An appeals court said a man can press a claim for emotional distress after learning a former lover had used his sperm to have a baby. But he can't claim theft, the ruling said, because the sperm were hers to keep.
-----------------
There are so many things wrong with this story, I don't even know where to start...
[ February 25, 2005, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Wow.
Just-- wow.
People are unfathomable.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
How? That’s just evil. You can just walk in a place and say hey, knock me up with this sample I brought in with me. Does this mean that Monica could possibly have saved some and there could be another little Bill someday?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"She asserts that when plaintiff 'delivered' his sperm, it was a gift - an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee," the decision said. "There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request."
This is one of the benefits of being a lawyer. You can write stuff like this and actually mean it.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
O_o
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:"She asserts that when plaintiff 'delivered' his sperm, it was a gift - an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee," the decision said. "There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request."
[edit: I am slow and Dag is fast.]
[ February 24, 2005, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Mike ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Uh -- doesn't sperm have a very short shelf life? How did she keep it and keep it viable?
Farmgirl
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
So, it seems to me that he shouldn't owe her any child support in that case.
Why should the father being distressed by his birth pain the child more than the mother keeping his existence secret for 2 or 3 years?
quote:You can just walk in a place and say hey, knock me up with this sample I brought in with me.
Umm, there didn't need to be any kind of fertility clinic involved.
[ February 24, 2005, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Maybe it was an at-home transfer.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So, it seems to me that he shouldn't owe her any child support in that case.
Technically, he doesn't owe her the support, even though he gives her the money. He owes it to her children.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I think if the man were the one who were pregnant he should be able to sue.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
Well, it seems she was a doctor- she probably had access to catherers, etc...or maybe she got a turkey baster at the dollar store.
All she would have needed was a lidded cup and some dry ice to keep it viable.
But yeah, that's decietful and I see no reason the man should have to pay support in this case.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think technically he'll owe support no matter what. But, it's possible his damages if he wins will exactly offset that support.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
She probably didn't keep it for very long. Her kid is five years old...
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Why does he owe support since he engaged in an activity that he could in no way forsee end up producing a child? If he had intercourse with her, I could understand. It seems she took all the responsibility on herself by the methods she used.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Both are doctors, although their specialities aren't given. So, presumably, they're intelligent. I'm having real problems with that presumption.
First, did they have intercourse or not? If they did, why would he come up with such a weird story and try to make it stick? And why wouldn't she just deny it? And if not, what the hell is wrong with this woman?
Second, why didn't she mention the kid for two years? Why make his first awareness of his child happen through a lawsuit? What's wrong with a phone? And if she had a child without his knowledge or consent, especially in such a manner, why is he still liable for child support?
Third, did he really think he could charge her with theft of something I'm willing to bet he was very, very eager to give away at the time?
Fourth, how in the world could this possibly be settled when it's (barring video evidence) a he said/she said deal?
And I love this: "'There's a 5-year-old child here,' Mirabelli said. 'Imagine how a child feels when your father says he feels emotionally damaged by your birth.'"
Gee, I dunno. Maybe the same way he'd feel if he knew momma had him by guile and then had a court force his unknowing dad to pay for her sneakiness for the next 13 years?
There's a lot more about this case I'd need to know before really getting steamed, but so far I think they're both idiots.
And remember folks, when you do stuff like this, it's vitally important to get a receipt.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
because child support is something owed the child, not the mother. The child is his, by whatever means, and he is responsible for supporting its upkeep.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
This is ridiculous and sets a very bad precident.
Her case should have been tossed out immediately. The act the performed is 100% safe in the prevention of pregnancy. He did nothing that could father a child without her going to great lengths to make sure it happened.
Her case sets the precident for sperm donors to be sued as well.
HE should be able to sue for harassment. He has to waste his time and money defending against her frivolous case. Though, as the judge said, I don't think he should be able to sue simply because his sperm was used.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"I think technically he'll owe support no matter what."
How would this be different from a sperm donor, who has no legal obligation to his offspring?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If she became pregnant through intercourse I'd agree, even if he thought they were being careful, even if she told him she was safe but knew she wasn't.
In this case, I can't see it. I'd say the responsibility for the child would be entirely hers. She certainly didn't involve him in the decision or permit him any involvement in the first two years.
I guess my problem is that I can't comprehend it. How can someone knowingly lay a permanent burden on another person like that without his consent and without sharing any of the joys? And make him pay for it besides?
Added: and by "burden" I don't mean solely financial, or that it's not a burden he might have willingly accepted. There's just too much here we're not told. Does he get visitation or shared custody rights?
[ February 24, 2005, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I don't know, what if you donate eggs to be used in fertility treatments for a relative, and the first try works and they have extra eggs, and those eggs are used not as you intended, to impregnate some other person? Can that other person sue you for child support?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:How would this be different from a sperm donor, who has no legal obligation to his offspring?
quote: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.
Besides, in most such cases, the father waives his parental rights, and the mother agrees to such waiver. It's similar to adoption - heck, it might be an adoption. There's nothing similar here.
[ February 24, 2005, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Dags, if he's responsible because the child is his "by whatever means," are sperm donors responsible for child support if the mothers manage to track them down a couple of years later? Or I suppose it could be written into the contract that the woman is giving up the right to child support... I don't really know.
I'm a big believer in personal responsibility. If the woman did this in such a way that he would not reasonably believe there was a risk of her getting pregnant, I don't think he should be responsible. Sucks for the kid, yeah. I certainly think it would be the right thing for him to do to offer to help support the child, but I have a hard time saying he should be legally responsible.
Added: Sorry, got distracted, and was too slow...
[ February 24, 2005, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
By the way, this is all google-knowledge; I haven't studied it formally.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
On the face of it, I would agree that it was totally her choice to have the child. But if he hadn't, um, "given" her his sperm in the first place, this wouldn't have happened. Since, as stated before, the obligation for child support is to the child, not the mother, I would say he does owe it. If there had been no act that resulted in his sperm being in her possession, there would be no child. (Since she didn't "steal" it, that is. If this had happened in another circumstance that did amount to stealing, rather than use of, um, a "gift", I would think differently.)
That woman was out of her mind, though. How could she not think this would cause problems when she tried to get pregnant?
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Are you saying you haven't studied all the intricate laws surrounding sperm donors and such? Is that next year?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't think there's much case law. This decision could be seminal.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Ouch.
(But I'm still laughing.)
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Juh, whuh...!? Oh my God!
(punches Dag)
[ February 24, 2005, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Ryuko ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dag, you're a nut =)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
KQ - if they never had intercourse, I can't agree with you. I believe he had a reasonable expectation that what he was doing wouldn't need a bike five years down the road. Granted, should anyone want to avoid this possibility I'd advise abstinence, or at least checking to make sure there's not a petri dish under the pillow.
But if I give a person money to buy illegal drugs and they get caught and mention me, the police have every right to arrest me. I was complicit.
If I give a person money as a gift, and they go to buy illegal drugs with it, get caught and mention me, there is no reason I should be considered complicit.
In this particular case, again assuming that all is as stated in the article, she went to extreme lengths to have a child by this man and kept him unaware of that child's existence for two years. I don't know what this guy's feelings about children might be, but I'd be furious. Not because of the child, but because of the duplicity and the loss of those two years.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Monica could possibly have saved some
She would have needed one of those steam extraction units to go over the Oval Office rug in "Bill's corner." Yeah, get some of the DNA from those carpet fibers in the mix. We're talking Bill "the Wookie" Jr...or maybe Bill The Cat. Ack ack!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Dag, I have gone out of my way to avoid puns in this thread, and don't think it's been easy. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I believe he had a reasonable expectation that what he was doing wouldn't need a bike five years down the road.
You do have a way with words.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Dag, sper me your punning! Sheesh.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Oh my god... I cannot believe that the woman would use sperm aquired in oral sex to get herself pregnant and then try and get child care money from the father!!!! Thats BS!! And I can't believe the court is siding with the woman who did that. That IS stealing!!
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:sperm aquired in oral sex to get herself pregnant
That's gotta be one limber lady!
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I'm going to stop posting on Hatrack now because Dags has just made
The. Best. Post. Ever.
edited to add: It is theoretically possible to get pregnant from a combination of oral sex acts. I know this because it is one of the first questions my best friend asked our science teacher during sex ed in sixth grade.
[ February 24, 2005, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Chris, I will have to differ with you. Sperm is not money. Money can be exchanged for things, but sperm, when combined with an egg successfully, actually creates life. That is what it's for; it's not currency that can be spent for anything else. I believe that when you create the body of a child, you call down the spirit of a person to Earth, and you are responsible-- or should be-- for bringing up and teaching the life you so create, whether through intent or by accident, unless you sign that responsibility over to someone else (like an adoption or a sperm donation). If I were a man, I would guard the substance with that power until I was married just as carefully as I did as a woman. Just because he was not participating in an act that could reasonably be expected to cause pregnancy does not mean he did not give the material to create life to that woman. Of course she's crazy to do what she did, and awful not to tell him about it sooner. But still, he gave up the right to deny that child when he put his sperm in the, ah, hands of the woman he was intimate with, whether or not he had intercourse.
[ February 24, 2005, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]
Posted by MichelleEly (Member # 6737) on :
This is OT but the oral sex aspect reminded me of something. I was reading a true case about a serial rapist. The deciding peace of evidence was the sperm that one of the victims - a real estate agent he lured to a house - kept in her mouth until she could transfer it.
I thought that took a determination that most people wouldn't have in those circumstances. Michelle
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I know I'm going to cite this the next time I ask a girl if she spi -- well. You know.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I can see Bob now with a penlight "Ok, now lift your tongue"
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Between this and Jay in the "hummer" thread, I am not doing well in the "clean thoughts" area today...
Posted by MichelleEly (Member # 6737) on :
All these witticisms are hard to swallow. (See?) Michelle
[ February 24, 2005, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: MichelleEly ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: Phillips accuses Dr. Sharon Irons of a "calculated, profound personal betrayal" after their affair six years ago, saying she secretly kept semen after they had oral sex, then used it to get pregnant.
He said he didn't find out about the child for nearly two years, when Irons filed a paternity lawsuit. DNA tests confirmed Phillips was the father, the court papers state.
That is... argh. No words for it. Dishonest. Evil. Awful. Stupid. Garrr...
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I don't think he should deny the child. And, as I said, the only to avoid it with confidence is by remaining abstinent. And what's done is done; the child's future shouldn't rely on "he said/she said."
But I think her choice, and her decision to keep him out of the loop, should mitigate his responsibility to some degree or permit him involvement in the child's upbringing. Had she had the child without his knowledge and never told him, I'd still consider it dishonest but I wouldn't be -- quite -- as upset with her. Basically, if she needs support then he should be allowed shared custody or at least visitation. If she refuses to allow him access to the child's life, she must accept sole financial responsibility as well.
Ideally he would not be forced to pay support, but would anyway for the child's sake. I can't see this as anything but a way to cause resentment for the rest of that child's life.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'm trying to articulate my reaction to this, and for a guy who writes a lot I'm having problems.
In a very real way I think he was raped. Not in the sense that sex or abuse was forced on him, but because due to her selfish actions his life has been forever changed without his consent.
Edited to add: this may not be true from his viewpoint. He might not care that he has children elsewhere and is only peeved about the financial burden, something he can grit his teeth and pay until the kid hits 18. Dunno. Don't care. For me, it would be a massive betrayal and there's no way on this Earth I would be completely kept away from my child.
[ February 24, 2005, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
She's a DOCTOR. It's not like she's a homeless woman gnawing the last thread of meat off a KFC chicken wing she fished out of the dumpster with her little one crying "Mommy can I have a bit of crust to go with my bones today?"
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Her first name could be doctor.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
Y'know, I have to think the "Where did I come from?" conversations we will be having will be cake compared to the one this kid will face.
Posted by MichelleEly (Member # 6737) on :
I agree with Pixiest. If this woman is making a good salary, she should bare the vast majority of the financial cost of raising this child.
The man should have very liberal vistitation and a nominal financial burden, if anything. Or perhaps he could pay for the child's higher education. That way he could invest the money for many years with the promise that this woman would never benefit from it - that all the money would go toward the only person he is obligated to in this case. Michelle
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Or the "Bring Your Dad to Work" day when the kid produces Tupperware...
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
Posted by MichelleEly (Member # 6737) on :
Can you see the Sex-Ed class where the kid corrects the teacher when she says you can't get pregnant from oral sex? Michelle
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
quote:I can see Bob now with a penlight "Ok, now lift your tongue"
I rarely laugh out loud, but this quote resulted in several loud guffaws.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You just require a glass of water be drunk at the same time, the way ventriloquists do.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You just require a glass of water be drunk at the same time, the way ventriloquists do.
Man, you must have seen some scary ventriloquist acts.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Luckily I'm married and immune to such shenanigans, but if I was single and looking this story would make me nervous about women giving me that "Come hither" look.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You had to hang around for Edgar Bergan's midnight show.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Now all those wood jokes take on a whole 'nother meaning.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
No mention of the child's name. I'm thinking Phil.
Or maybe "Li'l Squirt."
Posted by MichelleEly (Member # 6737) on :
The point is that if she gives you that come hither look she might transfer it from hither to thither. Michelle
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
There's a "hither, thither, and yoni" joke in there somewhere, but I'm not gonna do it.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Hither, thither and yawn?
Posted by MichelleEly (Member # 6737) on :
\\No mention of the child's name. I'm thinking Phil.
Or maybe "Li'l Squirt." //
Robin - because mom didn't Swallow, waited 2 years to Crow, and the father has good reason to be Raven! Michelle
[ February 24, 2005, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: MichelleEly ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
"Mommy, how was I born?"
"Would you like a blow by blow discription?"
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
quote:Robin - because mom didn't Swallow, waited 2 years to Crow, and the father has good reason to be Raven!
Posted by MichelleEly (Member # 6737) on :
"Dear, let's just say that my "spit take" took." Michelle
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There's got to be a limerick in this:
A medical woman named Irons, Wanted a kid to color with crayons. So this lascivious taster, took a small turkey baster, And moved stuff to her lower environs.
[ February 24, 2005, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
The next big thing will be paternity suits filed by workers at the tissue recycling plant.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Having very little knowledge in the legalities, I will proceed to offer my opinions on what should be the case.
I absolutely agree that he should pay child support. Child support should be based on the needs of the child, not the worthiness of the mother. But some cause ought to be found under which he can sue her for damages equal to that amount. And he should be permitted whatever involvement in the child’s life he desires, including shared legal custody. (Probably not physical custody, though, since that could be disruptive to the kid.)
And then he should voluntarily use the money he’s getting back from the mother to pay for some of the child’s expenses directly, or set up college funds or whatnot.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Its not that she had the child with out his knowledge that pisses me off. Its that she took some of his sperm, from oral sex, got her self artificialy inseminated with out his knowledge, got pregnant with out telling or asking him, gave birth, and then two years after all of this sued him for child support. That's... argh. Its like she planned to do exactly this to him, and he's suffering the burden. She raped him. And what she's done to the poor kid here... the whole situatoin is entirely the woman's fault and it looks like one way or another the guy is going to suffer quite a bit too. Not to mention the poor kid.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I agree with that, dkw.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
dkw, if a nurse at a clinic stole some sperm from a patient that was having his sperm tested and impregnated herself, would you hold him liable? It would be great if he agreed to it willingly but I find the idea that he be forced to pay when he was deceived to be wrong. And what would be the point of forcing him to pay and then allowing him to recoup those losses with another lawsuit?
[ February 24, 2005, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: punwit ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
And what would be the point of forcing him to pay and then allowing him to recoup those losses with another lawsuit?
The important thing is the lawyers get paid and for once, our idle court system finally get something to do.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Ahh, now we see the reason for Dag's endorsement.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The point would be that requiring child support is not holding anyone "liable." It's not about guilt, it's about parents' responsibility to their offspring.
The point of charging her the damages would be that her deliberate and deceitful actions led to him having a financial burden he would not otherwise have had. He still has the responsibility, but her wrongdoing led to it, so she should pay it on his behalf.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Who else saw "Dag's engagement" instead of "Dag's endorsement"?
[ February 24, 2005, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I agree with Alcon and punwit. I don't see how any of this is the guy's fault. If anything I have gross doubts about the mother's mental competence to raise a child. Something has to be seriously wrong with you for you to even conceive of a plan like this, much less carry it out.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
I guess it seems like needless litigation to me. I'm assuming that this is the only case where you would advocate responsablity for something that you had no control over?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
punwit, they determined tht the sperm was not stolen.
Just used in an unexpected way.
[ February 24, 2005, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And what would be the point of forcing him to pay and then allowing him to recoup those losses with another lawsuit?
To make it clear that the reason we have child support is not because someone is your "fault," but rather because someone is your child.
quote:I guess it seems like needless litigation to me. I'm assuming that this is the only case where you would advocate responsablity for something that you had no control over?
Responsibility does not rise solely from choice or control.
Dagonee
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dag, you're taking the responcibility of the lying (apt, but inappropriate compound word omitted) and transfering it to someone who's only crime was to trust her.
The child will be taken care of as the woman is a Doctor and probably has plenty of money.
One should have responsibility for his actions, not the actions of a lying (compound word omitted).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, one should have responsibility for ones children.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Ok, what if you donated a collectible shotgun to an organization and they assured you that it would never be fired, that it would be purely for display. At some point the organization attempts to fire the gun and someone is killed or injured. The gun was determined to be faulty and they hold you responsible?
[ February 24, 2005, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: punwit ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
It takes more than a sperm donation to make a child yours.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Again, child support is not based on whose "fault" anything is. Children are not a crime.
And child support is NOT a punishment.
[ February 24, 2005, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
quote: Responsibility does not rise solely from choice or control.
Could you provide generic examples of this?
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
We are assuming the "father" can recoup his damages from the mother and that the mother does not really need the money. But what if the mother were poor and really needed the child support? Would that change anyone's position?
If she really need the money, should the biological father be allowed to walk away from the child?
On the other hand, if there is no way the father can recover the money he paid for child support from the mother via another lawsuit, would it still be fair to make him pay?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not the same. One can waive ones right to collect, and one can transfer property with conditions. A child is not property.
