Sperm Donor Liable for Child Support after Lesbian Couple Sepatares

[Zipp0 1]

http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/05/superior_court_rules_that_male.html

Guys - if you plan on banging your lesbian friend so she and her mate can have a child, you could end up paying....

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[lawrocket 3]

This is an issue where states have their own laws with regard to this. There is also a matter of HOW it is done.

In California, Family Code section 7613(b), which states: "(b) The donor of semen provided to a licensed physician and surgeon for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the donor's wife is treated in law as if he were not the natural father of a child thereby conceived."

It's pretty simple language, eh? So, what it means is that if you are a guy that inseminates a woman the fun way to give her a child, even if there was an agreement that he would have no responsibility, he would be the father and liable for support. He could also get visitation.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[shropshire 0]

If you bring a child into this world, then you are responsible. End of.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[dorbie 0]

Quote

If you bring a child into this world, then you are responsible. End of.

Irresponsible people have kids too.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

If you bring a child into this world, then you are responsible. End of.

Really? So you don't think this will discourage future sperm donors and deny those who cannot reproduce the opportunity to experience child birth and parenthood?

Seems to me, the parents now have the responsibility, not the donor.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[billvon 3,090]

> If you bring a child into this world, then you are responsible. End of.

A lot of OB-GYN's are going to get very nervous if that is ever shown to be true!

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

If you bring a child into this world, then you are responsible. End of.

I totally disagree. I believe in equal rights for all.

In the USA, for the most part, a woman can have an abortion on demand. This reality is sometimes referred to as "pro-choice".

Men should have the right to have a "financial and emotional abortion" whereby they have no financial or emotional responsibility to support/raise a child. Pro-Choice goes both ways. Once the decision is made, it is irrevocable.

Equal rights cut both ways. Just because your sperm fertilized an egg shouldn't put you on the hook for 18 years of child support.

There is a case out of Colorado where a man was found liable for back child support for a kid he never knew he had. He boned some gal on a one night stand. He never saw her or heard from her again. Eight years later the State of Colorado tracked him down and took him to court. She was on welfare and the state was looking for someone to pay up. He appealed it as far as he could, but still got stuck for back and future support payments. He never saw the kid, didn't know anything about the kid, but was still liable. Completely 100% wrong. Legal, but WRONG.

I am 100% pro-choice. But pro-choice should mean that the sperm donor has equal rights to "terminate" involvement in a pregnancy and bringing up a child, same as women do. Equal rights for all.

[peregrinerose 0]

Did you read the whole article... the guy was far more than sperm donor. He was at the birth of one kid, had given over $13,000 in gifts, cash, etc toward raising the kids, he acted as step parent.

The guy is dead anyway, so I doubt it much matters to him at this point

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

If you bring a child into this world, then you are responsible. End of.

I agree, except when it is a medical procedure. When a couple cannot have children, they can go to another who may help with conception.

This is a different situation - one where there is artificial insemination. I do NOT agree with a liability provision for sperm donors.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Men should have the right to have a "financial and emotional abortion" whereby they have no financial or emotional responsibility to support/raise a child.

That's all well and good until the BORN child needs help. It's all well and good to say the guy shouldn't be participating in the mother's medical treatment, etc. But once you've got that kid, it's a despicable thing to say, "Yeah, I knocked her up. She's struggling with that fuckin' kid. Bitch deserves it."

It's about the kid.

Quote

He never saw the kid, didn't know anything about the kid, but was still liable. Completely 100% wrong. Legal, but WRONG.

Yep. Sucks, eh? Consequences for our actions?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[shropshire 0]

The donor is a parent.

The 2nd lady partner, would be like a step parent. Are you suggesting that step parents have a duty to assist in bring up a child if they leave (I know it's not that simple, because that 2nd lady, I imagine, was party to the decision to have the baby).

It's a difficult question (I do tend to over simplify things).... but people should never bring kids into this world, thinking that it will be simple.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[peregrinerose 0]

Quote

He appealed it as far as he could, but still got stuck for back and future support payments. He never saw the kid, didn't know anything about the kid, but was still liable. Completely 100% wrong. Legal, but WRONG.

I am 100% pro-choice. But pro-choice should mean that the sperm donor has equal rights to "terminate" involvement in a pregnancy and bringing up a child, same as women do. Equal rights for all.

Once the child is born, neither parent can "terminate" involvment in the way that you describe. If the guy doesn't want a kid, he should be getting a vasectomy, use a condom, whatever it takes to make his personal decision to not give life.

