The Patriot News, Friday, July 23, 2004, BY REGGIE SHEFFIELD of The Patriot-News, Harrisburg, PA, U.S.A.
<b>The state Superior Court yesterday ruled that a man must pay child support to a woman who conceived twin boys with his sperm through in vitro fertilization.</b>
The opinion upholds a Dauphin County Court order filed in 2002.
<b>Joel L. McKiernan now must pay up to $1,500 each month,</b> but he argued that an oral agreement he had with Ivonne V. Ferguson protected him from any payments, according to court papers.
<b>When McKiernan agreed to be a sperm donor for Ferguson -- a co-worker with whom he had had an affair between 1991 and 1993 -- she promised she would never seek support payments from him, court documents said. But in 1999, she began seeking support.</b>
Superior Court Judge Patrick R. Tamilia wrote that the oral contract between McKiernan and Ferguson is essentially worthless, because the rights for child support belong to the twins, not to either parent.
"The oral agreement between the parties that [McKiernan] would donate his sperm in exchange for being released from any obligation for any child conceived, on its face, constitutes a valid contract," Tamilia wrote in a six-page decision.
"Based on legal, equitable and moral principles, however, it is not enforceable," Tamilia wrote.
Efforts to reach Ferguson and McKiernan were unsuccessful.
According to the court papers, Ferguson persuaded McKiernan to donate his sperm for in vitro fertilization in 1993, when their relationship waned. Ferguson was married, but her husband filed for divorce on the day she underwent the IVF procedure, court papers said.
On Aug. 25, 1994, Ferguson gave birth to the twins. She listed her ex-husband, not McKiernan, as the biological father on the birth certificate, according to court papers.
McKiernan had little contact with Ferguson during this time, other than visiting her in the hospital when she was in labor and spending an afternoon with her and the boys two years later, court documents said.
Elizabeth Stone, a family law attorney, said that Pennsylvania law very clearly holds that the right to child support belongs to the children and not the parents.
"Even though the child is a minor, he cannot in any way extend that right to the parent," Stone said. "So even a contract can be immediately invalidated by running to the court and filing for support."
With in vitro fertilization, a sperm cell and egg cell are combined outside the woman's body, and the resulting embryo is placed in her uterus. About 1 million children have been conceived through in vitro fertilization, which was first done in 1978.
The issue of child support and in vitro fertilization has found its way into court in other jurisdictions.
REGGIE SHEFFIELD
Copyright 2004 The Patriot-News
al_bundy
08-23-05, 07:58 AM
there goes my gig for extra cash
Bandoman
08-23-05, 08:13 AM
What they're not saying in this article is how this case started: the mother had to have filed for support, despite her promise not to do so. Otherwise, the Court would never have been in a position to make this decision.
mosquitobite
08-23-05, 08:59 AM
"The oral agreement between the parties that [McKiernan] would donate his sperm in exchange for being released from any obligation for any child conceived, on its face, constitutes a valid contract," Tamilia wrote in a six-page decision.
"Based on legal, equitable and moral principles, however, it is not enforceable," Tamilia wrote.
It's decisions like these that make me want to go back to law school and become a father's rights lawyer.
equitable and moral?? What right is it the judge's to decide what's moral? The judge decides law! This decision pisses me off!
Bandoman
08-23-05, 09:03 AM
mosquitobite - the judge wasn't imposing his/her own moral judgment, child custody/support law is very clear: the best interests of the child, and only the child, are of paramount importance. The rights of the parents are secondary. In other words, the parents can't bargain away the child's rights.
mosquitobite
08-23-05, 09:11 AM
So there was a law on the book that said a child conceived via invitro after a valid contract is null if a child is born?
Do men even realize this when they donate sperm to a sperm bank?
This is WRONG!
If the woman couldn't support the kids on her own, she shouldn't have gotten pregnant the way she did.
Groucho
08-23-05, 09:13 AM
If the woman couldn't support the kids on her own, she shouldn't have gotten pregnant the way she did.I'm not going to take sides here, but let's be reasonable. Several years passed between the birth of the kids and the time she applied for child support. It's certainly conceivable that her financial status changed too.
mosquitobite
08-23-05, 09:14 AM
And $1500 a month in CS? Who needs $1500 a month to raise 2 kids? Does she want to be a SAHM? Sorry, no pity from me there either. She should have gone about it the old fashioned way then.
She sounds like a greedy pyscho to me. Grrrr! And the law sided with her!
And he sounds like an idiot. Why HIS sperm? Let her go to the freakin sperm bank! Sounds like she knew he was a cash cow for her!
Ok, everyone in this case is an idiot! :lol:
mosquitobite
08-23-05, 09:15 AM
I'm not going to take sides here, but let's be reasonable. Several years passed between the birth of the kids and the time she applied for child support. It's certainly conceivable that her financial status changed too.
And that's the father's fault how?
She chose to have the children based on the oral contract, and went back on it.
mosquitobite
08-23-05, 09:17 AM
Coincidentally, it was 5 years. Wanna bet it's a private school that the support is going towards...
Bandoman
08-23-05, 09:22 AM
I agree with you that this is unfair, mosquitobite, but the law does not take fairness to the parents into account when deciding what is best for the child. This case will serve as notice to any man who is asked to donate sperm: don't do it.
mosquitobite
08-23-05, 09:27 AM
the law does not take fairness to the parents into account when deciding what is best for the child
Just like with abortion...
Men get the short end of the stick every time when it comes to women and kids and what side the law is on.
You guys are good for money :up: but little else... < /sarc >
muggins
08-23-05, 09:34 AM
Just like with abortion...
Men get the short end of the stick every time when it comes to women and kids and what side the law is on.
Damn this cruel patriarchal society! :mad:
mosquitobite
08-23-05, 09:42 AM
He should sue for parental rights/visitation. Let's see if she argues the oral contract should be valid THEN...
sfsdfd
08-23-05, 10:04 AM
"The oral agreement between the parties that [McKiernan] would donate his sperm in exchange for being released from any obligation for any child conceived, on its face, constitutes a valid contract," Tamilia wrote in a six-page decision.
"Based on legal, equitable and moral principles, however, it is not enforceable," Tamilia wrote.
:brickwl2: Now I remember why I didn't decide to practice family law.
This is an excellent way to destroy the artificial insemination industry.
- David Stein
mosquitobite
08-23-05, 10:11 AM
What is WRONG with family law is I could become the USA's biggest slut, seeking out rich men (Over $100K a year of course). Sleep with them unprotected at the right time of the month, have 4 or 5 kids, with 4 or 5 different men and be set for life. TAX FREE. $20K+ for each kid a year. And this is not considered income, so while I sit home living the good life, I could also get state assistance since on paper I would be poor.
You see, with the same father the support is reduced for additional children, but not so with different men.
So I could, theoretically, never work again for 45 months of pregnancy. I don't even have to marry the schmucks! Not a bad return. :lol:
Bandoman
08-23-05, 10:14 AM
But then you would have to actually raise the kids.
mosquitobite
08-23-05, 10:15 AM
Nah, with $100K a year I could easily ship them off to day care every day. :lol: And get MORE support from dad for doing so!
tcoursen
08-23-05, 11:03 AM
Couldn't he turn around and sue her for breach of contract? They have a binding contract, and a court has already ruled that.
So doesn't that mean that there is a contract between the two of them that he will not be responsible for child care that for that child, and that that falls on her.
So now the judge rules that he is responsible. So should she have to reimburse that money?
Couldn't a judge rule that their contract means that she would pay him back for any child care costs?
Could this be done in a regular civil court. Just sueing in regular civil court, not family court, since their contract is between them and is a financial contract.
Bandoman
08-23-05, 11:07 AM
No, the judge found that the contract, while valid, is unenforceable because it involves the rights of a minor.
Red Dog
08-23-05, 11:08 AM
Yep - blame the legislature, not the judge on this one.
But $1500/month for child support in Dauphin Co., PA!!!! :jawdrop: You've got to be kidding.
sfsdfd
08-23-05, 11:17 AM
But $1500/month for child support in Dauphin Co., PA!!!! :jawdrop: You've got to be kidding.
That's what happens when you mix law and drama. That's why I practice patent law - no drama of any kind. ;)
- David Stein
Breakfast with Girls
08-23-05, 11:17 AM
That's one expensive favor.
Duran
08-23-05, 11:33 AM
What is WRONG with family law is I could become the USA's biggest slut, seeking out rich men (Over $100K a year of course). Sleep with them unprotected at the right time of the month, have 4 or 5 kids, with 4 or 5 different men and be set for life. TAX FREE. $20K+ for each kid a year. And this is not considered income, so while I sit home living the good life, I could also get state assistance since on paper I would be poor.
You see, with the same father the support is reduced for additional children, but not so with different men.
So I could, theoretically, never work again for 45 months of pregnancy. I don't even have to marry the schmucks! Not a bad return. :lol:
You could, but that would still require the rich men to consentually have unprotected sex with you. As someone meeting your definition of "rich" (although I most assuredly am not) I assure you I wouldn't be having unprotected sex with anyone.
mosquitobite
08-23-05, 11:38 AM
You could, but that would still require the rich men to consentually have unprotected sex with you. As someone meeting your definition of "rich" (although I most assuredly am not) I assure you I wouldn't be having unprotected sex with anyone.
Good for you! More men should be like that! :up: I sure the heck wish my brothers would be!
But, eh, I'd move on to the next sucker. If you & I have protected sex, it's just one month lost. :lol:
Let me assure you from my position as a woman, most men aren't thinking about the child support at the time of nakedness. :lol:
kvrdave
08-23-05, 11:45 AM
What is WRONG with family law is I could become the USA's biggest slut,
Could? -ohbfrank-
-wink-
Protect your sperm like it is your ATM PIN and this won't be a problem.
CaptainMarvel
08-23-05, 11:50 AM
Could? -ohbfrank-
-wink-
Protect your sperm like it is your ATM PIN and this won't be a problem.
I think the grocery store might become a little upset if I start using my sperm at the register.
jdodd
08-23-05, 11:51 AM
Protect your sperm like it is your ATM PIN and this won't be a problem.
