Sperm donor ordered to pay child support

Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

HARRISBURG -- A sperm donor who helped a lesbian couple conceive two children is liable for child support under a state appeals-court ruling that a legal expert believes might be the first of its kind.

A Superior Court panel last week ordered a Dauphin County judge to establish how much Carl L. Frampton Jr. would have to pay to the birth mother of an 8-year-old boy and 7-year-old girl.

"I'm unaware of any other state appellate court that has found that a child has, simultaneously, three adults who are financially obligated to the child's support and are also entitled to visitation," said New York Law School professor Arthur S. Leonard, an expert on sexuality and the law.

But Mr. Frampton, 60, of Indiana, Pa., died suddenly of a stroke in March, leaving lawyers involved in the case with different theories about how his death may affect the precedent-setting case.



Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07130/784968-100.stm

Three lawyers, two lesbians, a baby, and a dead guy go into a bar...

That has been one of the legal problems with these types of cases, the CHILD is viewed as the person entitled to Support, if the two Lesbians parents can NOT provide that support then the Father MUST, The Two Lesbian parents can NOT sign away the CHILD's Right to support.

The Father could then sue the two Lesbians for violation of the Contract he signed with them, but he still has to pay child support. Given that to get to the Father the Court would have had to determine the Lesbians Parents COULD NOT SUPPORT THE CHILD THEMSELVES, he would get a empty Judgment. i.e. The Court will give him a Judgment against the two Lesbians, but he would be ORDERED TO PAY THE MOTHER HIS SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS. His Judgment will probably be un-collectible for attachments of Wages is NOT permitted under PA Law EXCEPT for Taxes Student Loans, Board AND CHILD SUPPORT.

I am sorry, but I agree with this decision, it follows the law of Pennsylvania INCLUDING the US Supreme Court Decision that ruled that Support Obligations is a RIGHT OF THE CHILD not of the Parent and parents have NO RIGHT TO SIGN AWAY THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD.

the sperm donor.

Thus while the contract between the two women and the Sperm donor is valid, that has no affect on the rights of the Child. That is the point the Court was dealing with, the right of the child NOT the Contract between the Parties.

for non-support? I'm just asking because you seem to be knowlegable about such things and my son is going to turn 18 in a few months. His father has never sent a dime. If the sole obligation is to the child, I'm wondering if the child has a right to recovery.

I don't know--I'm not a lawyer--but I would guess that since the money is for support of a minor, and the recipient is no longer a minor and therefore expected to support himself, the issue becomes moot.

I can't imagine you are the first one who's ever thought of that, and if it were possible, it seems like there would be dozens of ads for law firms litigating those cases.

It could be 18, 19, 20 or 21.

If there is a child support order in effect the duty to pay support usually does not cease when the child reaches the age of majority.

Here in Indiana, I believe there is a 17 year statute of limitation for each payment due.

to happen. AGAIN, NO LAWYER HERE, but your situation seems different, and I would think that there would be legal avenues yuo could pursue.

Thus if you filed for support, the father is liable till it is paid EVEN IF THE CHILD IS OVER AGE 18. Now the obligation to pay support ends when the child turns 18, but the arrears remain on the books till paid. If you did not file for support your son is out of luck.

It use to be worse, Pennsylvania for 200 years had a rule that a Mother had to file for Support within 7 years of birth of Child, but that was ruled to be unconstitutional in the 1980s by the US Supreme Court for children under 18 could NOT file in their own name till they were 18, thus having a seven year statute of limitation from the birth of the Child AND forbidding anyone under 18 from suing themselves was violation of Due Process for the Child. This decision forced Pennsylvania to re-write its child support laws.

They probably didn't think it was necessary.

And woman probably was thinking of saving money.

How will people get anyone to be a sperm donor is this stands?

I'm all for men supported their offspring - but not in a case like this. If women choose to use a sperm bank then they should be solely responsible for those children.

... solely responsible, at least in the biological sense. I think there's a valid issue here of actions and consequences. If other fathers are responsible in this way, I don't see why donors shouldn't be.

children that would not be born without their involvement?

sounds like a slippery slope to me.

Do NOT look at this from the eyes of the PARENTS OR THE SPERM OR OVA DONOR, look at it from the RIGHT OF THE CHILD.

practical effect of holding a surrogate mother responsible for the child would be to put an incredible burden on this mother. Not only would she be providing an awesome offer to carry another persons' developing child for nine months, but she would then be financially liable as well.

I respect your consistency in holding her as responsible as the sperm donor, but her contribution is on a whole other level from the donor, and to treat her the same would be to severely limit the use of this option for couples with no other options.

the couple could decide they don't want the child..
the couple could divorce or die...

that leaves the surrogate in the position of taking responsibility for the child or putting it up for adoption.


This case is not your classic sperm donor...this guy knew the women and was involved with the kids...

He should have:

1. gotten a lawyer before he donated the sperm
2. Refrained from contact with the women
3. Not set a precedent by sending money for the kids.

These women should have also done the same, however I am thinking that they all knew one another and perhaps this fellow had wanted to be a father and this arrangement fulfilled some need of his as well.

A child is not some entity whose rights trump all Law.

Legally the issue here appears the two lesbians didn't legally file for adoption and yet consider themselves as the sole parents. And their intent was to be the sole legal parents.

A surrogate mother or sperm donor act in the fore-knowledge they will NOT be legally considered parents.

According to your strange thinking, mothers who give up their babies for adoption would also be liable.

Where do people think the line should be drawn on this?

Wes Clark link...hadn't seen it.

But in this case they knew who the donor was because he was a close friend of the mother.

No kidding. Once upon a time there were two friends, and the woman wanted to have a baby. She asked her male friend if he would father a child on her, no strings attached, no obligations, etc. Being friends, and platonic friends at that, he thought it over and said sure. They had sex only as long as it took for her to get pregnant, and then parted ways.

Fast forward about 10 years. She never did get married or have other children. She fell on hard times and I think had to apply for public assistance. I think she even made a pitch for him to provide support. He ended up being liable for this kid's support -- went to court and lost his case.

The judge decided that since the two parents had actual sex with each other (as opposed to mating with a turkey baster), the bio-dad was the legal parent and was obligated to support his offspring.

Personally I thought this was a pretty poor way to thank a friend for his help, since the promise was there would be no strings attached.

However, there was nothing in writing, there were no lawyers involved, and the "handshake deal" was made in bed. The laws regarding assisted reproduction of all kinds are being made on the fly, and I think the judge pretty much went with the laws that we have regarding men and women who have sex.

The case of the lesbian couple is somewhat different. I thought there was an emerging body of precedent that might guide the judge to a better decision than this. A couple who decides to bring a child into the world to raise themselves should be crystal clear that THEY are the ones who will be supporting it, even if they split up. A split-up of the adult couple should be treated like a divorce, with custody rules and financial support worked out in family court. They shouldn't be going back to the bio-dad or the rent-a-womb-mom to demand financial involvement. Likewise, the sperm and egg donors should be crystal clear that this is not "their" child.

The laws of the land need to be brought current with what is actually going on in the culture.

Hekate

marriage/civil unions are so important in todays society.

parental rights terminated, which will add more to the court caseloads, and also make donating sperm a bigger burden, leading to fewer volunteers.

how you could afford that full tank of gas.........
And another thing, Stay Off My Corner! :evilgrin:

:D

A guy's gotta do who a guy's gotta do? :evilgrin:

That family never misses a chance to make a buck

creep me the hell out...:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

i promise someone would get a hell of a legal fight if they showed up on my doorstep (first they would have to find me!):hide:

this guy knew the women..was involved with the kids...and even had provided some money to the couple in the past..

having some contact with any offspring.

I absolutely think imposing support obligations is wrong, but my teenage daughter is curious about the other half of her genetic makeup. If we had had the option of checking off a box that would have given her access to that information when she reached a certain age (or with parental consent before that), we would have done so. Unfortunately, that option wasn't available to us . . . so it is unlikely she will show up on your doorstep.

You don't have tight curly hair at the crown and a genetically linked disorder do you. . . . ;)

what the hell were they thinking?

I see no good coming out of this at all.

One of the side rules of Welfare Reform was ANYONE WHO APPLIES WHO HAS A CHILD MUST SUE FOR SUPPORT AGAINST ANYONE WHO MAY BE OBLIGATED TO PAY SUPPORT. Notice I said MUST, not may. Thus the couple may have not choice in the matter if Welfare is involved.

Although the particulars of this insemination are slightly different, donor insemination in general does not create an obligation to pay support.

Gifts from this donor would need to be reported as income - and now that there is case law requiring this particular donor to pay support others in similar situations in Pennsylvania (known donor with post birth involvement with the children) would be wise to at least consider whether they should report their donor when applying for welfare...

Prior to this case, however, parents of a child conceived by donor insemination would have had no reason to believe the donor was obligated to pay support.

The biological father was somewhat involved in their lives and occasionally contributed financially.

"The process was very informal -- Ms. Jacob was inseminated at home."

he's not a "sperm donor." he's a "man who got a woman pregnant."

so there was no opportunity for him to be clear of the basic obligation, and given this welfare reform thing, it does seem like the 'issue' was "taken out of their hands" (pun intended).

We don't know all the details, but it sounds like the old man was duped. Maybe he has no other children and no heirs and the women saw this as a great way to get kids AND get an inheritance.

He was involved with the kids. He wasn't anonymous. Sounds like he wanted the benefits of being a father without any of the responsibilities.

<Ms. Jacob, who now lives in Harrisburg, said Mr. Frampton provided some financial support over the years and gradually took a greater interest in the children.

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

The process was very informal -- Ms. Jacob was inseminated at home.>

Mz Pip
:dem:

"TURKEY BASTER".

Social Security survivor benefits. I'll bet the court's opinion that the sperm donor is responsible for child support will change fast.

this was not your "anonymous" sperm donor.

In addition, look at the number of women who bear children out of wedlock. Their children are entitled to survivor's benefits if their parents are listed on the birth certificate.

There have been a number of soldiers killed from our area that have left behind children they had with girlfriends...those kids get bennies...whether the father was married to the mother or not.

Under Law even the names on the Certificates is NOT proof that those are your legal name. Your legal name is what you use consistently, even if is NOT the name on the Birth Certificate (and under Pennsylvania law you can change your name at any time as long as you use the name consistent and for NON0Fraudulent purposes, except for Felons and ex-felons). The same rule applies to who is the mother and father of the child. The person named on the Certificate are NOT presumed to be your parents. Now bureaucrats can NOT understand this concept, they look at the birth Certificate and state that is your name and the name of your parents. That is NOT the law and never has been in Pennsylvania, but bureaucrats can NOT understand that concept.

As to Social Security benefits that is the right of any child any person had a legal obligation to support while alive. Who has a legal obligation is NOT set by Social Security Law, but State law. Pennsylvania law now say ALL children are legitimate thus as long as some determination of Support was made by law or fact the child get benefits. (i.e. he paid something to the mother, lived with the children or otherwise said the child was his or even a DNA test AFTER the death of the Father any evidence that he was the father is sufficient). Other states have other rules, I had a case involving Virginia law several years ago where Virginia law state you must acknowledge the child BEFORE you die. In my case the father had not and I lost the case. As I said Pennsylvania law was more liberal, but since the Father died iN Virginia, Virginia law applied to the case.

(as if there weren't already a number of such considerations.)

This fellow entered into a private agreement, and inseminated this woman at home. (not sure how...but she did get pregnant)

He was actively involved with the children and they called him "papa"..

He also did provide some assistance to them over time.

SO...unlike the college kid looking to score some money for books...who donates sperm and it is catalogued under some numeric code...this guy's case is a lot different.

I realize this is a special case, but heck, setting precedents like this better not be catching.

Don't give sperm to ANYONE!

Here's the one that's really worrisome:
"The state Supreme Court is currently considering a similar case, in which a sperm donor wants to enforce a promise made by the mother that he would not have to be involved in the child's life. That biological father was ordered to pay $1,520 in monthly support."

Every man should know they cannot make these kinds of agreements. It like trying to get out of a murder charge by claiming your victim asked you to shoot them.

There are plenty of women who want children who ask men to impregnate them. Never heard of such men being called sperm donors. Call them what they are "temporary sex partners".

