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 ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think technically he'll owe support no matter what. But, it's possible his damages if he wins will exactly offset that support.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you saying you haven't studied all the intricate laws surrounding sperm donors and such? Is that next year?
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!!
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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
Posts: 152 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Between this and Jay in the "hummer" thread, I am not doing well in the "clean thoughts" area today...
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?"
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |