Sperm Donor forced to pay Child Support

[Shi Huangdi]

I don't think it was disputed that the verbal contract existed, and verbal contracts are normally legally enforcable. The problem is that the judges are claiming that the contract is unconsciable and thus unenforcable. American Contract law allows a judge to declare a contract unenforcable if he believes the terms of it are especially unjust, even if there is nothing otherwise wrong with the contract.

I just hope he never has financial difficulty and is unable to pay this. I read a story in the Pittsburgh City Paper awhile back talking about how many times Pennsylvania men who are broke and unable to pay their exorbirant child support payments are thrown in jail by Pennsylvania judges, giving us a new 21st century version of debtor's prisons.

[Dr Strangelove]

At the end of the article the woman's lawyer states that there was never any reason to believe that an agreement had been made, so evidently there was some degree of contention over the validiity of the defendant's claim.
The statement regarding the possibility that this decision might affect sperm donors in other situations came from a legal expert who may not have a connection to this case.

[Shi Huangdi]

Despite an agreement that appeared to be a binding contract

[Az]

Firstly, verbal contract that she has decided to go back on, though thats not a legal argument, just an ethical one. Secondly, the sperm was provided on an anonymous basis, and whereas the man is responsible for his ejaculation leading to conception, his ejaculation here did not, and it was her actions and that of her doctors ( ) that lead to conception. Effectively, she's taken his DNA and misused it under the terms of their agreement, or rather broken the terms of that agreement where he merely provides his sperm and is not responsible for the ensuing pregnancy.

So would have been different if they just had sex, and she agreed before that not to ask for child support?

[Thorn]

THIS IS REDICULOUS! SHE SHOULD BE EXECUTED, DUMB *****!

[Tattila the Hun]

Has anyone ever sued condom maker for faulty product?

[Gibsie]

I have to agree with the principle, even though I don't like the consequences for this one man. But if you allow two people to absolve the male of financial responsibility for offspring simply through a verbal contract, then you are going to have MILLIONS of stupid little girls telling guys they meet that they won't have to pay for any kids that might result from their liasons, and that's just asking for trouble.

[DinoDoc]

The real question is what effect this ruling might have on Sperm Donations to clinics if it holds.

[Gibsie]

Not a lot, if sperm donation clinics contain a simple clause for those involved that the donor will never have to pay child support. And if they don't, then any man who donates is being as stupid as a Guardian journalist trying to sneak into the US to do illicit interviews.

[DinoDoc]

How would that clause be any less oppossed to the "equitable and moral principles" the judges used to decide this case?

[Gibsie]

Because it's an anonymous donation overseen by a third party organisation, not a private agreement between two individuals who have had a sexual relationship. the two methods are different enough for there to be a distinction. This is pretty obvious stuff.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Gibsie
But if you allow two people to absolve the male of financial responsibility for offspring simply through a verbal contract,

In fact, some sort of contract should be required so that the guy DOES have to take care of the baby. It's not the man's fault that she agreed to have sex with him. She alone made the decision that it was an acceptable risk.

[Sava]

What a dumb-assed judge!

[Az]

In fact, some sort of contract should be required so that the guy DOES have to take care of the baby. It's not the man's fault that she agreed to have sex with him. She alone made the decision that it was an acceptable risk.

And so did he. I don't think that the current situation where the man is to have none of the choices is right, but neither is the other way around. I think it should be split down the middle.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker




In fact, some sort of contract should be required so that the guy DOES have to take care of the baby. It's not the man's fault that she agreed to have sex with him. She alone made the decision that it was an acceptable risk.

This was a new one, I think.

On the DAF, there's been this long debate about the supposed unfairness in the fact that while a man implicitly agrees to pay support for any child resulting from a sexual act, a woman can always get out by having an abortion. I should perhaps introduce this idea there, just to see the fireworks ...