Sperm Donor Wins Case Over Child Support

Sperm Donor Wins Case Over Child Support

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a woman who promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot renege on the deal.

The 3-2 decision overturns lower court rulings under which Joel L. McKiernan had been paying up to $1,500 a month to support twin boys born in August 1994 to Ivonne V. Ferguson, his former girlfriend and co-worker.

"Where a would-be donor cannot trust that he is safe from a future support action, he will be considerably less likely to provide his sperm to a friend or acquaintance who asks, significantly limiting a would-be mother's reproductive prerogatives," Justice Max Baer wrote in the majority opinion issued last week.

Arthur Caplan, chairman of the Department of Medical Ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said the decision runs counter to the pattern established by similar cases, where the interests of the progeny have generally been given great weight.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jz3xWliz-y6UvI_pp7qSb1QjUH7AD8TUBHV00

but that "weight" should come BEFORE they accept the sperm... not after the fact.

If a woman can renege on a deal "in the best interest of the child," then obviously the Repubs are right that kids need a mother and a father supporting them.

The guy was a sperm donor. Period.

If there was a contract, it should have been enforced and the decision made sense.

If both parties admitted to an oral agreement, it also made sense.

It's just not in the best interest of the kids. However, in the presence of any sort of agreement between the two parties that both admitted to, it's the only decision that makes sense.

I know of a lot of donation agreements that were made informally that turned out fine. Guys, get that piece of paper, even if you write it out yourself in your own words, and get the donee to sign it. It's your best legal protection given the state of the economy and how women who are desperate to feed their kids can and do go after friends who have given them the greatest gift imaginable.

Written contracts have been voided under this mistaken notion that the "best interests of the child" trump contract law. Indeed, this has happened despite contract language *predating the child* in which one party agreed to accept full responsibility for the future child's best interests and specifically absolved the other party from any responsibility. I am happy to see that a correction is taking place.

but all the ones I know about have worked out well, with the two mommies taking complete responsibility and allowing the donor visits should he want them.

Still, when the economy goes south, it's best not to take any chances, at all, and the best chance a donor has is to get that piece of paper. If it isn't enforced by the first court, it has a better chance on appeal, as this case shows.