Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  >      Home login  
Joined: 9/13/2006
Msg: 8
Sperm Donor Must Pay Child SupportPage 3 of 5    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
I see this is turning into another"all women want is money" thread....remember dont paint all women with the same brush.
Joined: 2/11/2007
Msg: 16
Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support
Posted: 12/2/2007 5:20:41 PM

A guy in New York donates sperm to a lesbian co worker friend, who moves to Oregon and raises the child with her domestic partner. The man occasionally sent cards and gifts to the child, and spoke with the kid maybe seven times over fifteen years.

The kid turns 18, wants to go to college, so the mother sues the sperm donor for college money....and wins.,0,1707390.story

In this case, there is no mention in the article as to who started legal action. It may very well have been the child and not either of the mothers.

There has been no child support awarded, only a decision that the sperm donor involved is the legal father. Child support “if any” (according to the article) will be determined at a later date.

The reason the Dr sperm donor (yes he is an MD) was deemed the legal father is because: 1) it was his choice to be name as the father on the birth certificate, 2) as well as the gifts, cards, and phone calls, he chose himself to be know to the child as his/her father.

The reason for not ordering the costly DNA test-- for 18 yrs this man chose to be known as the father, making DNA irrelevant. The mother did not contest the test, meaning I suspect, she has no doubt who the father is.

There is nothing in this article to suggest that precedence has been set to make sperm donors in general responsible for supporting children conceived with their donated sperm.
The article does state that both mothers’ earnings will be considered in making a CS ruling. It is possible that the child was turned down for student loans and grants because of the biological father’s involvement. No reason to get out the wide brush and white wash yet. I’m sure more of the facts will come out at the next stage.
Joined: 2/11/2007
Msg: 17
Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support
Posted: 12/2/2007 7:01:59 PM
I am not sure if there is a reason she would have an attorney to represent her interest. Maybe she did start the position. Maybe it was because the child birth certificate carries the father’s name and he was turned down for student loans. What I'm saying is we don't know. I bet the money spent in court cost would have paid for the child’s education. That is the saddest part of this whole thing. He’s a doctor, and chose to put his name on the child’s BC to protect against emotional damage to the child, but the first time the child needs help, he chooses to disown? See I can make-up a version that suits my fancy . No saying I am right though.
I personally feel that if people are unable to conceive it is karma. Not a big supporter of sperm banks etc. I have no prejudice about sexual preference, but believe the choice comes with its own challenges.
As for the precedence, I think if you google “sperm donor child support” you will see that the precedence go far in the opposite direction to what has been suggested in this thread.
Pennsylvania seems to be still trying to figure it out though.
Joined: 2/11/2007
Msg: 19
Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support
Posted: 12/2/2007 8:22:02 PM

The other thing they don't tell you is what affect the dispute is having on the child. Funny how it's justified by saying it's in the best interests of the children, but yet you never get to hear from the children the positive influence it is having on their lives.