The child has a claim on the father for support. Because the child is a minor, this money is actually paid to the mother.
The father has a claim on the mother for, what, illicit use of sperm.
Suppose they exactly cancel each other out. That doesn't mean the father doesn't own the child. It means the father can use the money he receives from the mother to pay the child.
Now suppose the other can't afford to pay the father, but the father can afford child support without receiving his damages from the mother. He still has to pay the child. Because the money is owed to the child.
Suppose you owe someone $100,000. Suppose that person crashes into your house and causes exactly $100,000 in damage. Do you just wipe out the debt and call it even? No. Why? because that would let that someone's insurance company off the hook.
The introduction of a third party makes keeping track of individual liabilities separately critical.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It takes more than a sperm donation to make a child yours.
Not in this country. Things other than being the actual sperm donor can make you a father, but in many cases sperm donor is enough.
Dagonee
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
I do understand what you are saying Dana. I'm not trying to say that children or child support is a punisment. I just disagree with the idea that someone be responsible for anything when they've been lied or duped. In a perfect world, the donor would contribute and the mother would allow visitation if that was so desired.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Could you provide generic examples of this?
Apparently not. I can't come up with one right now.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
For me, the issue of responsibility rests upon foreseeability. I have some sympathy for this woman's case because pregnancy from oral sex is not an entirely unforeseeable scenario.
But what if this woman took the sperm and gave it to ten of her closest friends, who also successfully impregnated themselves.
Are we still prepared to say that this guy is responsible for crushing debt for an entirely unforeseeable result to his actions?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Basically, I think the mother should indemnify the father for child support. In the 10 mother situation, all the mothers would indemnify for their own kid, plus the sperm-gatherer would indemnify for all.
Of course, in that case, the man is still responsible if the mother(s) can't pay. And I think that's right.
Dagonee
[ February 24, 2005, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Good Example Beren!
What about if the man WANTED the child. Should he be able to take it from the mother? (I hate calling children "it" I'm gonna call her "her" from now on even though I don't know the gender.)
Should the father be able to sue the mother for custody rights for the little girl since the mother has already shown herself to be a lying (compound word omited)?
If he has to pay child support then he has the right to at least be concidered for custody.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I absolutely agree he should be eligible for custody. At minimum joint physical, at maximum, main guardian with her getting visitation rights.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
So Dag, if psycho-doctor-woman spit the man's "boys" into a cup and under a microscope seperated it into teeny tiny containers....
Then went onto the Internet and gave them away to anyone who asked... the man could conceivably be responsible for thousands of women becoming pregnant and become financially responsible for thousands of children.
I don't think so.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
He couldn't pay it, so at some point it's moot.
If a child is your biological child, you have a responsibility to him or her.
Dagonee
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Of course, in that case, the man is still responsible if the mother(s) can't pay. And I think that's right.
I don't agree with that view, but I understand it and respect what you are saying.
Having said that....
quote:If you let your boys out, you've got to take responsibility for them.
Is 29 too young to get a vasectomy?
I know you're kinda of joking on the last sentence there Dag, but the "let the boys out" comment is somewhat based on foreseeability as well. Would your views change if the woman was the plaintiff's housekepper and covertly liberated some of his sperms while he was sleeping in bed?
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Dag, I can think of an example of responsiblity that doesn't revolve around choice or control but I believe it lies outside the scope of legality. I feel we all have a responsablity to upgrade and uplift our fellow man but, that doesn't mean that it should be enforceable by law. This is our duty as humans but the option to not comply is also what makes us human.
[ February 24, 2005, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: punwit ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I deleted that line because I was mostly joking and thought it wouldn't be obvious in context.
However, my main issue is attitudinal. I don't like the idea of child support being something that's paid because the father was "careless." It's strict liability. Children deserve to receive child support because of who they are, inherently, not because of what their parents did.
Allowing the exceptions in the hard cases meaning we are subordinating the principle that "people are responsible for their offspring" to "people have no inherent responsibility unless they're fault somehow."
I also don't like the idea of the child, once s/he exists, being treated as a consequence of a mistake. Conception might have been unintended. The child's existence is not a mistake, because the child's existence is not defined from the parent's perspective.
Dagonee
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The child's existence is not a mistake, but the injustice done to the father is (in my eyes) clearly wrong. The mother must bear responsibility for the deception and must incur some sort of retributory measure. I'd hate to see a precedent set.
On the other hand, just a couple incidents of mass-child creation paternity lawsuits might serve as a heck of a deterrant against promsicuity. Wonder if this is how the Clone Wars got started?
Posted by MichelleEly (Member # 6737) on :
This case can set a precedent. I don't think this poor schlub knew what hit him, but I can see some lawyer in the future questioning some guy on if he was aware of this case in order to prove forseeability. Michelle
Posted by MichelleEly (Member # 6737) on :
Maybe Listerine can add a spermicide. Michelle
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The mother must bear responsibility for the deception and must incur some sort of retributory measure. I'd hate to see a precedent set.
I agree, and my indmenity plan does that. Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Ya know, Chris just said something that turned a light on for me.
quote: The child's existence is not a mistake
My parents always joked that I was unplanned. I never felt unloved. Even tho I surprised them they showered me with love. As a precocious adolescent I would joke that I was Darrendipity. Mistakes can be wonderful and inspiring. What matters in every child's life is love and acceptance, not the monetary responsibility that is somehow correlated nowadays. If I was the product of a similar circumstance I would much rather not know that someone was providing for me that was being impelled to do so. It would be better to be somewhat poor than feel like I was a commodity.
[ February 24, 2005, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: punwit ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
If the idiot had cuddled and conversed like decent folks do aftering doing the deed, he wouldn't be in this mess. Ya know, ask her if she wants to take a trip to Bermuda or something. Get her to try to talk. Better yet, get her to laugh...do one of those spraying-the-milk-out-yer-nose things.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
My friend just pointed out that, in the "splits the cup up amongt 10 friends" scenario, the man is no longer the donor. She is.
[ February 24, 2005, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:I also don't like the idea of the child, once s/he exists, being treated as a consequence of a mistake.
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
quote:Allowing the exceptions in the hard cases meaning we are subordinating the principle that "people are responsible for their offspring" to "people have no inherent responsibility unless they're fault somehow."
I would not support someone arguing against child support simply because a condom broke. But there must be situations that are so outrageous (like the housekeeper example) that the public policy of supporting parental responsibility is outweighed by the fundamental unfairless of punishing someone who is not responsible for their actions.
However, I do remember reading somewhere that certain courts will not allow paternity tests to dispute child support once the court has ruled on the issue of paternity. I'm not sure if it was an actual case or just a crazy hypo by one of my professors.
quote:It's strict liability.
If a 25-year-old was raped by a 16-year-old, would the 25 year-old be responsible for statutory rape?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
You guys are missing the point. She essentially forced the child upon him. Guys can do the same to women: its called rape. She shouldn't just have to pay damages, she should be going to bloody jail. She should be locked away under rape charges. The way she got the kid voids completely her ability to take care of it. Seriously, whats the kid gonna learn from a mother like THAT? If the father wants it, great! If not, then another, loving good home needs to be found for it. The father bears no responsibility for the child whatsoever. The assumption in oral sex is that the sperm will be destoryed and there will be no resulting pregnancy. Biological connection doesn't necesarily mean responsibility to raise. Thats why adoption exists. If he wants to pay child support to the adoptive family that is also wonderful.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I would not support someone arguing against child support simply because a condom broke. But there must be situations that are so outrageous (like the housekeeper example) that the public policy of supporting parental responsibility is outweighed by the fundamental unfairless of punishing someone who is not responsible for their actions.
First, it's not punishment. Second, the indemnification attempts to put the cost on the most "blameworthy" party, while still maintaining the child's rights.
quote:However, I do remember reading somewhere that certain courts will not allow paternity tests to dispute child support once the court has ruled on the issue of paternity. I'm not sure if it was an actual case or just a crazy hypo by one of my professors.
In many states, married men may not deny the paternity of children born to their wife, even with DNA testing. It's not quite the same as your hypo - that sounds like a res judicata we had, although it was about something else that was equally as provable not being allowed to be reopened.
quote:If a 25-year-old was raped by a 16-year-old, would the 25 year-old be responsible for statutory rape?
Strict liability for statutory rape, in most states, refers solely to the circumstantial element of the minor's age. There's usually a different mens rea for the sexual act itself, such as intent.
Dagonee
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I have to say, I thought early on in the thread that what to woman did was akin to rape. I just couldn't string it together.
I wonder if this whole situation arose because he wanted this act done so that there wouldn't be a risk of pregnancy.
quote: If she refuses to allow him access to the child's life, she must accept sole financial responsibility as well.
Bingo. I think Chris said this.
Dag, I don't understand your indemnity spiel. Can you try again with smaller words?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Suppose someone hires you to cut down a tree in their yard. You think the tree might fall on the neighbors shed, no matter how you cut it down. You tell the customer, I'll do it, but you have to promise to pay for the shed if the tree lands on it. That promise is called an indemnification - a promise to pay if someone else sues you. You take all precautions, make sure no one's in the shed, and have the contents removed. You cut down the tree. Sure enough, the tree lands on the shed.
