If you ask me, this doesn't sound fair at all (at all)

[j2k4]

Pennsylvania Court Orders Sperm Donor to Lesbian Couple to Pay Child Support

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271116,00.html

I wonder why only FOXNEWS is bothering with this...:dry:

[SHUVT]

Good lord give me a F*ckin break! I am going back to the sperm bank to get my donations back. I guess I will have to look for another source of income.

[j2k4]

Good lord give me a F*ckin break! I am going back to the sperm bank to get my donations back. I guess I will have to look for another source of income.

Tell you what...a whole lotta lesbians gonna go begging around this place.

They can all go screw. :naughty:

[MaxOverlord]

Good lord give me a F*ckin break! I am going back to the sperm bank to get my donations back. I guess I will have to look for another source of income.

Tell you what...a whole lotta lesbians gonna go begging around this place.

They can all go screw. :naughty:


I'll gladly donate some sperm. I won't have to wash my socks again!!:yup:

[Skiz]

From what I've read, the donor is a father figure to the child. So much so, that the court sees this as a three-way parental situation. The child even calls him "Papa".

Definitely a strange case.

Is he even a legal guardian?

[backlash]

it's not surprising, given the circumstances. Why does it surprise you? It's not from a sperm bank, he has a relationship with them (fatherly). So, he should have a relationship with them, but not contribute? If things went down differently - the partner (non-birth mother) adopted the child and the guy gave up all rights this would be a different story altogether. If he/they didn't want to have a relationship with the child it would've been handled differently.

I fail to see your issue. Is everything black and white in your world?

[Barbarossa]

In the UK, a sperm donor's right to anonymity was removed in 2005.

This means that when the child is 18, they are entitled to find out which wanker is their father.

[MaxOverlord]

it's not surprising, given the circumstances. Why does it surprise you? It's not from a sperm bank, he has a relationship with them (fatherly). So, he should have a relationship with them, but not contribute? If things went down differently - the partner (non-birth mother) adopted the child and the guy gave up all rights this would be a different story altogether. If he/they didn't want to have a relationship with the child it would've been handled differently.

I fail to see your issue. Is everything black and white in your world?


For someone who failed to see the issue you sure had a lot to say.

[backlash]

oh man, I didn't read that the dude was dead. my bad.

[j2k4]

oh man, I didn't read that the dude was dead. my bad.

Well, that's not really the least of it.

The problem is that this case will eventually be used as precedent in other cases where an anonymous donor is used.

Even given the rather different facts of this case, unless Frampton had some sort of legal standing as to paternity, nevermind the fact of his having been openly involved in the child's life, his estate ought to be out of reach by any means other than an inclusion in his estate, or will.

[backlash]

I can't imagine that would happen. That would be crazy. I see where you might be concerned, but that seems farfetched. Could it then go the other way in terms of the father requesting rights if they should meet? (after anonymous sperm donation) Then again, if they did meet the child would have to be 18, I think.

I'd like to think that the women who are using sperm donors don't want the help of the person who donated.

You would think if this man had a relationship he would WANT to provide for them in some way and care about their welfare. I guess he didn't leave them anything. :( or maybe he was unprepared and didn't have a will...or an updated will.

[j2k4]

I can't imagine that would happen. That would be crazy. I see where you might be concerned, but that seems farfetched. Could it then go the other way in terms of the father requesting rights if they should meet? (after anonymous sperm donation) Then again, if they did meet the child would have to be 18, I think.

I'd like to think that the women who are using sperm donors don't want the help of the person who donated.

You would think if this man had a relationship he would WANT to provide for them in some way and care about their welfare. I guess he didn't leave them anything. :( or maybe he was unprepared and didn't have a will...or an updated will.

If a determination of legal access is found, it will be used as entree in future cases.

Fact.

Women availing themselves of the donor process may not wish the donor's involvement in child-rearing, but if they feel they can get into someone's wallet while maintaining the privacy currently afforded, someone is gonna try to do it, you watch. ;)

[backlash]

unfortunately, ppl will always find ways to make $ at someone else's expense. try - maybe. fail - probably.

[vidcc]

I don't think this would ultimately change the commercial donor industry, I think there are legal requirements of waiver that prevent paternity suits.

It's actually an interesting case and I doubt we have all the details.
I'm guessing Faux picked it up because of the lesbian angle. I'm sure if it was a heterosexual couple with a sterile husband and a friend helped out the story would be newsworthy but not sensational. So the lesbian part is irrelevant other than a bit of filling to "stoke the flames"

Did they have a legal contract or was this done purely out of friendship?

If it's the first then it's totally outrageous to go after his estate

If the latter is the case what is the difference between this and the unmarried woman that falls pregnant then goes on oprah to get dna tast to make the father pay?
One could argue that in this case the intention to get pregnant was stated up front and there was an understanding. But in all the oprah cases the men obviously didn't use condoms and I find it hard to believe that they don't know that babies are made that way. So IMO both knew what the result would be.

At the end of the day it's a case of make sure before and not shoot first ask later.






All this said the natural mother should not expect to get anything from this man's estate (if she is even trying to) for herself.....the children are a different matter and if it's decided even only by trust fund, I think from what I know of this case they should inherit if there was no will that says otherwise.






Good lord give me a F*ckin break! I am going back to the sperm bank to get my donations back. I guess I will have to look for another source of income.

Get them back???? you mean they weren't snapped up already???? surely not :rolleyes: ;)

[j2k4]

I'm guessing Faux picked it up because of the lesbian angle.

I'm guessing nobody else did for the same reason.

You say, though, that you (nonetheless) find the case "interesting".

That's interesting too, Foxfan. ;)

[imnotanaddict]

I'm thinking...if you get a girl pregnant without be responsible and not use some type of birth control then you should be responsible for the future welfare of that child. But donating sperm is in theory-for those that are willing to take full responsibility for the childs welfare and needs...or there would be little or no donations made.
The whole idea of a sperm donor being responsible for the child in any way (unless voluntarily) is ludricrus.
The issue is in the state law itself...
"About two-thirds of states have adopted versions of the Uniform Parentage Act that can shield sperm donors from being forced to assume parenting responsibilities. Pennsylvania has no such law."

Where there are loop holes in the law...or in this case "no law" there are people that are going to try to take advantage of the fact.

[j2k4]

I'm thinking...if you get a girl pregnant without be responsible and not use some type of birth control then you should be responsible for the future welfare of that child. But donating sperm is in theory-for those that are willing to take full responsibility for the childs welfare and needs...or there would be little or no donations made.
The whole idea of a sperm donor being responsible for the child in any way (unless voluntarily) is ludricrus.
The issue is in the state law itself...
"About two-thirds of states have adopted versions of the Uniform Parentage Act that can shield sperm donors from being forced to assume parenting responsibilities. Pennsylvania has no such law."

Where there are loop holes in the law...or in this case "no law" there are people that are going to try to take advantage of the fact.

By Jove, you've got it. ;)

[thewizeard]

That will teach the wankers, all pleasure, comes...at a cost :)

[4play]

I still dont think this precedent will be of any use to people trying to make sperm donors actually pay child support unless they have had a very active role in the childs life.

that was the main point for the reversal of the judgement

"Part of the decision came down because he was so involved with them," Jacob said Wednesday. "It wasn't that he went to the (sperm) bank and that was it. They called him Papa."

The fact the inception was performed at home also will be a big factor in determining if this precedent will actually effect other cases.

I know people are greedy and someone is going to try to use this case to get money from a sperm donor but it doesn't mean it will actually succeed or be of any use unless the circumstances are similar.

[thewizeard]

I was hoping that this thread could head to the lounge, now you have gone and spoiled it 4play, by posting something, sounding, sensible..come on to the /lounge..or alternatively the "Everything Related Forum," also a good idea..it might help increase the traffic ( stats!)..and membership, in time :)