Full Version: Sperm Donors and the Law
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] Science and Technology > [A] Health and Medicine
Court Rules Sperm Donor Must Pay Support
But here's the scary part:
We have the technology....
1. Is the decision by the appeals court correct? Should a sperm donor be required to provide support even if the mother agrees in writing that support is not desired or required?
2. What about egg donors? Should they be required to contribute as well in the situation where an egg is donated to another couple?
QUOTE
HARRISBURG, Pa. - A state appeals court ruled that a verbal agreement between a woman and her sperm donor was invalid, and ordered the man to pay child support for the woman's twins.
The three-judge panel ruled Thursday that the deal between Joel McKiernan and Ivonne Ferguson — in which McKiernan donated his sperm and would not be obligated to pay any support — was unenforceable because of "legal, equitable and moral principles."
Despite an agreement that appeared to be a binding contract, the father is obligated to provide financial support, the court decided.
"It is the interest of the children we hold most dear,'" wrote Senior Judge Patrick Tamalia.
The three-judge panel ruled Thursday that the deal between Joel McKiernan and Ivonne Ferguson — in which McKiernan donated his sperm and would not be obligated to pay any support — was unenforceable because of "legal, equitable and moral principles."
Despite an agreement that appeared to be a binding contract, the father is obligated to provide financial support, the court decided.
"It is the interest of the children we hold most dear,'" wrote Senior Judge Patrick Tamalia.
But here's the scary part:
QUOTE
The decision could have implications for sperm and egg donors who expect anonymity, said Arthur Caplan, a professor and medical ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania.
"Anybody who is a sperm donor ought to understand that their identity could be made known to any child that's produced, and they could be seen by the courts as the best place to go to make sure the child has adequate financial support," he said Friday.
"Anybody who is a sperm donor ought to understand that their identity could be made known to any child that's produced, and they could be seen by the courts as the best place to go to make sure the child has adequate financial support," he said Friday.
We have the technology....
1. Is the decision by the appeals court correct? Should a sperm donor be required to provide support even if the mother agrees in writing that support is not desired or required?
2. What about egg donors? Should they be required to contribute as well in the situation where an egg is donated to another couple?
Good lord! This is scary. 
Is the decision by the appeals court correct? Should a sperm donor be required to provide support even if the mother agrees in writing that support is not desired or required? Absolutely not. I see an end to all future sperm and egg donations if this continues. For that matter, what's to stop a couple from requesting support from the birth mother of an adopted child, when (if ever) she has the means? It seems the same principle to me.
Is the decision by the appeals court correct? Should a sperm donor be required to provide support even if the mother agrees in writing that support is not desired or required? Absolutely not. I see an end to all future sperm and egg donations if this continues. For that matter, what's to stop a couple from requesting support from the birth mother of an adopted child, when (if ever) she has the means? It seems the same principle to me.
1. Is the decision by the appeals court correct? Should a sperm donor be required to provide support even if the mother agrees in writing that support is not desired or required?
2. What about egg donors? Should they be required to contribute as well in the situation where an egg is donated to another couple?
The decision of the court is correct. Most courts have consistently agreed that it is against public policy to allow a man and woman to enter into an agreement that one will "waive" child support from the other in return for their genetic material. There is an special exception to this (more on that in a minute), but essentially, the courts rationale is that it is in the child's best interests to have the benefit of the financial support, despite whatever agreement mom and/or dad thought they had between themselves.
As a result, people sometimes find themselves in these kinds of messy situations. If the mom and dad agree that there will be no child support, and both of them keep their word, the State rarely gets involved, and no one is the wiser. However, when financial circumstances change, and one of them finds out that the "contract" is not enforceable, the other is in for a rude awakening if the former decides to file for child support. And even when both the parties agree that there will be no child support and both attempt to abide by the agreement, there is also a possible exception to this when the mom is collecting welfare in a state where it is public policy that the local state's attorney automatically file suit and collect support from the dad to reimburse the State.
There is an special exception to the general policy of enforcing support despite the agreement to waive support, depending on the State in which you live and whether or not the State has adopted a specific artificial insemination statute that grants immunity in certain situations. You would have to check your local state laws to be sure, but most of them involve situations where a person donates genetic material for use in artificial insemination, the parties use a licensed physician, the parties put their intentions in writing, and follow all the other statutory requirements to the letter. Under these narrow circumstances, a donor could successfully free themselves from ever being legally held to be a parent and thus forced to pay child support. Some States allows this because they still want people to have some legitimate way to use artificial insemination, with the certainy that everything will go as planned including release from any future liability for child support. The State just wants to make sure the situation is legitimate.
