auxilary Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 Sperm donor must pay child support 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 Aux, did you know in WA there is a law that if you live with a woman who has a child WHO IS NOT YOUR CHILD and you decide to move out or leave you can be taken to court and forced to pay child support? Of course, women who live with a man who has a kid can't be forced to pay, but a man who lives with a woman who has a kid, that guy is on the hook... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auxilary Posted July 27, 2004 Author Share Posted July 27, 2004 that's f'ing stupid. Does WA have more liberal hippies than CA? I live next to berkeley, so I'd know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 Kinda the same thing--liberal hippies in the cities and toothless rednecks outside the cities... I guess it's the same everywhere... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest goldraven Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 :malebitchslap: :malebitchslap: unbelievable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bastaad525 Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 LOL I wonder if I qualify as a 'liberal hippy' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VRJoe Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 Well, I suspect she claimed there was no agreement and that the child was the result of the affair. She had to take him to court for child support, it's not like the court just decided out of the blue. It goes back to two rules, 1- get it in writing, and 2- contracts deemed bad or immoral can not be enforced. I'll bet he called himself "sperm donor", she called him "lover". Pretty simple decision for the court. The fact they had a relationship puts a different slant on things. - Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
280Zen Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 LOL, she used the oldest trick in the book to hook this guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auxilary Posted July 27, 2004 Author Share Posted July 27, 2004 the problem is that there have been cases where a WRITTEN agreement didn't hold a candle to the lawsuit, and the sperm donor still got slapped with child support. In fact, cases where the man who didn't father the child still paid child support. That's f'd. Look at jmortensen's post above about WA laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Juday Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 Does WA have more liberal hippies... Pawlease!!! I haven't heard that word in decades. BTW, I was there. All the real hippies I know are republicans now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 All the real hippies I know are republicans now. Funny how giving away all the rich peoples' money starts to look less attractive when you stop smoking doobies and get a damn job. Suddenly that's YOUR money that's being given away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RCNSC Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 All the real hippies I know are republicans now. Funny how giving away all the rich peoples' money starts to look less attractive when you stop smoking doobies and get a damn job. Suddenly that's YOUR money that's being given away. If we're talking about republicans, who said anything about stopping the smoking? .....Shame shame and I live in SC... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phailure Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 mmm good old american justice.... anyone read the book 'the death of commonsense'? Talks about all the retarded laws in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auxilary Posted July 27, 2004 Author Share Posted July 27, 2004 But Dan, I could DEFINITELY picture you with a blunt in your mouth, hahahahah! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VRJoe Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 It seems like common sense is blocked by the black robe in some cases. It might be a reaction to having a gavel. Seems to happen to politicians also, so maybe it has something to do with the air in government buildings. Hmmmmm .... maybe it's a conspiracy and the infamous THEM is putting something in the air at government offices that eliminates common sense. Sure would explain a whole lot, wouldn't it I've heard of two judges in California who handed down a decision in direct violation of the law. When this was pointed out their response was they didn't care what the law said, it only mattered what THEY said. I know one was overturned on appeal and was supposedly reprimanded. Must be something in the water, if it's not the air. - Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.