Sperm Donor forced to pay Child Support

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel

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.

Uh, not quite. Here's an example: you want to buy a stock. You take a risk that the price will go down. Is it the seller's fault if you lose money?

[Thorn]

So did the man actually even get to have sex out of all of this?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Uh, not quite. Here's an example: you want to buy a stock. You take a risk that the price will go down. Is it the seller's fault if you lose money?

Might be, if he had inside info that the stock was gonna go down. Kinda like when Bush sold his Harken stock.

[Stuie]

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the ruling, just because we really don't know all the facts of the case, but he should have gotten whatever agreement they had in writing.

[DinoDoc]

Given that the Court appears to have acknowledged the existance of the verbal contract and trew it out anyway. What difference would that have made?

[Stuie]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Given that the Court appears to have acknowledged the existance of the verbal contract and trew it out anyway. What difference would that have made?

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.

If it's drawn up properly in writing, there's concrete evidence.

[Whaleboy]

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

Yes it would have been different. My point is that the doner had no part or responsibility in the conception. The fact that it was his sperm being used is incidental, since it was the woman that was impregnating herself. Furthermore, the man provided the sperm to her on certain grounds, that should she have kids as a consequence she would not come to him for money, and she has now gone back on her word . There are thus two arguments against her. The fact that he had no part to play in the impregnation and no responsibility over, for, or contributing to the conception (her actions and hers alone that lead directly to it). The second is the agreement that while of questionable legal value (I assume it can't be verified unless they both agree on the words spoken... in which case it is solid) still means she is dishonest for obtaining his sperm on what are now false pretenses.

[Kuciwalker]

He had as much to do with it as any man has to do with conceiving a child - if he hadn't donated the sperm, she couldn't have had his baby.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Now, if this would be from sperm bank, I'd be concerned. But it was just a verbal agreenment. From what we know, they might just have engaged in... uhm, break-up sex, and when the woman informed of the little misshap, the guy quickly made up this story.

Allways write your deals down, word is nothing these days.

That pretty much sums it up.

[Az]

Might be, if he had inside info that the stock was gonna go down. Kinda like when Bush sold his Harken stock.

Best thread jackever, you and Cuchi!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Might be, if he had inside info that the stock was gonna go down. Kinda like when Bush sold his Harken stock.

Ok, then he's only responsible if he deliberatel broke the condom that's the only "insider trading" I can think of when it comes to the odds of producing a baby...

[DanS]

I agree with the court that he should pay child support. Same thing with sperm donors at a sperm bank. Otherwise, the supporter of last resort -- the state -- will get stuck with the tab, sooner or later.

[Dinner]

So a woman can lie and decieve a man and it's A.O.K. with you? If they had an agreement where she knew what she was doing but wanted to go ahead any way then it's her fault not his. He shouldn't have to pay a dime.

[DanS]

Agreements can't dissolve somebody of their responsibility in this matter. The agreement should not be recognized by the law, just as is the case with innumerable other contract provisions.

Deceipt is no defense. As things stand now, if a woman lies and says she is on the pill, you have sex with her, and a child results, then you're on the hook for child support. Since 10 or 15 years ago in the US, the government will hound you mercilessly until you pay.

Remember the "deadbeat dads" political issue? This is the result.

[Dinner]

So in your opinion a sperm donor in a clinic should still be forced to pay?