The guy chose to take his chances with a one night stand and it bit him in the ass. I don't see why he shouldn't live with the consequences of the decision that he made.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Quote

Men should have the right to have a "financial and emotional abortion" whereby they have no financial or emotional responsibility to support/raise a child.

That's all well and good until the BORN child needs help. It's all well and good to say the guy shouldn't be participating in the mother's medical treatment, etc. But once you've got that kid, it's a despicable thing to say, "Yeah, I knocked her up. She's struggling with that fuckin' kid. Bitch deserves it."

It's about the kid.

Quote

He never saw the kid, didn't know anything about the kid, but was still liable. Completely 100% wrong. Legal, but WRONG.

Yep. Sucks, eh? Consequences for our actions?

Equal rights means equal rights. It cuts both ways.

When the woman went ahead and delivered the child with no knowledge or involvement on the part of the sprem donor, the way I see it, she took on 100% of the responsibility for the kid. If she decided to keep the kid instead of putting it up for adoptions, she took on 100%. When she went on welfare, the state picked up the tab she couldn't pay. The state can pay welfare until the kid is self supporting, then she can work to pay back the state the welfare $$. She made the choice, she pays 100%.

What would your position be if the woman wanted an abortion and the man wanted to prevent it? Should an un-married man be able to stop an un-married woman from having an abortion, if he is the sperm donor? What about a married couple?

What would your position be if the man wanted the woman to have an abortion and the woman didn't want it?

Why should a woman have 100% of the decision about keeping a pregnancy and the man have 100% of the financial responsibility for supporting the child?

Womens liberation and equal rights for all. Pro-Choice for all. Painful as it may be, right is right.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Lawrocket,
The law seems to be unambiguously worded (someone in justice needs a talking to about that) but do you not think that the child may have a case in constitutional court if, for example, one parent turns out to be a junkie no account? The child did not consent to the surgical procedure and now is living without the basics while his father lives "up the hill." It seems to me that the child is not treated equally before the law compared to the offspring of a failed marriage solely due to a contract between his parents.

[peregrinerose 0]

Quote

When the woman went ahead and delivered the child with no knowledge or involvement on the part of the sprem donor, the way I see it, she took on 100% of the responsibility for the kid. If she decided to keep the kid instead of putting it up for adoptions, she took on 100%. When she went on welfare, the state picked up the tab she couldn't pay. The state can pay welfare until the kid is self supporting, then she can work to pay back the state the welfare $$. She made the choice, she pays 100%.

Nope, the day the guy screwed the woman, he accepted 50% of the financial responsibility from any offspring that would result from the action.

Quote

What would your position be if the woman wanted an abortion and the man wanted to prevent it? Should an un-married man be able to stop an un-married woman from having an abortion, if he is the sperm donor? What about a married couple?

What would your position be if the man wanted the woman to have an abortion and the woman didn't want it?

Why should a woman have 100% of the decision about keeping a pregnancy and the man have 100% of the financial responsibility for supporting the child?

Both parties decide prior to having sex that they accept 50% of the financial responsibility of any child that results from it. Should they not want that responsibility, they can use birth control or not have sex, whichever.

The woman has 100% of the responsibility for prenatal care for the unborn child, since it's in her uterus. If the guy can figure out a way to assume 50% of the prenatal work, then sure, he can have 50% of the say. Ideally, people can act like responsibile adults and come to a decision together, just like they decided to have sex with insufficient birth control means together.

If you don't want a kid, get snipped. If you want to have sex, you take the good with the bad.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Quote

He appealed it as far as he could, but still got stuck for back and future support payments. He never saw the kid, didn't know anything about the kid, but was still liable. Completely 100% wrong. Legal, but WRONG.

I am 100% pro-choice. But pro-choice should mean that the sperm donor has equal rights to "terminate" involvement in a pregnancy and bringing up a child, same as women do. Equal rights for all.

Once the child is born, neither parent can "terminate" involvment in the way that you describe. If the guy doesn't want a kid, he should be getting a vasectomy, use a condom, whatever it takes to make his personal decision to not give life.

The guy chose to take his chances with a one night stand and it bit him in the ass. I don't see why he shouldn't live with the consequences of the decision that he made.

Condoms break. Women sometimes lie about BC. People like to have sex. It is human nature.

They guy from Colorado got a bolt out of the blue, 8 years after a one night stand.

