| 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: "Don Homuth" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
06 Jan 2008 11:37:09 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 23:54:23 -0500, "J Young" <jyoungvisions@aol.com>
wrote:
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.
Seems quite reasonable. A contract is a contract, even if it's not in
writing.
Though the guy remains incredible stupid for doing that, even so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rip" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
07 Jan 2008 08:53:16 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 23:54:23 -0500, "J Young" <jyoungvisions@aol.com>
wrote:
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.
Guys should get a vasectomy when they turn 12.
.
|
|
|
| User: "lithodendron" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
07 Jan 2008 02:56:29 PM |
|
|
Rip wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 23:54:23 -0500, "J Young" <jyoungvisions@aol.com>
wrote:
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.
Guys should get a vasectomy when they turn 12.
In your case a fine idea...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Shatzer" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
06 Jan 2008 01:52:23 PM |
|
|
Don Homuth wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 23:54:23 -0500, "J Young" <jyoungvisions@aol.com>
wrote:
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.
Seems quite reasonable. A contract is a contract, even if it's not in
writing.
'Cept, of course, this involves -child- support. Presumably, the child
was not a party to the contract.
We'd not, I'd think, recognize a prenuptial agreement containing a
promise not to hold the bridegroom responsible for child support in the
event of pregnancy and subsequent a divorce.
Nor, I suspect, a similar promise on the lady's part before a "one night
stand".
This sort of thing really cries out for a legislative remedy. Oregon, I
believe, has one in place already. Pennsylvania should address the
issue as well.
Peace and justice,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ranting" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
06 Jan 2008 07:39:36 PM |
|
|
"Bill Shatzer" <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:QI6dnXfzzN_krBzanZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@comcast.com...
Don Homuth wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 23:54:23 -0500, "J Young" <jyoungvisions@aol.com>
wrote:
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.
Seems quite reasonable. A contract is a contract, even if it's not in
writing.
'Cept, of course, this involves -child- support. Presumably, the child
was not a party to the contract.
Except the child is a party to the contract in the sense of every other
contract that has a child involved, the PARENTS decide what is best for the
child.
We'd not, I'd think, recognize a prenuptial agreement containing a promise
not to hold the bridegroom responsible for child support in the event of
pregnancy and subsequent a divorce.
Nor, I suspect, a similar promise on the lady's part before a "one night
stand".
This sort of thing really cries out for a legislative remedy. Oregon, I
believe, has one in place already. Pennsylvania should address the issue
as well.
Peace and justice,
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Chaddock" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
06 Jan 2008 05:58:10 PM |
|
|
Bill Shatzer wrote:
Don Homuth wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 23:54:23 -0500, "J Young" <jyoungvisions@aol.com>
wrote:
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.
Seems quite reasonable. A contract is a contract, even if it's not in
writing.
'Cept, of course, this involves -child- support. Presumably, the child
was not a party to the contract.
Agreed, and neither parent can give away the child's rights BUT she can
be held legally responsible for the promises she makes. If she
*promises* to "indemnify" him from financial responsibly in the case of
an unwanted child, she should be held responsible for that promise. What
this would mean is that if the court determined that he "owed" a certain
amount of CS, SHE should be legally recognized as the party responsible
to either pay directly or to reimburse him.
We'd not, I'd think, recognize a prenuptial agreement containing a
promise not to hold the bridegroom responsible for child support in the
event of pregnancy and subsequent a divorce.
A contract is a contract. If she freely, without coercion and with the
benefit of competent legal advice, signed such a contract, she should be
held to the terms of that contract.
Nor, I suspect, a similar promise on the lady's part before a "one night
stand".
Depends, if he *agrees* to be responsible if anything were to "happen",
he should be held accountable if something happens. But since a simple
sex act isn't sufficient to hold HER to gestate and give birth, I do not
agree that a simple sex act should be considered as sufficient to hold a
man to legal and financial obligations related to the birth of an
unwanted child. HER body = HER decision = HER responsibility
This sort of thing really cries out for a legislative remedy. Oregon, I
believe, has one in place already. Pennsylvania should address the
issue as well.
All that is required is to comply with the 14 amendment, to wit:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
....Ken
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "lithodendron" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
06 Jan 2008 03:04:19 PM |
|
|
Bill Shatzer wrote:
Peace and justice,
***** and vinegar,
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "never@million" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
06 Jan 2008 07:37:04 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 11:52:23 -0800, Bill Shatzer
<bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
Don Homuth wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 23:54:23 -0500, "J Young" <jyoungvisions@aol.com>
wrote:
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.
Seems quite reasonable. A contract is a contract, even if it's not in
writing.
'Cept, of course, this involves -child- support. Presumably, the child
was not a party to the contract.
We'd not, I'd think, recognize a prenuptial agreement containing a
promise not to hold the bridegroom responsible for child support in the
event of pregnancy and subsequent a divorce.
Nor, I suspect, a similar promise on the lady's part before a "one night
stand".
This sort of thing really cries out for a legislative remedy. Oregon, I
believe, has one in place already. Pennsylvania should address the
issue as well.
Peace and justice,
Any elements of a prenuptial agreements are binding if left
uncontested in a subsequent test in a court. Think in terms of
definition of contracts.
DCI
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Viking" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
06 Jan 2008 01:38:04 PM |
|
|
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."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sharpstickintheeye" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
06 Jan 2008 07:58:05 PM |
|
|
"Viking" <noway@goodgoodbye.com> wrote in message
news:oeb2o3lgv1g0fs1pkjc3j0enbnr6jvi8lk@4ax.com...
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."
Unless the "interests" of the mother mysteriously grant her the option of
aborting the child.
How is it that a mother can abort, leading to the death of the child that is
supposed to be so important, but the father ["donor" or not] can't even get
a paper abortion simply removing his obligation before birth [or
conception]?
The law is supposed to do its utmost to apply equally. It clearly is not
even approaching that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Curt" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
07 Jan 2008 04:15:48 PM |
|
|
"Sharpstickintheeye" <dnoparticularaddress@whatsallthisl.org> wrote in
message news:NGfgj.26479
How is it that a mother can abort, leading to the death of the child that
is
supposed to be so important, but the father ["donor" or not] can't even
get
a paper abortion simply removing his obligation before birth [or
conception]?
It's tough being a man, sometimes. Life isn't fair. Suck it up, and deal.
The rest of us do.
Wear a rubber if you don't trust her to be on the pill.
Curt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ranting" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
07 Jan 2008 04:30:21 PM |
|
|
"Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote in message
news:13o585pkuifn1e4@corp.supernews.com...
"Sharpstickintheeye" <dnoparticularaddress@whatsallthisl.org> wrote in
message news:NGfgj.26479
How is it that a mother can abort, leading to the death of the child that
is
supposed to be so important, but the father ["donor" or not] can't even
get
a paper abortion simply removing his obligation before birth [or
conception]?
It's tough being a man, sometimes. Life isn't fair. Suck it up, and deal.
The rest of us do.
Wear a rubber if you don't trust her to be on the pill.
Curt
Wow, the old 'be a man'. To you, does that mean not wanting equal right in
all areas, does it mean allowing men to be taken advantage off, if that is
your idea of a man, no thanks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Curt" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
07 Jan 2008 05:18:15 PM |
|
|
"Ranting" <rant@rant.com> wrote in message
news:4Kxgj.1084$_97.848@fe22.usenetserver.com...
"Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote in message
news:13o585pkuifn1e4@corp.supernews.com...
"Sharpstickintheeye" <dnoparticularaddress@whatsallthisl.org> wrote in
message news:NGfgj.26479
How is it that a mother can abort, leading to the death of the child
that
is
supposed to be so important, but the father ["donor" or not] can't even
get
a paper abortion simply removing his obligation before birth [or
conception]?
It's tough being a man, sometimes. Life isn't fair. Suck it up, and
deal.
The rest of us do.
Wear a rubber if you don't trust her to be on the pill.
Curt
Wow, the old 'be a man'. To you, does that mean not wanting equal right in
all areas, does it mean allowing men to be taken advantage off, if that is
your idea of a man, no thanks.
Yup, the old "be a man". It's been true for centuries, and it's going to
keep being true.
Wrap the rascal, if you don't like it.
Curt
.
|
|
|
| User: "elizabeth" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
07 Jan 2008 05:14:49 PM |
|
|
On Jan 7, 3:18=A0pm, "Curt" <c...@hevanet.com> wrote:
"Ranting" <r...@rant.com> wrote in message
news:4Kxgj.1084$_97.848@fe22.usenetserver.com...
"Curt" <c...@hevanet.com> wrote in message
news:13o585pkuifn1e4@corp.supernews.com...
"Sharpstickintheeye" <dnoparticularaddr...@whatsallthisl.org> wrote in=
message news:NGfgj.26479
How is it that a mother can abort, leading to the death of the child
that
is
supposed to be so important, but the father ["donor" or not] can't ev=
en
get
a paper abortion simply removing his obligation before birth [or
conception]?
It's tough being a man, sometimes. Life isn't fair. Suck it up, and
deal.
The rest of us do.
Wear a rubber if you don't trust her to be on the pill.
Curt
Wow, the old 'be a man'. To you, does that mean not wanting equal right =
in
all areas, does it mean allowing men to be taken advantage off, if that =
is
your idea of a man, no thanks.
Yup, the old "be a man". It's been true for centuries, and it's going to
keep being true.
Wrap the rascal, if you don't like it.
A vasectomy is cheaper than a month of child support. There is even a
new temporary method, even cheaper.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "lithodendron" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
07 Jan 2008 05:29:22 PM |
|
|
Curt wrote:
"Sharpstickintheeye" <dnoparticularaddress@whatsallthisl.org> wrote in
message news:NGfgj.26479
How is it that a mother can abort, leading to the death of the child that
is
supposed to be so important, but the father ["donor" or not] can't even
get
a paper abortion simply removing his obligation before birth [or
conception]?
It's tough being a man, sometimes. Life isn't fair.
Oh I bet you have lots of problems....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andre Lieven" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
07 Jan 2008 04:43:28 PM |
|
|
On Jan 7, 5:15=A0pm, "Curt" <c...@hevanet.com> doesn't get it:
"Sharpstickintheeye" <dnoparticularaddr...@whatsallthisl.org> wrote in
message news:NGfgj.26479
How is it that a mother can abort, leading to the death of the child tha=
t
is supposed to be so important, but the father ["donor" or not] can't
even get a paper abortion simply removing his obligation before
birth [or conception]?
It's tough being a man, sometimes.
Its NOT society's job to *make it tougher*...
Life isn't fair.
I DARE you to go say that at a NOW meeting...
'Cause that would be... *equality*...
Suck it up,
Tell that to Martin Luther King in 1959...
and deal.
Or, to any guy who has just found out that the ten years of
court ordered " child support " hes been paying went to a
mother of a kid where it turns out thathe WASN'T the
father of the child...
The rest of us do.
Prove it. Or, shut up, oh protector of women's ear.
Wear a rubber if you don't trust her to be on the pill.
So, since you are clear that you see NO need for POST coital
Choices for men, and you must believe in " equality ", right, so
please post a copy of your letters of complaint with regards to
makin abortion, a POST coital Choice, illegal.
Sauce for the gooe, dumbass. Thats the point of REAL
equality.
Andre
.
|
|
|
| User: "elizabeth" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
07 Jan 2008 04:54:44 PM |
|
|
On Jan 7, 2:43=A0pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
So, since you are clear that you see NO need for POST coital
Choices for men,
Any pregnant man is free to abort.
? and you must believe in " equality ", right, so
please post a copy of your letters of complaint with regards to
makin abortion, a POST coital Choice, illegal.
Sauce for the gooe, dumbass. Thats the point of REAL
equality.
Real equality in your eyes would mean men should also gestate.
Go for it! And stay in your soc.eunuch ng
Andre
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andre Lieven" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
08 Jan 2008 02:15:46 PM |
|
|
On Jan 7, 5:54=A0pm, elizabeth <misandrous@hysterical.cow> screeched:
On Jan 7, 2:43=A0pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
So, since you are clear that you see NO need for POST coital
Choices for men,
Any pregnant man is free to abort.
? and you must believe in " equality ", right, so
please post a copy of your letters of complaint with regards to
makin abortion, a POST coital Choice, illegal.
Sauce for the gooe, dumbass. Thats the point of REAL
equality.
Real equality in your eyes would mean men should also gestate.
Only if it then also means that women MUST be 100% as strong as
men.
Try it sometime; we could all use the laffs...
Go for it!
I note that you remain UNable to debate/refute the point that
the women-ONLY POST coital NON medical and NON biological
means to void parental obligations are sexist.
Thank you for your concession.
" Her body, her Choice.... HER *Responsibility*. "
=A0And stay in your soc.eunuch ng
As long as you stay in your alt.aborted.retards.
Ptui.
