com
Posted by akvalley at July 28, 2004 09:16 AM | TrackBackThis “ruling” is garbage. This previously agreed upon mutually satisfying contract was set with SPECIFIC parameters. And one of the “deal breakers” was NO CHILD SUPPORT. Clearly it was fundamental to the agreement and the sperm donation would not have happened had this been unclear or ambiguous.
This woman who “changed her mind” (I wonder if it wasn’t her original intent) is not fit to BE a custodial parent.
Why? Because in choosing between the two parents (and clearly the man is the legal/biological father) one of the two of them is financially better able to provide and one of the two of them has the ethical backbone to honor an agreement and one does not.
A father is not an “afterthought”. Once a man is adjudged to BE the father than equal consideration of his rights, in commensurate measure to his responsibilities, must be granted.
Looking at this LONG TERM, regardless of who was the “primary caregiver”, clearly this woman has no legal principles, is less financial resources, and would fill the children’s head with morally realitivistic (?sp) ideas that would detract from the children’s growth as upstanding citizens.
“Famililes” are not “mom & child(ren)” with dad as an afterthought. Dads are not bolt-on, after-factory “options”, with built in ejection bolts to be fired at moms whim.
If she is so unsteady, so unpredictable, so financially insolvant (?sp), and can not be counted on to be a steady anchor of ethics she would not be a fit parent.
Anyone who would, wrong-headedly, argue that “well he didn’t want them” is offering a poor argument. SHE agreed to be a single mom (is THAT wrong?), SHE then changed the nature of the relationship of the man to his children (sperm donor to dad), and in arguing that he WAS the father and therefore responsible she also allowed he was equally entitled to equal rights to HIS children (her argument - not mine).
Fathers are not human wallets or sperm donors purely because some lying “mind changer” (breaker of contract) says so. Once she asserted he was the father he is an equal in consideration for custody. And, since he was not ALLOWED to be the primary caregiver, it can not be counted against him.
Steven
Posted by: Steven at December 27, 2004 09:54 PMi personally,think she has broken her agreement with the donor, and the court decision was bias,based on a mere fact that being the pathernal father,allows him to pay support.
this man does have the rights to fight for costody,being that he is now an add-on parent even without his concent,should take action to have costody.