However... to try to sue an anonymous sperm donor because you can't afford your kid is just plain FRIGHTENING.

I would add that it shows a distinct lack of boundaries. Let's say there is a couple on disability who have a child, and their ends don't meet, and they go on welfare. Do they sue the grandparents for child-support? I mean, the parents had them, and they had the kid so the grandparents are "involved"...

The reason for WELFARE is the "good of the child". There are times when having the government hunt around for a private citizen to support a child so that the government doesn't have to support a child just seems disgusting.

I would add that given that the financial burden of foster children and orphans falls squarely on the state, there's just something wrong with this picture. Either our government supports our children when the parents cannot, or it doesn't. But this scenario is pretty half-a**ed to me.

Sucks to be him

If it was, I'd say this was creepy. What a way, if that were true, to wipe out the possibility of anonymous donations.

...of of the anonymous donor who supplied the sperm used to create him or her.

I find this case (and the one of the "naturally donated" sperm to be something of worry. Between the two (and I do know that they are/were in different states) it is possible to make an argument that a man could have sex with a woman using a condom and if that woman were to later use the contents of the discarded condom the man could be held liable for the child.

Putting all the various precedents together, the situation is rapidly approaching the point that if your genes are in a child, you CAN be held fiscally responsible. Particularly if the State might otherwise have to cough up.

Yes a child enjoys certain rights. Exactly the same rights as any other person. A child is afforded certain PROTECTIONS.

The so called "right to support" is no such thing. The State guarantees a minimum level of support for children, going after sperm donors and otherwise oblivious "one night stands" is just a way for the state to offload some of its costs.

If the "donor" parent acts in good faith then that should be the end of the matter as far as they are concerned and the State insures the child is not financially disadvantaged. Emotionally, they participate in exactly the same crapshoot as every other human being on this planet.

this isn't a sperm donor, but a male prostitute.

all of these creeps should be thrown in prison, and the child should be put up for adoption.

Although I don't agree with seeking child support, within the GLBT community this type of arrangement is fairly common.

The traditional fertility clinics are designed to allow a couple to pretend that the male really fathered the child. The donor is selected, first, to match the characteristics of the father (physical description, interests, religion, talents, etc.). If there isn't a donor that matches the father, the mismatched characteristics are attempted to be matched to the mother. The couple is typically instructed to have an active unprotected sex life so that they will never know if the child conceived is the result of donor insemination or a resolution of the problem that had previously prevented old fashioned conception.

This resulted in children who, in many instances, did not even know they were not biologically related to their father. Some of the children conceived this way have the same concerns that prompted the opening of many adoption records(I always felt as if I didn't fit in the family/like something was missing; Where did I get my xxx from, etc., do I have any increased health risks like breast cancer, etc., based on unknown family medical history.)

Many lesbian couples believed that this system is unfair to the child, and sought something different. Having a known donor resolves this issue - and, depending on the relationship between the parties, can provides something that lesbian couples cannot inherently provide - male companionship for their child.

For a lesbian couple, using a known donor almost never involves sexual intercourse or payment for sperm. The traditional fertility clinics, however, pay for donations of sperm, and charge to "purchase" it. So which would be prostitution.....?

we could treat it as taxable income, and free all "sperm or egg donors" from paying child support.

I don't think that males should be allowed to donate sperm, or females should be allowed to donate their bodies to anyone for a price. If they wish to do this for free, then that is fine with me. but asking for a price for this should not be legal IMO unless prostitution is also legal. otherwise we have an unjustifiable double standard.

It was the free donation that you were calling prostitution, and I believe you called the parents "creeps" who should be thrown in jail.

Would you apply the same standards to the sale of blood/plasma? There are people who regularly sell both, and the non-paid donors can't keep up with the demand created by people with chronic illnesses which require treatment with blood products.

but isn't politics is the art of portraying perfection? ;)

I think the existing standards for blood donations have some flaws, but the demand for that blood outweighs the danger of reducing the supply with a higher standard. basically I believe that higher standards might endanger the lives of those who regularly need blood transfusions. but limiting sperm donations does not endanger the health or lives of anyone.

eom