Another good point. And somewhat sad that the courts are having to sort it out instead of the parent, whom you'd think would instintually put the childs interest first. Thank you for the pleasant extange of ideas.
Joined: 2/11/2007
Msg: 20
Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support
Posted: 12/3/2007 4:01:34 PM
Follow the link in the OP. You will see that the desision in this case is about Loco Parentis, and DNA was not concidered. Sperm donors are not at risk to be ordered to pay CS. Infact there are laws in place to prevent that in most states. I did not investigate Canadian Law on the subject. Pennsylvania is one of the few states that does not have a law protecting sperm donors. Google "child support sperm donor" you will see what I mean.
Joined: 2/11/2007
Msg: 21
Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support
Posted: 12/4/2007 12:07:50 AM
We take it as far as we have to. When society as a whole starts to act like they realize that we have to put forethought into parenthood, and set aside our adult differences and bickering, and put the rights of the innocent children first. Sometimes common sense needs a helping hand. Once it becomes common place for people to take responsibility for the children, the enforcement ot such laws will not even be noticed.
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 22
Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support
Posted: 12/4/2007 12:24:57 PM
Love love love the defense of the women who are going back and getting child support from the donor. I equally enjoy the asinine comments from rabbit, mimosa, Neveahs_mom and little mermaid.
Joined: 12/1/2007
Msg: 26
Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support
Posted: 12/6/2007 6:12:08 PM
All this talk about choices and responsibility, yet so few women will acknowledge the inequalities under the law. That should tell the guys something very profound.
Apparently, under the law, if the child has your DNA it's your responsibility. Don't ask me why this only applies to men and not women.
Joined: 11/14/2007
Msg: 27
Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support
Posted: 12/7/2007 1:17:27 AM
I thought Maury was the one where they can't find fathers. Didn't they have one women who tested 17 men that she had slept with and still couldn't find a DNA match?
Actually Australia was the one where they couldn't fnd fathers, but not the way you think.
A stupid beech tried the same stunt and the courts rejected the application. But it caused a suden, massive, drought, in thenumber of voulenter sperm donors at the legit artificial insemmination clinics.
Thre was a real risk of lonng term inbreding from too few donors. The government called an emergency session to rush through legislation leaving sperm donors with no right's aor responsibilities towards the children.
Joined: 8/27/2006
Msg: 28
Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support
Posted: 12/7/2007 6:42:05 PM
I haven't read all 4 pages yet. It's cases like that that make women like myself who used 2 different donors look bad. 2 different men have donated sperm to me to have a child. With out them I wouldn't have 2 of my beautiful children. Knowing myself I would neve go back on our "deal" and go after them for child support. If I couldn't fully support my children on my own incl college/university I would not have chosen to have any more. It sucks for those guys that got screwed by those women and the courts, but I hope it doesn't deter all men away from being donors, otherwise there will women like me not able to have the baby they desire so much.
Joined: 11/14/2007
Msg: 29
Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support
Posted: 12/7/2007 9:36:45 PM

Australia had it correct but as you can see we in North America have not figured this out. Our courts make you pay based on DNA or have an active role in a child's life.

We need common sense in our legal system. If not our common sense for men will become do not donate sperm as someone may use it against you later.

Commonsense? In the American legal system? Ahead of politics and morality.?

Dont think so.

If you can ever find it there's a documentary s creen on ABc Television in Australia called Rampart. It's nothing to do with child support but everthing to do with common sense.

Rampant is the story of AIDS in Australia, and how our response to the disease - so radically different to that in the USA and other countries with conservative governments - made us world leaders in controlling the virus, which had the potential to become a plague.

Drawing in a cast of characters from Federal Ministers to nuns to sex workers, Australia forged a radical path in its approach to the disease, tapping into the networks of junkies, prostitutes and practising gay men who were the most susceptible to infection.

Led by the Minister for Health under the Hawke government, Neal Blewett, Australia undertook several unprecedented and pragmatic steps: it introduced a needle exchange program for intravenous drug users, encouraged open discussion of safe sex, and created the famous Grim Reaper advertising campaign.

It took comdoms frm the sex shops and under the chemists counter to supermaket shelves and nobody asked if the kids, who purchased them, planned to used them as water bombs or for their designated purpose.

It introduced legalised, licenced, and regulated brothels, where staff had to undergo regular AIDS checks. Policed , not by the police, but by the health department. The clean prostitutes in these brothels forced the streetwalkers to also clean up their act or go out of business.

There was fierce opposition from the religious right, but 25 years after the initial AIDS outbreak, Australia's decision to accept human nature in policy making has saved thousands of lives - especially when compared to the USA where 'morality' has outweighed practicality in dealing with the illness.

Exclusive interviews with journalist and AIDS activist Ita Buttrose, former politicians Neal Blewett and Bill Bowtell, the Reverend Fred Nile, St. Vincent's Hospital doctors and the founding member of the Australian Prostitutes Collective bring 1980s Sydney at the height of AIDS hysteria to life.

Rampant is an epic drama encompassing death, plague, love, loss, grief - and survival.
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 31
view profile
Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support
Posted: 6/25/2008 12:21:59 AM
Next on the hitlist those women that undergo "eggharvesting" so that infertile couples can have the whole pregnancy experience being sued for child support.
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 33
view profile
Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support
Posted: 6/25/2008 11:57:10 PM

Men who donate sperm directly to a sperm bank are exempt from being sued for child support!!! There have been no legal exceptions to this in the United States

Then you must have missed the lawsuits by womens groups attempting to reverse that stance, and to allow these children to contact and get to know their fathers. So far in most countries this has been unsuccessful.
Also "direct deposit" is not required. If a lesbian couple chooses a male friend as a "donor" based on his genetics he could still be liable if he beats off in a condom and one of them is then impregnated with a turkey baster..... even if they drew up a contract prior that stated the donation was just that. This really should change since the only difference between the clinic and this is the couple chose the donor from people they knew although there was never at any point more than a friendship, and the "procedure" was about as clinical as one can get at home.
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 34
view profile
Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support
Posted: 6/26/2008 9:47:35 AM
Sperm Donor Ordered to pay Support - PhillyBlog - Philadelphia25 Jul 2004 ... Doubly infertile couple have invitro fertilization with dontated egg and sperm. Double infertile couple then sue donors for child support. ...

I'm looking for the straight dope on paternity law involving sperm donation. How likely is it that a guy could wind up owing child support in exchange for his efforts and the quick cash at the donation center? I have yet to hear anything but hearsay on the issue. —Nick from Indiana

SDSTAFF Gfactor replies:

Nobody's really sure, Nick. Believe it or not, the law is just catching up with these newfangled biological advances. There's a case pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on the issue of sperm donor child support, and some states have handled it by statute. Most courts that have considered the question have ordered the donor to pay support, which may seem a perverse result, but the issue is more complicated than you might think.

The parties in the Pennsylvania case, Joel McKiernan and Ivonne Ferguson, met at work and had a two-year extramarital affair. After the affair ended, Ferguson asked McKiernan to help her conceive. The two agreed McKiernan would not be obligated for child support if he acted as sperm donor. (Ferguson had had a tubal ligation and could only conceive by in vitro fertilization, or IVF.) She had another man pose as her husband, told the doctor it was her husband's sperm, and had twins. McKiernan had little contact with the twins at first, but five years out Ferguson thought better of their agreement, sued McKiernan for child support, and won. In 2004, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court's decision ordering McKiernan to pay $1,500 a month to support the twins. The court reasoned that the contract between McKiernan and Ferguson was unenforceable – a parent can't bargain away a child's right to support. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not yet decided the case.

This isn't the only case in which a sperm donor has been ordered to pay support, nor is it the only case involving nontraditional ways of getting pregnant. First, there are the stolen sperm cases. For example, in a New York case, Deon Francois banked some frozen sperm at an NYU lab while he and his wife were trying to get pregnant. They broke up; he moved out, stopped paying the storage fee to NYU, and assumed NYU would discard the sperm. Instead, his estranged wife forged his signature on a release and notarized it with a stolen notary stamp. She used the release to get the sperm from NYU, which hadn't discarded it; got pregnant; and then sought child support in her divorce case. The judge awarded her $150 per week.

In other cases women have inseminated themselves with sperm from fellatio or from a condom (or so their male acquaintances alleged), then sought child support – and won. That's because the paramount consideration in child support cases is providing the child with support from two parents. Wisely or not, courts traditionally have defined parents as those who contributed the gametes that made the baby. In most cases, courts will overlook the adults' agreements or despicable conduct in the interest of providing for the children.

Establishing parentage on the basis of genetics is a double-edged sword. Genetic parents can be required to pay child support, but they can also get custody and visitation rights, sometimes even if they've agreed they won't be a parent. It gets even more complex when we factor in surrogacy and embryo implantation. For example, in a New York case, Perry-Rogers v. Fasano, Donna Fasano underwent IVF and gave birth to two male infants of two different races. One child was the result of mistaken implantation of an embryo created with genetic materials from another couple, the Rogers. A New York appellate court awarded the Rogers exclusive custody of their genetic child. The Fasanos wanted visitation rights but their request was denied – Donna Fasano had given birth to the child but was not genetically related to him.

In another case from California, Robert B. and Denise B. v. Susan B., Susan Buchweitz was accidentally given Robert and Denise B.'s embryos during IVF. According to the court, Robert and Denise B. had contracted with an anonymous ovum donor to obtain the donor's eggs for fertilization with Robert's sperm. Meanwhile, Susan went to the same fertility clinic with the intent of purchasing genetic material from "two strangers who would contractually sign away their rights" so that "there would be no paternity case against her, ever." She therefore contracted with the clinic for an embryo created from anonymously donated ova and sperm. About 13 embryos were produced for Robert and Denise. In June 2000 some of them were implanted in Denise's uterus. Apparently through clinical error, Susan received three of these embryos. When she became pregnant, Susan believed the child she was carrying was the result of the anonymous procedure for which she had contracted. In February 2001, 10 days apart, Susan gave birth to Daniel and Denise gave birth to Daniel's genetic sister, Madeline. Learning of the mistake, Robert and Denise sued Susan for parental rights to Daniel. The trial court awarded temporary custody to Susan and visitation to Robert, the genetic father. Denise was left out of the picture because she had no genetic connection to the child.

Some jurisdictions have adopted a version of the Uniform Parentage Act (either the 1973 version or the 2000 version), which tries to settle some of these issues. Among other things, the act makes clear that in most cases donors aren't parents. But only about a third of the states have adopted some version of the UPA, and in states that have, courts tend to interpret the law narrowly. For example, several cases under the 1973 version of the act hold that the donor provisions don't bar claims involving known sperm donors unless the sperm was obtained and implanted by a licensed physician. Presumably the rationale is that if sperm donation is handled professionally, we'll absolve the donor of parental responsibility, whereas if we're talking about the tawdry dealings of the trailer-park set, we'll continue to let genetics be our guide.

To further complicate matters, in the U.S. the law changes if the child is moved to a different state, at least under some circumstances. So yes, sperm donors are sometimes liable for child support, and it doesn't look like the situation will change any time soon.

To date there seems to be no cases won seeking CS from anonymous donation in any state which uses the Uniform Parentage Act.

The following is only related in passing but gives a clue as to the legal climate and level of protection afforded men and the end use of their DNA.

Jack from Michigan wonders why my report didn't include State ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer (1993). When I read it, I wondered the same thing. In Hermesmann, a 12-year old boy had a sexual relationship with his babysitter. The state said the tweenaged dad was liable for child support even though all agreed the baby resulted from statutory rape. Reviewing cases from Wisconsin and Colorado that imposed child support obligations on underage fathers, the court noted: "We conclude that the issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity and for support of the minor child of such activity." This is a broader conclusion than that reached by the other courts, which had focused on the minor's actual consent – they said it's one thing to hold the perpetrator liable for statutory rape based on the legal irrelevance of consent and quite another to excuse the victim from obligations based on actual consent. Hermesmann suggests even a forcible rape of a boy could result in a child support award.

Diddle a kiddie, get knocked up and give him zero say in whether or not he becomes a parent....... and then hit him up for child support? Sickening.

The following link involve fertility clinics specifically.,2933,157553,00.html
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 35
view profile
Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support
Posted: 6/26/2008 10:17:39 AM

Sperm donor fights order to support 2 children

Friday, May 20, 2005
By Barbara White Stack, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is weighing a case with the potential to strike fear in the hearts of sperm donors who thought they were getting $50 for their genetic material and nothing more -- certainly no responsibility for babies created with it.

The justices heard arguments this week in a case that forces them to weigh the right of children to financial aid from two parents against the right of men to provide sperm for in-vitro fertilization without the donors being held responsible for any offspring.

"There is a lot of fear surrounding this court case because if the court extends this beyond support, to rights and obligations, then I think it will create a serious chilling effect," said Lawrence Kalikow, a Bucks County lawyer who is an expert in surrogacy, sperm and egg donation cases.

The genesis of the case is a decade-old deal between ex-lovers, Joel L. McKiernan, now of Mt. Lebanon, and Ivonne V. Ferguson, now of New York. He agreed to provide sperm for babies she wanted and she agreed to absolve him of responsibility for their progeny.

Through in-vitro fertilization, she bore twins and raised them alone for five years. Then she sued McKiernan for child support in Dauphin County.

The Common Pleas Court judge there acknowledged that the couple had a binding verbal contract that released McKiernan from the normal responsibilities of fathers. But he decided the contract was invalid because the two had wrongly bargained away rights of the twins, particularly their right to child support from two parents.

Then the court ordered McKiernan to pay $1,500 in support a month. He appealed. Last July Superior Court said the lower court judge was right. That's what got McKiernan before the Supreme Court this week.

There Justice Ronald D. Castille asked Elizabeth A. Hoffman, the Harrisburg lawyer representing Ferguson, whether the court's invalidating the verbal contract between Ferguson and McKiernan would make it difficult for infertile couples to obtain sperm donors.

Hoffman's argument was that anonymous donors to sperm banks wouldn't be affected because their contracts are with the banks, not with the potential mothers.

And she stressed that only cases involving single mothers are relevant because in Pennsylvania children born to married women are assumed to be those of the husband. In those cases, then, the children have two parents to provide support.

At this point, sperm donation centers don't seem to be in panic. One of the largest in the country, Cryobank of California, mentions the Pennsylvania decision on its Web site but assures its donors they're unaffected. California has a law protecting donors from support actions. Pennsylvania does not.

A supervisor at Cryobiology Inc. of Columbus, which has a sperm collection center in Pittsburgh, was unaware of the case as was the executive director of the Reproductive Science Institute with three offices outside Philadelphia.

Both Donna Ridder of Cryobiology and June Amarant of Reproductive Science said they thought their contracts would protect donors.

The lawyer representing McKiernan wasn't so sure. Attorney John W. Purcell Jr., of Harrisburg, said that if a judge decided that a contract between mother and father was invalid because it denied children their rights, it could nullify a contract between a man and a sperm center denying children rights.

And such anonymous donors are traceable. Banks ordered by courts to find and identify donors have the means to do it.

Donors should have some concern, said Erie lawyer Joe Martone, who is handling a case that is the reverse -- an egg donor seeking custody rights to triplets she didn't bear and has never supported.

The vast majority of cases in which children are conceived from donated eggs or sperm work out happily ever after, Martone said.

But if the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts' decisions in this case, Martone said, it's possible that single parents who conceived with donated genetic material will demand the names of the donors and seek support.

He and attorney Kalikow agreed the problem would be resolved if Pennsylvania passes legislation -- as at least a dozen other states have -- regulating sperm and egg donation.

Although this is a Pennsylvania case, it could have repercussions elsewhere, Purcell said. If a bank in California ships sperm to the doctor of a single woman in Pittsburgh, it is conceivable that the Pennsylvania-born child would be covered by the Pennsylvania decision, he said. Or, he said, it's possible a child would be covered if the mother moved to Pennsylvania to deliver.

If the court rules that McKiernan must continue to pay, he said, that could chill donation everywhere.

And that, Kalikow said, would hurt infertile couples. "If donors don't want to donate, then intended parents have that option foreclosed."