The neighbor sues you (because you did it). You "in-plead" the person who hired you because of the indemnification. This means you basically sue the hirer saying, "If I'm found liable, this person should pay."
The judgment goes as you'd expect. The neighbor wins damages from you, because you knocked down his shed. You win damages from the person who hired you, usually what you owe the neighbor plus what you spent on legal fees.
However, you have to pay the neighbor, even if the person who hired you doesn't pay you. This is critical - the neighbor isn't bound by your agreement. You owe the neighbor, the person who hired you owes you.
In the child support situation, the father owes the child money, simply because he's the father. The mother owes the father money, because she was a treacherous witch. However, if the mother can't pay, the father still has to provide support for the child. This underscores the nature of the father's responsibility to the child, but makes the mother pay for her treachery. The father is off the hook as long as the mother doesn't welsh.
Dagonee
[ February 24, 2005, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If she refuses to allow him access to the child's life, she must accept sole financial responsibility as well.
She shouldn't have a say in his access to the child's life. The flip side of my argument is that a bilogical father has rights to visit his children until he does something to no longer be trusted with them.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dagonee -- or you cut down a tree in your yard and leave the trunk lying there, then the person takes it and drops it on their shed. They then sue for damages.
[ February 24, 2005, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Dag, the child support may not be intended as punishment, but if the mother cannot indemnify the father, supporting the child would certainly be a form of punishment. At the very least, it is the government taking property away from an individual for something he was not responsible for in frutherance of a greater societal good. (Although whether forcing this man to pay will produce more good than harm is debatable. If a person can get child support regardless of the circumstances surrounding the conception, would this not encourage more people to ambush their unsuspecting sex partners?)
quote:In many states, married men may not deny the paternity of children born to their wife, even with DNA testing.
Ah, I think that's what I was thinking about. Thanks!
This does support your argument that we are willing to make certain sacrifices for the greater social good.
quote:Strict liability for statutory rape, in most states, refers solely to the circumstantial element of the minor's age. There's usually a different mens rea for the sexual act itself, such as intent.
So in most states, the pure act of having sex with a minor is not, by itself, enough to establish a crime that is commonly referred to as a strict liability offense? Does that mean having sex with a minor is not always wrong and that certain circumstances has to be considered?
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
In many states, it is still possible to get married as a minor.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If a person can get child support regardless of the circumstances surrounding the conception, would this not encourage more people to ambush their unsuspecting sex partners?
Possibly. It might also encourage men to pay more attention to where their spermies end up.
Also, I doubt this guys claim can be proven, and I would suspect that would be the situation in most cases. This was either a failure to state a claim ruling or a summary judgment ruling, so his facts as alleged are assumed true. (I know you know that, Beren, just trying to help the non-evil keep up.)
quote:So in most states, the pure act of having sex with a minor is not, by itself, enough to establish a crime that is commonly referred to as a strict liability offense? Does that mean having sex with a minor is not always wrong and that certain circumstances has to be considered?
The "strict liability" doesn't preclude the normal defenses. Voluntariness trumps strict liability - if the older person were immobilized, no liability would attach. Ditto for involuntary intoxication (this is iffier due to the strict liability - inability to form mens rea may not help). Similarly, justification and duress would be available.
The difference is that we are not talking about culpability in the child support issue. Even if we were, certainly there's a known risk element that would hinder his claim in this situation.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
So, this seems to imply the following would be legal.
I receive oral sex from a woman who the spits it out and promptly falls asleep. I then quickly gather some sperm and a ready baster of some kind and manage to impregnate her before she comes to. She would then be required to carry it to term for me, right? And even if she wanted nothing to do with it she'd have to pay me child support, right?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No - that would be assault at minimum, and, in this country at least, she could abort whether he wants her to or not.
I really don't see how your hypothetical follows from anything I've said in this thread.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
It's not following what you've said, just looking at what happened in the article. Don't take what I say personally unless it's a declaration of love
Although I realized that it's assault because it's her body shortly after I posted it. It does seem like the letter of the law is being observed rather than the spirit. I quite like dkw's solution.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote: Also, I doubt this guys claim can be proven, and I would suspect that would be the situation in most cases. This was either a failure to state a claim ruling or a summary judgment ruling, so his facts as alleged are assumed true. (I know you know that, Beren, just trying to help the non-evil keep up.)
Nothing says that the woman is disputing his claim, so I assume that it's taken as fact.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:t's not following what you've said, just looking at what happened in the article. Don't take what I say personally unless it's a declaration of love [Wink]
Although I realized that it's assault because it's her body shortly after I posted it. It does seem like the letter of the law is being observed rather than the spirit. I quite like dkw's solution.