Yet you hold that he should still be responsible. Even though he knew nothing about the pregnancy, the delivery, or any of the child's life. I think that is a case of gender specific ethics on your part. In my opinion, that position is inconsistent and wrong.

He was "terminated" out of the child's life by the mother. What you say can't happen, did happen. When she made that decision, she took on 100% responsibility.

The issue I have is with those that equate the "man who impregnated a woman" with the person financially responsible for child support. It takes two to get pregnant.

Equal rights means equal responsibility.

Pro-Choice. Equal rights. Personal responsibility. It is really simple. There can't be two sets of rules, depending on if you are male or female.

[DaVinci 0]

I had a couple ask me to provide this service to one of them. They said I would not be held liable. They were friends, but I turned them down due to this kind of action.

They were upset and never really understood my reason.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

I had a couple ask me to provide this service to one of them. They said I would not be held liable. They were friends, but I turned them down due to this kind of action.

They were upset and never really understood my reason.

Maybe print the story and send it to them.

Hell, I would probably do it - providing the lesbians were hot, and they agreed to a 3-way to acquire the sperm!

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

When she went on welfare, the state picked up the tab she couldn't pay. The state can pay welfare until the kid is self supporting, then she can work to pay back the state the welfare $$. She made the choice, she pays 100%.

Should the state pay it? Or should the father? Seems to me that this really lowers women to the position of cum dumpster. I am personally of the opinion that it takes two to tango. Being profoundly aware of what could happen, I was able to take steps to make sure I didn't have any little ones going around until I was ready.

Quote

What would your position be if the woman wanted an abortion and the man wanted to prevent it?

That if the abortion was prevented, that both parents are responsible for the care of the child. Is that difficult to understand?

Quote

Should an un-married man be able to stop an un-married woman from having an abortion, if he is the sperm donor? What about a married couple?

My moral values that say "yes" are in tension with my other moral values that dictate that I can do with myself what I want. I honestly don't know the answer to this one.

Quote

Why should a woman have 100% of the decision about keeping a pregnancy

For the same reason a man should have 100% of the decision about when to stick his pecker. Or why the man should have 100% of the choice on whether or not to get a vasectomy. Or the same reason why a woman should be able to say "No" to anal even if she is allowing vaginal intercourse.

Because a person puts limits on the consent to touching of that person's body. Period.

Quote

and the man have 100% of the financial responsibility for supporting the child?

Oh! Now I think I see your issue. I am presently paying no child support my my two children. This does not equal lack of financial responsibility.

It turns out that child support is controlled by the amount of time the parent spends with the child - it's assumed that the parent is feeding the child, etc., when the parent has custody.

100 percent of the financial burden? No, it doesn't work like that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The child did not consent to the surgical procedure and now is living without the basics while his father lives "up the hill." It seems to me that the child is not treated equally before the law compared to the offspring of a failed marriage solely due to a contract between his parents.

Actually, I can state with a large amount of personal experience that divorces typically involve one or more of the parents moving away, and a dramatic drop in the quality of life because of the lack of that income that is spent on new housing for one of the parents.

The equality under the law does not guarantee equal treatment - or even fair treatment. To allow that child to be given the opportunity to sue for it would, perhaps, give any child the opportunity if they were treated equally. Personally, perhaps it would be nice to sue my mom for choosing my dad when maybe I could have been Paul Mccartney's son or something.

Usually, though, these artificial inseminations occur with a married couple, where the husband would be considered the natural father under the law.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[toronto_bill 0]

In artificial insemination, the identity of the donor should be anonymous.

Or charge what? $600,000.00 up front?

The child deserves the 'responsibility' of two parents. A good samaritan who donates shouldn't be penalized.

I might set standards for same sex parents. Lots of contracts.


You can't have the butter and the money for the butter....(Anon. frenchman)

[Richards 0]

It sounds like he did not have sex with her but merely donated sperm via a lab. Is that correct? If so can all sperm donors be held liable? What if you donate anonymously, can someone nail you on child support?

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Andy9o8 2]

I think the manufacturers of turkey basters should contribute to a child support fund. Problem solved.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

The donor is a parent.

If that becomes accepted as law then artificial insemination will grind to a halt due to lack of donors.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

• Quote

[cloudseeker2001 0]

Quote

I had a couple ask me to provide this service to one of them. They said I would not be held liable. They were friends, but I turned them down due to this kind of action.

They were upset and never really understood my reason.

I had friends ask me as well and I said no.......but they did go for some practice trys!

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"