Tweet
I probably wouldn't have posted it, except for the fact that it's in :shock: PENNSYLVANIA :vomit:
When a man donates sperm to a woman so that she can have a child, whether anonymous or not, he should have no obligation to pay for that child. The child is hers, it is her decision, he only donated so that she could have a child. **** verbal agreement, there should be no moral obligation where donation is the subject, period. If you can't care for a child, you shouldn't get a donation in the first place. It's not the donor's responsibility once she finds out that she can't take care of the child. While we should hold each child dear and support it as members of society, I oppose this simply because it has an impact both on donations themselves to women who can support children and the safety of men to be free from exploitation by women who will choose rich donors so they can suck money out of them.
Yet another reason I dislike PA...
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.
McKiernan's attorney said he may appeal.
The decision could have implications for sperm and egg donors who expect anonymity, said Arthur Caplan, a professor and medical ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania.
"Anybody who is a sperm donor ought to understand that their identity could be made known to any child that's produced, and they could be seen by the courts as the best place to go to make sure the child has adequate financial support," he said Friday.
According to the trial judge's opinion, Ferguson and McKiernan met while working together and had a two-year affair. The relationship waned by late 1993, when Ferguson convinced McKiernan to act as a sperm donor with no responsibility for any child born as a result, the opinion said.
McKiernan, who has paid up to $1,520 a month in support since losing the case at trial, said he was not pleased with the ruling, but declined to comment further.
Ferguson's lawyer, Elizabeth Hoffman, said there was never evidence of an agreement between the two in which McKiernan would not have to pay any support.
"There was no evidence except his word and her word and it was a matter of credibility," he said.
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.
McKiernan's attorney said he may appeal.
The decision could have implications for sperm and egg donors who expect anonymity, said Arthur Caplan, a professor and medical ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania.
"Anybody who is a sperm donor ought to understand that their identity could be made known to any child that's produced, and they could be seen by the courts as the best place to go to make sure the child has adequate financial support," he said Friday.
According to the trial judge's opinion, Ferguson and McKiernan met while working together and had a two-year affair. The relationship waned by late 1993, when Ferguson convinced McKiernan to act as a sperm donor with no responsibility for any child born as a result, the opinion said.
McKiernan, who has paid up to $1,520 a month in support since losing the case at trial, said he was not pleased with the ruling, but declined to comment further.
Ferguson's lawyer, Elizabeth Hoffman, said there was never evidence of an agreement between the two in which McKiernan would not have to pay any support.
"There was no evidence except his word and her word and it was a matter of credibility," he said.
Yet another reason I dislike PA...
Ironically, I'm sitting in Harrisburg right now. This sounds like a candidate for the "Stupid Laws" website, of which PA has some real winners.
Comment