With regard to any differences between donating sperm or donating eggs, I would think they would be the same, but it would be prudent to carefully check the wording of the applicable statute to be sure you were covered before you went through with the procedure.
2. What about egg donors? Should they be required to contribute as well in the situation where an egg is donated to another couple?
The decision of the court is correct. Most courts have consistently agreed that it is against public policy to allow a man and woman to enter into an agreement that one will "waive" child support from the other in return for their genetic material. There is an special exception to this (more on that in a minute), but essentially, the courts rationale is that it is in the child's best interests to have the benefit of the financial support, despite whatever agreement mom and/or dad thought they had between themselves.
As a result, people sometimes find themselves in these kinds of messy situations. If the mom and dad agree that there will be no child support, and both of them keep their word, the State rarely gets involved, and no one is the wiser. However, when financial circumstances change, and one of them finds out that the "contract" is not enforceable, the other is in for a rude awakening if the former decides to file for child support. And even when both the parties agree that there will be no child support and both attempt to abide by the agreement, there is also a possible exception to this when the mom is collecting welfare in a state where it is public policy that the local state's attorney automatically file suit and collect support from the dad to reimburse the State.
There is an special exception to the general policy of enforcing support despite the agreement to waive support, depending on the State in which you live and whether or not the State has adopted a specific artificial insemination statute that grants immunity in certain situations. You would have to check your local state laws to be sure, but most of them involve situations where a person donates genetic material for use in artificial insemination, the parties use a licensed physician, the parties put their intentions in writing, and follow all the other statutory requirements to the letter. Under these narrow circumstances, a donor could successfully free themselves from ever being legally held to be a parent and thus forced to pay child support. Some States allows this because they still want people to have some legitimate way to use artificial insemination, with the certainy that everything will go as planned including release from any future liability for child support. The State just wants to make sure the situation is legitimate.
With regard to any differences between donating sperm or donating eggs, I would think they would be the same, but it would be prudent to carefully check the wording of the applicable statute to be sure you were covered before you went through with the procedure.
This article seems awfully interested in pushing the idea that the rationale behind the court decision was largely based on the controversy surrounding the definition of parenthood. Talk about burying the lead, you have to get to the second to the last paragraph before you find out that the verbal agreement between the two individuals was the most contentious part of the case.
If there was no evidence of a contract, and one party disputes the verbal contract then the court's decision was the correct one. It seems to me that the man allowed himself to believe that he would be free from responsibility simply because he could think he was.
If this gets appealed, it seems likely that this case will be more about verbal contracts than it will be about sperm or egg donation.
1. Is the decision by the appeals court correct? Should a sperm donor be required to provide support even if the mother agrees in writing that support is not desired or required?
2. What about egg donors? Should they be required to contribute as well in the situation where an egg is donated to another couple?
The decision was correct because the contract was not in writing and was in dispute. The fact that a written contract can exist between one person and the state or a business about the anonymity of gamete donation or adoption should mean that two people could have a similar arrangement.
If there was no evidence of a contract, and one party disputes the verbal contract then the court's decision was the correct one. It seems to me that the man allowed himself to believe that he would be free from responsibility simply because he could think he was.
If this gets appealed, it seems likely that this case will be more about verbal contracts than it will be about sperm or egg donation.
1. Is the decision by the appeals court correct? Should a sperm donor be required to provide support even if the mother agrees in writing that support is not desired or required?
2. What about egg donors? Should they be required to contribute as well in the situation where an egg is donated to another couple?
The decision was correct because the contract was not in writing and was in dispute. The fact that a written contract can exist between one person and the state or a business about the anonymity of gamete donation or adoption should mean that two people could have a similar arrangement.
A lot has been made of this semi-recent case.
In my opinion this case will cause a reduction in donations, temporarily, from those that have only read the headlines and from those who read the deeper detail in the case.
The issue in this case was that the woman denied that there was ever an agreement to waive the mans financial responsiblities. The fact that they both had known each other and had been intimate for a few years was significant in this case as well. However, there was no dispute that this was a donation as it was artificial insemination. Since this was a verbal agreement and was never put into writing it became a "his word against her's" case. As a result, he should have to pay support because he did not take the most basic step to protect himself, that being get it in writing stupid.
From this article (Sperm donor must pay support):
However, that part scares me. As a result of this language, I for one will never be a donor. Only 19 states have adopted laws that protect donors from these obligations. I don't want to be a test case even if the agreement is in writing.