Andre
.
|
|
|
| User: "elizabeth" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
08 Jan 2008 03:44:06 PM |
|
|
On Jan 8, 12:15=A0pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Jan 7, 5:54=A0pm, elizabeth <misandr...@hysterical.cow> screeched:
So, since you are clear that you see NO need for POST coital
Choices for men,
Any pregnant man is free to abort.
? and you must believe in " equality ", right, so
please post a copy of your letters of complaint with regards to
makin abortion, a POST coital Choice, illegal.
Sauce for the gooe, dumbass. Thats the point of REAL
equality.
Real equality in your eyes would mean men should also gestate.
Only if it then also means that women MUST be 100% as strong as
men.
Many women are stronger than many men.
So I take you feel that weak men should have less rights?
Your only problem is your mother didn't abort.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andre Lieven" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
08 Jan 2008 06:24:22 PM |
|
|
On Jan 8, 4:44=A0pm, elizabeth <man-hater@hysterical.cow> idiotised:
On Jan 8, 12:15=A0pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Jan 7, 5:54=A0pm, elizabeth <misandr...@hysterical.cow> screeched:
So, since you are clear that you see NO need for POST coital
Choices for men,
Any pregnant man is free to abort.
? and you must believe in " equality ", right, so
please post a copy of your letters of complaint with regards to
makin abortion, a POST coital Choice, illegal.
Sauce for the gooe, dumbass. Thats the point of REAL
equality.
Real equality in your eyes would mean men should also gestate.
Only if it then also means that women MUST be 100% as strong as
men.
Many women are stronger than many men.
Non Sequitur. Thats NOT what I wrote. Ergo, you cowshitted,
oh weaseling wuss.
So I take you feel that weak men should have less rights?
<Massive Sexist Loon Projection>
Your only problem is your mother didn't abort.
<Massive Sexist Loon Projection>
" Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*. "
All else is sexism FOR women, which is no less Bad than sexism
against women.
Andre
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
07 Jan 2008 10:36:11 PM |
|
|
elizabeth <efrantes@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 7, 2:43 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
So, since you are clear that you see NO need for POST coital
Choices for men,
Any pregnant man is free to abort.
Any man who gives birth should pay child support.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
08 Jan 2008 02:45:56 PM |
|
|
"Viking" <noway@goodgoodbye.com> wrote in message
news:oeb2o3lgv1g0fs1pkjc3j0enbnr6jvi8lk@4ax.com...
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."
Pro-Choicers expect people to believe that ***** line they use to steal
money?
All you disgusting pro-choicers are thieves and you are about to be
rejected.
You are wimpy, selfish, ungracious cowards and you aren't going to rule over
anyone at any time as long as you are pro-choice.
Your shame and pride are disgusting.
You have no credibility.
You so often contradict yourselves you have lost the ability to lead.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MEG" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
06 Jan 2008 03:36:38 PM |
|
|
On Jan 6, 11:38 am, Viking <no...@goodgoodbye.com> 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."
I think you are confusing "sperm donor" with plain ol sex.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Homuth" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
06 Jan 2008 08:51:03 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:38:04 -0500, Viking <noway@goodgoodbye.com>
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."
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Viking" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
07 Jan 2008 10:49:35 AM |
|
|
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Homuth" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
07 Jan 2008 11:54:15 AM |
|
|
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deborah" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
07 Jan 2008 09:37:49 PM |
|
|
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. 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.
Deborah
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ranting" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
07 Jan 2008 11:41:40 PM |
|
|
"Deborah" <deborah@config.sys> wrote in message
news:3rr5o35l6lvkicvpsmheo8tun1q57hassb@4ax.com...
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. 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.
Deborah
and why shouldn't a parent waive it. OR more to Kens point, a parent can
assume ALL responsibility, therefore no one is waiving it
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
07 Jan 2008 10:37:40 PM |
|
|
Deborah <deborah@config.sys> wrote:
Don Homuth
Viking <noway@goodgoodbye.com>
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:51:03 -0800, Don Homuth
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.
Which makes no sense at all since parents can jointly terminate the
child's "right" by giving the child up for adoption or turning it over
to the state.
It has nothing to do with the rights of the
parents, sperm donors beware.
Of course it does. It's victorian paternalism. Women NEED men to
take care of them.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Chaddock" |
|
| Title: Re: Sperm donor wins child support battle |
08 Jan 2008 06:57:56 PM |
|
|
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 <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. Child support is the *child's" right, neither
parent can waive it.
Well, child support isn't really a "right", though it should
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.
....Ken
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