I just told my wife I wanted to enter my PIN into her and she just got confused and a little angry. :(
Mordred
08-23-05, 11:56 AM
I just told my wife I wanted to enter my PIN into her and she just got confused and a little angry. :(It's always bad when your card gets declined :(
kvrdave
08-23-05, 11:57 AM
I think the grocery store might become a little upset if I start using my sperm at the register.
:lol: I think you are making assumptions....go try.
mosquitobite
08-23-05, 12:05 PM
Could? -ohbfrank-
-wink-
Protect your sperm like it is your ATM PIN and this won't be a problem.
Shhh! My husband isn't supposed to know about our affair!
El Scorcho
08-23-05, 12:19 PM
Can anyone comment on whether or not this guy has legal visitation rights? After all, if he's forced to pay for the rugrats, he ought to get his time with em.
VinVega
08-23-05, 12:22 PM
Good for you! More men should be like that! :up: I sure the heck wish my brothers would be!
Let me assure you from my position as a woman, most men aren't thinking about the child support at the time of nakedness. :lol:
rotfl
We poor dumb men don't stand a chance do we? :sad:
tcoursen
08-23-05, 12:36 PM
No, the judge found that the contract, while valid, is unenforceable because it involves the rights of a minor.
Yeah, but that is in how the contract applies between the father and the child, not necessarily how it applies between the two adults. Couldn't he argue that there is also a contract between the two parents in terms of that money. Buy saying what she is agreeing to she is absolving him of that child support. Couldn't he argue that that is her agreeing to pay his share of the child support? Sure he has to pay the child support. But he has a contact with her that he isn't responsible for that. She has to reimburse him for what the child support costs him.
mikehunt
08-23-05, 03:13 PM
He should sue for parental rights/visitation. Let's see if she argues the oral contract should be valid THEN...
hell, he should go for full custody
naughty jonny
08-23-05, 09:46 PM
You could, but that would still require the rich men to consentually have unprotected sex with you. As someone meeting your definition of "rich" (although I most assuredly am not) I assure you I wouldn't be having unprotected sex with anyone.
Why would you bother having unprotected sex? Simply give a rich guy a BJ and ensure that you "disposed" of the genetic material.
After all, as we've seen in the past, you can get sued for child support (successfully) if someone else steals your condom, turns it inside out and uses it themselves. You've never had sex with the mother, you never donated the sperm yourself, but because your friend used your condom on his girlfriend, you get the lifetime of child support payments.
The way that these child support judgements are going, courts seem to have no problem with one parent "stealing" genetic material from the other parent. As long as it's in the best interest of the child, and it gets the state out of paying, it seems to be anything goes.
Mordred
08-23-05, 10:52 PM
Yeah, but that is in how the contract applies between the father and the child, not necessarily how it applies between the two adults. Couldn't he argue that there is also a contract between the two parents in terms of that money. Buy saying what she is agreeing to she is absolving him of that child support. Couldn't he argue that that is her agreeing to pay his share of the child support? Sure he has to pay the child support. But he has a contact with her that he isn't responsible for that. She has to reimburse him for what the child support costs him.Obviously the reason the law is written the way it is, is to make sure things like that can't happen. Assuming the mother really needs the child support (and I sincerely hope that's the case) it isn't fair to the child that he has two (yes two!) stupid parents. The kid still needs to be cared for, and if the kid can be cared for by the mom if the dad pays child support, it's better for society as a whole that he doesn't end up as a ward of the state.
It really sucks for the dad but I agree with the judges interpretation of the law.
Lemdog
08-23-05, 11:13 PM
This is scary. So in theory anyone who goes to a sperm bank could get sued for child support.
Red Dog
08-24-05, 09:30 AM
This is scary. So in theory anyone who goes to a sperm bank could get sued for child support.
This is only one case in one jurisdiction in a lower court, so I don't think it is that scary. It will certainly be appealed.
eisenreich
08-24-05, 09:59 AM
According to the cryobank in virginia:
http://www.fairfaxcryobank.com/cryo/donorfaqs-sperm.htm
"What are the legalities of sperm donation?
- You assume no responsibility or liability for any child conceived by your donations. Likewise, you will have no rights to any child conceived by your donations. "
"Is the program confidential?
- All donor information is completely confidential. Donor files are numerically coded to assure confidentiality of information and access to the files is restricted. Your identity will not be revealed to any recipient nor shall the identity of any recipient be disclosed to you."
RoyalTea
08-24-05, 10:11 AM
mosquitobite is a she?
mosquitobite
08-24-05, 12:14 PM
She is ;)
al_bundy
01-04-08, 12:57 PM
good news
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22488113/
Red Dog
01-04-08, 01:39 PM
This is only one case in one jurisdiction in a lower court, so I don't think it is that scary. It will certainly be appealed.
And there you go. :thumbsup:
Obviously, the he won't have to pay $66K in back support that was previously ordered but I wonder if he was required to pay monthly support during the appeal process.
pinata242
01-04-08, 01:59 PM
That link says he had been:
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...
Buy: