• news
  • MONDAY OCTOBER 17 2005 10:18 AM

Sperm Donor Ordered to Pay Child Support

Submitted by wottan

Edited by Shal

In the early 1990s a Swedish man donated his sperm to a lesbian couple, now he is being ordered by Supreme Court to pay child support for the three resulting children.


Although the man signed a document confirming he was the biological father of the children, he told the court the women agreed he would not be involved in their upbringing in any way.

But when the women separated, the biological mother of the three boys demanded child support payments from the man.



The trial passed through regular court, before the man took the appeal up with the Supreme court, where the ruling was upheld.

It definetly sucks for the guy, but I cannot see him having any legal recourse if the agreement of his non-involvement was not recorded in some sort of contract.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

Comments
zenFish

zenFish

Vancouver, BC
August 2004

OCT 17, 2005 08:09 PM

thestral said:

MetaTag said:

However, that does not change the fact that someone needs to support the children, which he fathered.

The onus is on him to consider fully the consequences of his actions and more fool him for neglecting to do so.



He didn't "father" those children. With the magic of modern science, we have to redefine "fathered'. In the traditional sense, he did not "father" these kids. He didn't have sex with the woman to procreate. He didn't pursue other ways to have a child with that woman. He donated some biological material that was used to make a baby that he was going to have no part of raising. So I don't think he fathered it. When you donate blood, are you held responsible for what happens with it? Are you suddenly considered the parent or sibling of the person who recieved the blood, since they now have some of your biological material?

He's not those children's father. They just got some DNA from him.



exactly what I wanted to point out.

but, I'm guessing the main reason why she went after the guy, is that is the 'easy' way.

think of it, there are no proper laws written for this new style of family is there?

you can't go to court, tell a judge you got the sperm from a donor, but really its the woman who is the 'father' of them.

not without going bankrupt that is.

I feel bad for the kids involved with this, and for the guy as well.

Mostly I'd just like to know all three sides of this, where is the women who left?

tehpeanut

tehpeanut

Houston, TX
September 2005

OCT 17, 2005 08:26 PM

well thats fucking hoe shit...he had nothing to do with the children and there for shouldnt have to pay...it should be the other woman that has to pay

ThatKid

ThatKid

USA
November 2003

OCT 17, 2005 10:34 PM

Did you know that the word Gullible isn't in the dictionary?

Mallory

Mallory

SUICIDEGIRL

Connecticut, USA

OCT 17, 2005 11:18 PM

retarded

Baletempest

Baletempest

United Kingdom
February 2005

OCT 18, 2005 09:08 AM

Thats absolutely fucking disgraceful mad

Rosalyn

Rosalyn

SUICIDEGIRL

Ontario, Canada

OCT 18, 2005 09:26 AM

MetaTag said:
I can imagine that the mother may have fallen on hard times and then taken whatever action she could to support the child, even if that meant a betrayal of the fathers kindness.



That's a good point. Maybe she was having hard times financially and saw the guy as a possible, if not ethical, way to cloth and feed her children.

...more probably she's just a bitch.

But.. if the father just donated his sperm without the help of a sperm bank or whatnot, I don't have a lot of sympathy for him. It sucks, but thats what happens when you act stupid,

fountainofdreams

fountainofdreams

Batavia, IL
January 2005

OCT 18, 2005 10:16 AM

ThatKid said:
Did you know that the word Gullible isn't in the dictionary?



why no, i'll go check!

whatever

MK47

MK47

United Kingdom
March 2005

OCT 18, 2005 04:53 PM

ive found my calling smile you people are genius smile
Thank you!

MarginWalker2002

MarginWalker2002

San Diego, CA
April 2004

OCT 18, 2005 05:09 PM

It's really lacking in details, but regardless, this plain old sucks for the guy. It's already been said, and I agree, the other woman should be paying child support, not the donor.

lastpenguin

lastpenguin

I'm lost
June 2003

OCT 18, 2005 05:22 PM

this just reinforces my view that whenever children and money are involved, written contracts, checked by a lawyer, and kept on record are a must.

SirPsychoSexy

SirPsychoSexy

Ridgewood, NJ
January 2004

OCT 18, 2005 05:30 PM

tensix said:
If anything, the other woman should be making child support payments, not that guy. That's just an extra shitty thing to do. It's kind of like getting a research grant to build something, hurting yourself with it, then suing whoever gave you the money to build it in the first place. At least we can look forward to some funny ads on television...

Imagine, if you will, a TV set. A man appears on the screen sitting behind a desk and wearing stylish suit.

"Are you stressed? Does work take time that you could be spending on such important social events as having children and watching wrestling?

Well then sue your boss!

The great thing about this world is that you can sue pretty much anyone for pretty much anything and you'll probably win... or at least get a large settlement.

At the law firm of Dnanna & Sons, we specialize in dealing with large damage claims and can teach you how falling down and howling like a sissy can result in large damage awards from your employer--We can even teach you how to throw yourself in front of a bus and pretend to be injured! Hey, that's why they pay for insurance.

So call the law firm of Dnanna & Sons now at 1-800-I-SUE-YOU and get ready for a life of luxury!"


While I don't agree with the ruling, it is not based on nothing or allowing people to go sue-crazy for any old thing.

The ruling handed down basically stated that the opinion of the court was that the future of the child was more important than the financial future of the father.

I know I know, "but think of the children!!!!111eleventyone" is getting a little old, but this is one of the cases where the supreme court takes into consideration the values of our society at this point in history. And by those guidelines, whether you agree with them or not, our society values the future of a child more than the future of an adult based on the arbitrary age of 18 (or in some states 21 if they go to college surreal ).

And that is that, the final ruling according to the SCOTUS: children > you.

TheRedBaron

TheRedBaron

Cambridge, MA
November 2003

OCT 18, 2005 05:39 PM

Rosalyn said:

MetaTag said:
I can imagine that the mother may have fallen on hard times and then taken whatever action she could to support the child, even if that meant a betrayal of the fathers kindness.


But.. if the father just donated his sperm without the help of a sperm bank or whatnot, I don't have a lot of sympathy for him. It sucks, but thats what happens when you act stupid,



act stupid
Help another human being.

Lily

Lily

SUICIDEGIRL

I'm lost

MAR 10, 2006 03:36 PM

This is why people need to either go through agencies or sign statements.

Jah

Jah

I'm lost
August 2005

MAR 10, 2006 04:15 PM

Lily said:
This is why people need to either go through agencies or sign statements.


or become eunuchs

Dead_Ringer

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost
September 2004

MAR 10, 2006 04:23 PM

Lily said:
This is why people need to either go through agencies or sign statements.


With every supposedly consensual sexual encounter? More work for us lawyers I guess.
biggrin

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

featured interviews