If more men read these details of the case then it is likely that the case will lead to a reduction in donations.
It seems to me that the solution is to nationally adopt legislation to protect donors from such claims and to require the recipient to sign an acknowledgement of this prior to receiving this donation.
Though egg donors should be held to the same standards as sperm donors. hat ever they are to be.
In my opinion this case will cause a reduction in donations, temporarily, from those that have only read the headlines and from those who read the deeper detail in the case.
The issue in this case was that the woman denied that there was ever an agreement to waive the mans financial responsiblities. The fact that they both had known each other and had been intimate for a few years was significant in this case as well. However, there was no dispute that this was a donation as it was artificial insemination. Since this was a verbal agreement and was never put into writing it became a "his word against her's" case. As a result, he should have to pay support because he did not take the most basic step to protect himself, that being get it in writing stupid.
From this article (Sperm donor must pay support):
QUOTE
A three-judge panel said the deal between Joel L. McKiernan and Ivonne V. Ferguson that he would not be obligated for any child support was "on its face" a valid contract, but it was unenforceable due to "legal, equitable and moral principles." Previous state appellate rulings had determined that parents may not bargain away a child's right to support.
"We agree with the trial court, 'although we find (Ferguson's) actions despicable and give (McKiernan) a sympathetic hue, it is the interest of the children we hold most dear,'" wrote Senior Judge Patrick R. Tamalia in a ruling issued Thursday.
"We agree with the trial court, 'although we find (Ferguson's) actions despicable and give (McKiernan) a sympathetic hue, it is the interest of the children we hold most dear,'" wrote Senior Judge Patrick R. Tamalia in a ruling issued Thursday.
However, that part scares me. As a result of this language, I for one will never be a donor. Only 19 states have adopted laws that protect donors from these obligations. I don't want to be a test case even if the agreement is in writing.
If more men read these details of the case then it is likely that the case will lead to a reduction in donations.
It seems to me that the solution is to nationally adopt legislation to protect donors from such claims and to require the recipient to sign an acknowledgement of this prior to receiving this donation.
Though egg donors should be held to the same standards as sperm donors. hat ever they are to be.
We almost did this while in college. 
I actually recommended it to Mr P (then just Mike) because each sample runs around 50 dollars…I thought, what the heck? What’s a poor but documented-to-be-brilliant person have to lose? These clinics are usually very selective, from my experience with the phone screening process. The clinic we contacted accepted applicants from med schools or high honors engineering (he qualified). Fortunately, they already had many donations from black-eyed, black haired men, so they didn't want his.
This certainly opens a LOT of potential for future blackmail, though. Drawing from my experience, these candidates likely all went on to extremely high-paying careers (with the exception of those who went into the military
). Are they open to potential exploitation for donating to obtain a bit of money during their med school years?
Apparently, sperm donations in many other countries are anonymous. People come from around the world obtain pedigree human sperm. Maybe this is why those other countries opt for only anonymity.
I actually recommended it to Mr P (then just Mike) because each sample runs around 50 dollars…I thought, what the heck? What’s a poor but documented-to-be-brilliant person have to lose? These clinics are usually very selective, from my experience with the phone screening process. The clinic we contacted accepted applicants from med schools or high honors engineering (he qualified). Fortunately, they already had many donations from black-eyed, black haired men, so they didn't want his. This certainly opens a LOT of potential for future blackmail, though. Drawing from my experience, these candidates likely all went on to extremely high-paying careers (with the exception of those who went into the military
). Are they open to potential exploitation for donating to obtain a bit of money during their med school years? Apparently, sperm donations in many other countries are anonymous. People come from around the world obtain pedigree human sperm. Maybe this is why those other countries opt for only anonymity.
I guess the "baby, I have protection" defense doesn't fly in this case. This is a horrific precedent that has the potential to chill donations in the future. The ability to be punished for an act of human kindness makes this case extremely significant in the reproductive rights area.
Because I think this is out of the purview of Federal jurisdiction (not that its stopped them before), I would certainly check the state laws on the books regarding this and make sure the laws protect the donor. Anonymity is probably the only way to go.
Doc
This is a horrific precedent that has the potential to chill donations in the future. The ability to be punished for an act of human kindness makes this case extremely significant in the reproductive rights area.Because I think this is out of the purview of Federal jurisdiction (not that its stopped them before), I would certainly check the state laws on the books regarding this and make sure the laws protect the donor. Anonymity is probably the only way to go.
Doc
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.