| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
05 Jan 2008 10:54:23 PM |
| Object: |
Sperm donor wins child support battle |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22488113/
Sperm donor wins child support battle
Mother can't renege on payment deal, Pa. Supreme Court rules
HARRISBURG, Pa. - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a woman who
promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot renege
on the deal.
The 3-2 decision overturns lower court rulings under which Joel L. McKiernan
had been paying up to $1,500 a month to support twin boys born in August
1994 to Ivonne V. Ferguson, his former girlfriend and co-worker.
"Where a would-be donor cannot trust that he is safe from a future support
action, he will be considerably less likely to provide his sperm to a friend
or acquaintance who asks, significantly limiting a would-be mother's
reproductive prerogatives," Justice Max Baer wrote in the majority opinion
issued last week.
--
J Young
jyoungvisions@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "Andre Lieven" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
11 Jan 2008 10:52:34 PM |
|
|
On Jan 8, 7:57=A0pm, Ken Chaddock <chadd...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Deborah wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:54:15 -0800, Don Homuth
<dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:49:35 -0500, Viking <no...@goodgoodbye.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:51:03 -0800, Don Homuth
<dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote:
Fool. In virtually every other state, and the UK, this kind of a
contract means nothing. The sperm donor is always forced to pay child=
support. After all, "the interests of the child come first."
A policy I've never really cared for. =A0If they guy was Promised, and=
the Promise is recorded somehow, that he would Not bear fiscal
responsibility for the child of a sperm donation, then that's the
deal.
So it would seem. But that's not the way it works.
Apparently in this case at least, it did.
It shouldn't have. =A0Child support is the *child's" right, neither
parent can waive it. =A0
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Well, child support isn't really a "right", though it shou=
ld
be...that's NOT the point. The POINT is that the woman promised that he
would not be held financially responsible for the child if he "helped
her out". By doing that she isn't interfering with the child's right to
support...she's promising to provide that support herself...and that is
what the Court has held her responsible to do...to live up to HER
obligatory promise.
Indeed. The " right " of the child can be handled by simply requiring
the
woman to live up to her promise, such that she provides 100% of what
the child has a " right " to, rather than 50%.
And, as long as men are granted NO equivalent legal rights to decline
parenthood, post coitally, while women possess at least TWO such
rights, neither of which is based on either a medical procedure or a
biological state, then the issue of a child having a " right " to Free
Money from someone who had NO say is rather... absurd.
" Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*. "
Andre
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ranting" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
12 Jan 2008 06:22:39 AM |
|
|
Deborah wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:54:15 -0800, Don Homuth
<dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:49:35 -0500, Viking <no...@goodgoodbye.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:51:03 -0800, Don Homuth
<dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote:
Fool. In virtually every other state, and the UK, this kind of a
contract means nothing. The sperm donor is always forced to pay child
support. After all, "the interests of the child come first."
A policy I've never really cared for. If they guy was Promised, and
the Promise is recorded somehow, that he would Not bear fiscal
responsibility for the child of a sperm donation, then that's the
deal.
So it would seem. But that's not the way it works.
Apparently in this case at least, it did.
It shouldn't have. Child support is the *child's" right, neither
parent can waive it.
Who ever wrote that final statement is 100% wrong, if you doubt it , look up
the word ADOPTION. In an adoption, that is exactly what the parent(s) are
doing, waiving the child's so called rights to support from their parent(s).
In several areas a woman can actually do this without the consent or
knowledge of the father.
.
|
|
|
| User: "elizabeth" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
12 Jan 2008 12:50:55 PM |
|
|
On Jan 12, 4:22=A0am, "Ranting" <r...@rant.com> wrote:
It shouldn't have. Child support is the *child's" right, neither
parent can waive it.
Who ever wrote that final statement is 100% wrong, if you doubt it , look =
up
the word ADOPTION. In an adoption, that is exactly what the parent(s) are
doing, waiving the child's so called rights to support from their parent(s=
).
In several areas a woman can actually do this without the consent or
knowledge of the father.- Hide quoted text -
but not in any US states that I'm aware of.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andre Lieven" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
13 Jan 2008 12:56:11 AM |
|
|
On Jan 12, 1:50 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 12, 4:22 am, "Ranting" <r...@rant.com> wrote:
It shouldn't have. Child support is the *child's" right, neither
parent can waive it.
Who ever wrote that final statement is 100% wrong, if you doubt it , look up
the word ADOPTION. In an adoption, that is exactly what the parent(s) are
doing, waiving the child's so called rights to support from their parent(s).
In several areas a woman can actually do this without the consent or
knowledge of the father.- Hide quoted text -
but not in any US states that I'm aware of.
http://international.adoption.com/foreign/intercountry-adoption-of-a-relative.html
How does the INA define "sole parent"?
A child would be considered to have a sole parent if the child was
born
out-of-wedlock, the birth mother is not married, and the birth father
did not
legitimate the child and is either unknown or has abandoned,
disappeared,
deserted the child or released the child for emigration and adoption.
---------------------------------------------
Now, you know... more.
Andre
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Homuth" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
08 Jan 2008 09:54:00 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:37:49 GMT, Deborah <deborah@config.sys> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:54:15 -0800, Don Homuth
<dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:49:35 -0500, Viking <noway@goodgoodbye.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:51:03 -0800, Don Homuth
<dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote:
Fool. In virtually every other state, and the UK, this kind of a
contract means nothing. The sperm donor is always forced to pay child
support. After all, "the interests of the child come first."
A policy I've never really cared for. If they guy was Promised, and
the Promise is recorded somehow, that he would Not bear fiscal
responsibility for the child of a sperm donation, then that's the
deal.
So it would seem. But that's not the way it works.
Apparently in this case at least, it did.
It shouldn't have.
I disagree. There is this legal thing called Reliance. If the guy is
promised (which seems to be the case) that the woman's need for a
haploid contribution to her ovum is So great that she is willing to
forego the financial contribution, then so be it.
Mind you - I find such a thing a violation of Homuth's Second Law of
Relationships -- never to sleep with anyone crazier than yourself.
But folks Will do that, regardless of the principle.
Child support is the *child's" right, neither
parent can waive it. It has nothing to do with the rights of the
parents, sperm donors beware. Tell the lady to go to a sperm bank if
she wants a sperm donor. Sperm bank sperm donors are given anonymity.
Friends are not.
However...since human behavior is Not subject to such strictures, IF -
and that's mostly a problem -- the promise can be documented, then it
should be held to strictly.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Chaddock" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
06 Jan 2008 05:47:03 PM |
|
|
Viking wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:37:09 -0800, Don Homuth
<dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote:
Mother can't renege on payment deal, Pa. Supreme Court rules
HARRISBURG, Pa. - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a woman who
promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot renege
on the deal.
Seems quite reasonable. A contract is a contract, even if it's not in
writing.
Fool. In virtually every other state, and the UK, this kind of a
contract means nothing. The sperm donor is always forced to pay child
support. After all, "the interests of the child come first."
That is the way it's *been* Viking. I want to get a copy of the actual
transcript particularly the plaintiff's arguments.
I've argued for some time that most lawyers aren't the sharpest tools
in the shed and have avoided arguments that would have made sense. In
many of these cases, the man has argued that it's "unfair" that he pay
support because *she* said he wouldn't have to, without realizing that
*she* doesn't have the right to reduce or give away the child's right to
support.
I have rather, favored an argument based upon agreeing that the child
has a right to be supported but that the MOTHER HAD PROMISED to provide
that support and that this assurance was the ONLY reason that he had
agreed to "donate sperm" to her.
By seeking child support she is indeed acting as an advocate for the
child, but this in NO WAY relieves HER of the obligation to fulfill HER
part of the bargain, which was to provide ALL NECESSARY SUPPORT on her
own, without recourse to him and that if this action determines that
support is required from him, SHE must reimburse him for that support,
or pay it herself directly in his name.
....Ken
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Shatzer" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
06 Jan 2008 02:14:29 PM |
|
|
Viking wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:37:09 -0800, Don Homuth
<dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote:
Mother can't renege on payment deal, Pa. Supreme Court rules
HARRISBURG, Pa. - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a woman who
promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot renege
on the deal.
Seems quite reasonable. A contract is a contract, even if it's not in
writing.
Fool. In virtually every other state, and the UK, this kind of a
contract means nothing. The sperm donor is always forced to pay child
support. After all, "the interests of the child come first."