Ah, I misunderstood "this."
I'd say I don't see how that follows from the article, but you've seemed to already realize that.
[ February 24, 2005, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Nothing says that the woman is disputing his claim, so I assume that it's taken as fact.
blacwolve, there are several points in a civil action where one or both sides says something like, "Even if everything the other side says is true, they should still lose." This ruling seems to be one of those times. In that situation, there is no opportunity to say that the opponent's alleged facts are untrue.
Dagonee
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I think the ruling that it was not theft is wrong. If someone throws something away and you take it from their trash, it is still stealing. But I guess the man would have had to bring the case that he had thrown away the sperm, and not that he had a right to determine what was done with it.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:It might also encourage men to pay more attention to where their spermies end up.
Easy for you to say, you're getting married.
When I set aside the sense of unfairness I feel for this guy, I can see that it is probably not a bad thing for people to be less casual about their sexual activities.
That's a good point on the summary judgment Dag. If this article wasn't based on a summary judgment ruling, one would wonder why the woman did not simply lie and say they had sex the old fashion way. The father would be hard pressed to prove otherwise.
quote:The difference is that we are not talking about culpability in the child support issue. Even if we were, certainly there's a known risk element that would hinder his claim in this situation.
I agree with the known risk element. As for culpability, statutory rape is similar to this case in the sense that a person's knowledge of the facts may not be a sufficient defense. In certain jurisdictions, mistake of fact, even an honest, good faith mistake, is no defense against statutory rape charges. In the present case, you are saying that the father's honest belief that oral sex would not lead to pregnancy is no excuse for not paying child support.
In both scenarios, the greater social good (protecting children) trumps the notion that generally, people should only be responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their actions.
However, certain jurisdictions are willing to take mitigating certainstances into consideration. For example, in Minnesota, the punishment for statutory rape may be mitigated based on the proximity of age between the minor and the defendant. So in that jurisdiction at least, there is a balance between wanting to protect children and recognizing that it may be unfair to impose serious criminal sanctions against high school students for consensual sexual activities.
I do understand your reluctance to use words like "culpability" in this discussion. Every child is a miracle and a blessing. Using any language to imply otherwise makes me feel sad.
[ February 24, 2005, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
To take this even another step out, assume the same situation, except the woman impregnated isn't even someone he knows (with the collusion of the woman performing the oral sex).
Its still his child, to about the same extent as under the current situation as described, should he be required to pay child support?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Easy for you to say, you're getting married.
Um, I'm married. Last July 31. The story on my site's front page is for my sister's wedding, this July 11.
Now your tux question makes a whole lot more sense.
quote:However, certain jurisdictions are willing to take mitigating certainstances into consideration. For example, the punishment for statutory rape may be mitigated based on the proximity of age between the minor and the defendant. So in that jurisdiction at least, there is a balance between wanting to protect children and recognizing that it may be unfair to impose serious criminal sanctions against high school students for consensual sexual activities.
Certainly I can imagine a legal rule exempting fathers from liability for child support in such a situation if they choose to balance it that way.
quote:I do understand your reluctance to use words like "culpability" in this discussion. Every child is a miracle and a blessing. Using any language to imply otherwise makes me feel sad.
That's why I would be against such a rule.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:To take this even another step out, assume the same situation, except the woman impregnated isn't even someone he knows (with the collusion of the woman performing the oral sex).
Its still his child, to about the same extent as under the current situation as described, should he be required to pay child support?
Yep, with the stipulation that the woman who colluded should indemnify him, as explained above. And, assuming the mother knew about it, she would indemnify him as well.
Dagonee
[ February 24, 2005, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Um, I'm married. Last July 31. The story on my site's front page is for my sister's wedding, this July 11.
I know you're married. I was thinking of posting:
"Easy for you to say, you're getting some because you're married."
But I thought that was a bit rude, so I wanted to change it to:
"You're married"
But somehow the sentence just didn't come out quite right. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
[ February 24, 2005, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
According to the mother, they had engaged in more normal baby-making procedures and the man was aware of her pregnancy, even being present during a couple of tests, but that he backed away as it got closer.
While this throws a different light on things -- granting that we still don't know for sure which testimony, if either, is accurate -- I maintain my core belief which is that both people are idiots.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote:I maintain my core belief which is that both people are idiots.
That's a pretty safe assumption for almost all conflicts.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
If he was present during a couple of tests, there might be witnesses to his presence.
woops, read the article. Nevermind.
[ February 25, 2005, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by MichelleEly (Member # 6737) on :
A lot of times it seems to me that "idiot" is defined as "someone that has a bad result from doing the same thing a lot of 'non-idiots' have done without a bad results." Michelle
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)