Both he and Percell said there is an example in Pennsylvania law that would enable the Supreme Court to release sperm donors of obligations to be the second parent to children born to single mothers. In cases of abused or neglected children, it is fairly common now for courts to terminate the rights of both parents then permit one person, usually an unmarried or widowed foster parent, to adopt. That action leaves the child without two parents to support him.
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 38
Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support
Posted: 6/26/2008 6:12:46 PM

No disrespect intended, but if you'd read my entire post, it states that "even if they didn't engage in intercouse" the friend donor can be held liable for child support!

Court says: sperm are a gift, but don't 'distress' a man by getting pregnant with them
by Sarah Gilbert Feb 25th 2005 2:58PM

Categories: Pregnancy & birth

Six years ago, Dr. Richard O. Phillips and Dr. Sharon Irons had an affair. During said affair, a sexual act was performed. Irons kept the sperm and used it to get herself pregnant. Daddy didn't find out until she filed a paternity suit two years later. Now they're embroiled in a lawsuit in which Phillips argues that he has been the victim of theft (the sperm) and emotional distress (the child).

Wednesday, an Illinois appeals court ruled that Phillips could claim emotional distress, but he had no grounds to claim theft - after all, the decision says, the sperm was "a gift - an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee. There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request." Phillips, however, continues to insist that he has had trouble sleeping and eating and has been haunted by "feelings of being trapped in a nightmare." The case returns to trial court on the emotional distress claim.
Joined: 1/21/2006
Msg: 39
view profile
Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support
Posted: 6/27/2008 11:09:33 AM
message 13, once parental rights are severed by the courts, the birth parent is no longer the parent and cannot be sued in this manner. in foster care, they will not sever rights in order for the system to collect money from the birth parent when possible and in the event there are any inheritances coming the child's way, even though taken from the birth family. once a new family is found, however, they take away those rights unless a grandmother or anyone from the birth family specifically and willingly leaves money to the birth child.

i suppose there should be a severence for spem donors as well?!* don't donor banks do this formally?

i am going to read this article, but i find it strange unless the "donation" was done directly or there were no written agreements-- that, followed by the man's admitted relationship. also, who was on the birth certificate?

the other side of this story, depending upon state or country, is that the partner of the person who gave birth to the child, who raises the child and later may separate for good cause--often is not allowed to see the child that is really his/her own. here in CA now gay adoptive parents are both put on the certificate, although registred partners. new marriage laws will possibly change a lot of this. so far the law does not allow a child to have two sets of parents--only two parents, legally and now it appears in some areas they can be gay/lesbian but no more than two.

ps cannot get through to your url in post one. will continue to read the 'whole thread" and see if any clues.
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 40
Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support
Posted: 7/5/2008 5:36:53 PM
intersting topic my ex is a brit circumcized vs non cirumcized is roundheads or cavalairs. well what ever. they speak different english anyway!!!!!!!!!so, obviously you can guess that i am american. He is suing me for his lawyer costs when he cheated and he is not paying child support.
how is that for a load of k u m???
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 41
Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support
Posted: 7/5/2008 10:28:06 PM
I think it's terrible the woman and child chose to solicit funds from the sperm donor. They should be ashamed of their weak characters. The mother CHOSE to have that child without involvement from the donor.

Newflash: many people have moved to North America and continue to do so with nothing but the clothes on their back and choose to WORK to make good lives for themselves. The woman should either have made provisions for the child and/or the child should be contributing to his/her own education.

As well, I believe the original post indicates that the woman had a partner raising the child with her (at least for a time). That person should have more responsibility to help with the child's education since he/she made a conscious decision to be a parent.

I would NEVER go to my child's biological father asking for money at this point.

Joined: 10/20/2007
Msg: 42
Sperm Donors in a marriage
Posted: 7/6/2008 4:09:10 AM
I was married to a guy, and we had a child together, he left when my son was 2 months old,,,,I have never had a penny off him, he told the court he couldnt afford to pay...So technically all he done was "Donated sperm"..
If someone is "donating sperm" outside a relationship, then they should cover themselves, or get the Prat of a judge i got...who will ensure they dont need to pay anything......
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  >