Wanna revisit that assertion?
Oregon Revised Statutes 109.239:
"Rights and obligations of children resulting from artificial
insemination; rights and obligations of donor of semen.
If the donor of semen used in artificial insemination is not the
mother’s husband:
(1) Such donor shall have no right, obligation or interest with
respect to a child born as a result of the artificial insemination; and
(2) A child born as a result of the artificial insemination shall
have no right, obligation or interest with respect to such donor."
Most states have similar laws. Apparently, Pennsylvania does not. It
should.
Peace and justice,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gwen Bennet" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
07 Jan 2008 05:54:00 AM |
|
|
On Jan 6, 3:14 pm, Bill Shatzer <bshatze...@comcast.net> wrote:
Viking wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:37:09 -0800, Don Homuth
<dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote:
Mother can't renege on payment deal, Pa. Supreme Court rules
HARRISBURG, Pa. - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a woman who
promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot renege
on the deal.
Seems quite reasonable. A contract is a contract, even if it's not in
writing.
Fool. In virtually every other state, and the UK, this kind of a
contract means nothing. The sperm donor is always forced to pay child
support. After all, "the interests of the child come first."
Wanna revisit that assertion?
Oregon Revised Statutes 109.239:
"Rights and obligations of children resulting from artificial
insemination; rights and obligations of donor of semen.
If the donor of semen used in artificial insemination is not the
mother's husband:
(1) Such donor shall have no right, obligation or interest with
respect to a child born as a result of the artificial insemination; and
(2) A child born as a result of the artificial insemination shall
have no right, obligation or interest with respect to such donor."
Most states have similar laws. Apparently, Pennsylvania does not. It
should.
Agreed.
Peace and justice,- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "E. Barry Bruyea" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
07 Jan 2008 03:25:50 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 03:54:00 -0800 (PST), Gwen Bennet
<bennetwithonet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 6, 3:14 pm, Bill Shatzer <bshatze...@comcast.net> wrote:
Viking wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:37:09 -0800, Don Homuth
<dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote:
Mother can't renege on payment deal, Pa. Supreme Court rules
HARRISBURG, Pa. - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a woman who
promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot renege
on the deal.
Seems quite reasonable. A contract is a contract, even if it's not in
writing.
Fool. In virtually every other state, and the UK, this kind of a
contract means nothing. The sperm donor is always forced to pay child
support. After all, "the interests of the child come first."
Wanna revisit that assertion?
Oregon Revised Statutes 109.239:
"Rights and obligations of children resulting from artificial
insemination; rights and obligations of donor of semen.
If the donor of semen used in artificial insemination is not the
mother's husband:
(1) Such donor shall have no right, obligation or interest with
respect to a child born as a result of the artificial insemination; and
(2) A child born as a result of the artificial insemination shall
have no right, obligation or interest with respect to such donor."
Most states have similar laws. Apparently, Pennsylvania does not. It
should.
Agreed.
Peace and justice,- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Men should realize that contract law only goes in one direction; just
ask those poor bastards whose pre-nupts have been thrown out by some
judge.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gwen Bennet" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
08 Jan 2008 12:57:44 PM |
|
|
On Jan 7, 4:25=A0pm, E. Barry Bruyea <lobbyi...@goaway.com> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 03:54:00 -0800 (PST), Gwen Bennet
<bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 6, 3:14 pm, Bill Shatzer <bshatze...@comcast.net> wrote:
Viking wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:37:09 -0800, Don Homuth
<dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote:
Mother can't renege on payment deal, Pa. Supreme Court rules
HARRISBURG, Pa. - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a woman =
who
promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot=
renege
on the deal.
Seems quite reasonable. =A0A contract is a contract, even if it's not=
in
writing.
Fool. In virtually every other state, and the UK, this kind of a
contract means nothing. The sperm donor is always forced to pay child=
support. After all, "the interests of the child come first."
Wanna revisit that assertion?
Oregon Revised Statutes 109.239:
"Rights and obligations of children resulting from artificial
insemination; rights and obligations of donor of semen.
If the donor of semen used in artificial insemination is not the
mother's husband:
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(1) Such donor shall have no right, obligation or intere=
st with
respect to a child born as a result of the artificial insemination; and=
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(2) A child born as a result of the artificial inseminat=
ion shall
have no right, obligation or interest with respect to such donor."
Most states have similar laws. =A0Apparently, Pennsylvania does not. =
=A0It
should.
Agreed.
Peace and justice,- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Men should realize that contract law only goes in one direction; just
ask those poor bastards whose pre-nupts have been thrown out by some
judge.
If there's a will, some blood-sucking douche bag parasite will find a
way.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Viking" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
07 Jan 2008 10:48:41 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:14:29 -0800, Bill Shatzer
<bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
Viking wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:37:09 -0800, Don Homuth
<dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote:
Mother can't renege on payment deal, Pa. Supreme Court rules
HARRISBURG, Pa. - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a woman who
promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot renege
on the deal.
Seems quite reasonable. A contract is a contract, even if it's not in
writing.
Fool. In virtually every other state, and the UK, this kind of a
contract means nothing. The sperm donor is always forced to pay child
support. After all, "the interests of the child come first."
Wanna revisit that assertion?
No. What you posted has to do with articial insem through medial
facilities, not informal sperm transfer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Curt" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
07 Jan 2008 04:14:10 PM |
|
|
"Viking" <noway@goodgoodbye.com> wrote in message
news:htl4o3dclk028k2sulmvjaguhc8bk9bnf5@4ax.com...
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:14:29 -0800, Bill Shatzer
<bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
Viking wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:37:09 -0800, Don Homuth
<dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote:
Mother can't renege on payment deal, Pa. Supreme Court rules
HARRISBURG, Pa. - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a woman
who
promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot
renege
on the deal.
Seems quite reasonable. A contract is a contract, even if it's not in
writing.
Fool. In virtually every other state, and the UK, this kind of a
contract means nothing. The sperm donor is always forced to pay child
support. After all, "the interests of the child come first."
Wanna revisit that assertion?
No. What you posted has to do with articial insem through medial
facilities, not informal sperm transfer.
So what if you did it at home with a baster?
Curt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Shatzer" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
08 Jan 2008 12:19:56 AM |
|
|
Curt wrote:
"Viking" <noway@goodgoodbye.com> wrote in message
news:htl4o3dclk028k2sulmvjaguhc8bk9bnf5@4ax.com...
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:14:29 -0800, Bill Shatzer
<bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
Viking wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:37:09 -0800, Don Homuth
<dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote:
Mother can't renege on payment deal, Pa. Supreme Court rules
HARRISBURG, Pa. - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a woman
who
promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot
renege
on the deal.
Seems quite reasonable. A contract is a contract, even if it's not in
writing.
Fool. In virtually every other state, and the UK, this kind of a
contract means nothing. The sperm donor is always forced to pay child
support. After all, "the interests of the child come first."
Wanna revisit that assertion?
No. What you posted has to do with articial insem through medial
facilities, not informal sperm transfer.
Actually, you'll note the oregon law makes no mention of "medial"
facilities. Or medical ones, either.
So what if you did it at home with a baster?
In Oregon, at least, the result would be identical.
Peace and justice,
.
|
|
|
| User: "lithodendron" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
08 Jan 2008 12:41:15 PM |
|
|
Bill Shatzer wrote:
Peace and justice,
Fish and chips,
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "lithodendron" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
07 Jan 2008 05:28:57 PM |
|
|
Curt wrote:
"Viking" <noway@goodgoodbye.com> wrote in message
news:htl4o3dclk028k2sulmvjaguhc8bk9bnf5@4ax.com...
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:14:29 -0800, Bill Shatzer
<bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
Viking wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:37:09 -0800, Don Homuth
<dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote:
Mother can't renege on payment deal, Pa. Supreme Court rules
HARRISBURG, Pa. - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a woman
who
promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot
renege
on the deal.
Seems quite reasonable. A contract is a contract, even if it's not in
writing.
Fool. In virtually every other state, and the UK, this kind of a
contract means nothing. The sperm donor is always forced to pay child
support. After all, "the interests of the child come first."
Wanna revisit that assertion?
No. What you posted has to do with articial insem through medial
facilities, not informal sperm transfer.
So what if you did it at home with a baster?
Gawd yer creepy....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
