Sperm donors and Child Support

[_asbestosman]

Should sperm donors be required to pay child support? What if the woman initially agrees that the donor won't, but then reneges? Isn't it in the best interest of the chidren for them to have child support?

Here's what happened in a recent court case: link

I also wonder this: if you are going to be threatened with child support, shouldn't you be able to file for joint-custody instead? Wouldn't that be just as good for the children? Why is it always best for the children to go with the mother from the child's point of view? I recently read another news article that lesbian couples were running into troubles in divorce custody cases since both parents are the children's mother and so the court can't play favorites the way it's used to doing in custody battles.

Child's best interest? Why the heck do we allow single women to get pregnant from sperm banks in the first place? What a crazy world this is. I'm beginning to think that any man with an ounce of brains will get snipped ASAP.[/rant]

[_skippy the dead]

Should sperm donors be required to pay child support? What if the woman initially agrees that the donor won't, but then reneges? Isn't it in the best interest of the chidren for them to have child support?

Here's what happened in a recent court case: link

I also wonder this: if you are going to be threatened with child support, shouldn't you be able to file for joint-custody instead? Wouldn't that be just as good for the children? Why is it always best for the children to go with the mother from the child's point of view? I recently read another news article that lesbian couples were running into troubles in divorce custody cases since both parents are the children's mother and so the court can't play favorites the way it's used to doing in custody battles.

Child's best interest? Why the heck do we allow single women to get pregnant from sperm banks in the first place? What a crazy world this is. I'm beginning to think that any man with an ounce of brains will get snipped ASAP.[/rant]

I can't decide which way I come down on this. I practiced family law for a while, and am pretty familiar with the concept that child support is there for the child, not for the parent, and as such, a parent cannot decline to receive child support for his/her child (for instance, in any divorce in California involving a minor, the custodial parent simply cannot waive child support).

But when it comes to sperm donation, we cross into a new area. This case is complicated by the fact that the donor knew the recipient, rather than the usual anonymous donor route.

If a donor were to be required to pay child support, all sperm donation would effectively end, thus terminating one avenue childless couples have used for generations. It would also adversely affect egg donation, since we'd now need to worry about any parental issues related to the egg donor. The issues would not be able to stop with child support - there would be custody issues to consider as a result.

In the end, I think I side with the court on this. A sperm donation situation, in which neither party intends for the donor to ever be a parent, needs to be treated differently than other parenting cases. It's not as if a man had careless sex with a woman, with the risk of pregnancy for which he (and she) should be responsible. Rather, there was an arrangement for his genetic material to be given to the woman, with the understanding that he not be the actual "parent".

Fuzzy ground, indeed.

[Guest]

Should sperm donors be required to pay child support? What if the woman initially agrees that the donor won't, but then reneges? Isn't it in the best interest of the chidren for them to have child support?

Here's what happened in a recent court case: link

I also wonder this: if you are going to be threatened with child support, shouldn't you be able to file for joint-custody instead? Wouldn't that be just as good for the children? Why is it always best for the children to go with the mother from the child's point of view? I recently read another news article that lesbian couples were running into troubles in divorce custody cases since both parents are the children's mother and so the court can't play favorites the way it's used to doing in custody battles.

Child's best interest? Why the heck do we allow single women to get pregnant from sperm banks in the first place? What a crazy world this is. I'm beginning to think that any man with an ounce of brains will get snipped ASAP.[/rant]

Not sure how I feel about that really. I don't think mothers should relinquish financial obligations of fathers for their children. The mother when doing so is not necessarily considering the best interest of her child and that is where the court may make a determination. Yet, not sure how I think about this as it relates to sperm banks... not sure why I feel differently about that. I just do.. and there's no good reason for it, really. I'm just not really sure where I stand on this. Seems that men should just not become fathers (biological) or otherwise if they don't desire to support the child. I would think that if one does desire to do this that they should relinquish parental rights -- yet most courts won't do that unless there is another male willing to adopt the child (at least that is my understanding of it).

by the way, something interesting to note and put you back into rant mode:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_supp ... l_children

I keep editing this because I have no idea where I stand on this. It's complicated.

[Guest]

Oh, and try this on for size. In the late 80's a woman had an affair and became impregnated with her lover's child. The lover was denied contact with the child and the Supreme Court held that when a child is born within a marriage there is no constitutional right to prove paternity.

[_asbestosman]

Seems that men should just not become fathers (biological) or otherwise if they don't desire to support the child. I would think that if one does desire to do this that they should relinquish parental rights -- yet most courts won't do that unless there is another male willing to adopt the child (at least that is my understanding of it).

in my opinion, both parents should always get joint custody UNLESS one parent is inherently dangerous (read felonies like sex abuse) to the children. Wouldn't that be in the best interest of the children? I also would prefer child support to work the same way in joint custody as it does in relationships where the child and both parents all reside together--the natural way. Then I wouldn't feel like any man with an ounce of brains will get snipped ASAP (and probably get gender reassignment and false documents to make him look like a woman just to be sure that he's not falsely accused either).

Sometimes I wonder why I bother with being an American. Is Canada better? If so, I could get used to that.

[_Moniker]

Seems that men should just not become fathers (biological) or otherwise if they don't desire to support the child. I would think that if one does desire to do this that they should relinquish parental rights -- yet most courts won't do that unless there is another male willing to adopt the child (at least that is my understanding of it).

in my opinion, both parents should always get joint custody UNLESS one parent is inherently dangerous (read felonies like sex abuse) to the children. Wouldn't that be in the best interest of the children? I also would prefer child support to work the same way in joint custody as it does in relationships where the child and both parents all reside together--the natural way. Then I wouldn't feel like any man with an ounce of brains will get snipped ASAP (and probably get gender reassignment and false documents to make him look like a woman just to be sure that he's not falsely accused either).

Sometimes I wonder why I bother with being an American. Is Canada better? If so, I could get used to that.

Oh, abman, you seem so bitter this evening. Sorry. :(

I agree with what you write about custody. It is imperative that children have both parents in their life -- unless one is harmful. No disagreement there. At all! Have you heard of PAS? http://www.paskids.com/

Are you planning on having children?

[_skippy the dead]

Oh, and try this on for size. In the late 80's (Please don't CFR unless you MUST -- I know it to be a fact cause I briefed this case, and I'm just too lazy to look, but I can if I MUST) a woman had an affair and became impregnated with her lover's child. The lover was denied contact with the child and the Supreme Court held that when a child is born within a marriage there is no constitutional right to prove paternity.

There has historically been a presumption that a child born within a marriage is considered to be a "natural" child of the husband and wife, even if the father is not the husband. The purpose behind this was to maintain familial bonds and prevent the ouster of "suspicious" children as bastards, which would then be reliant on public welfare for their rearing. I suppose that's the risk one takes when one has relations with a married woman. I don't really have much of a problem with this one.

[_Moniker]

Oh, and try this on for size. In the late 80's (Please don't CFR unless you MUST -- I know it to be a fact cause I briefed this case, and I'm just too lazy to look, but I can if I MUST) a woman had an affair and became impregnated with her lover's child. The lover was denied contact with the child and the Supreme Court held that when a child is born within a marriage there is no constitutional right to prove paternity.

There has historically been a presumption that a child born within a marriage is considered to be a "natural" child of the husband and wife, even if the father is not the husband. The purpose behind this was to maintain familial bonds and prevent the ouster of "suspicious" children as bastards, which would then be reliant on public welfare for their rearing. I suppose that's the risk one takes when one has relations with a married woman. I don't really have much of a problem with this one.

Well, I don't really have a problem with it either. But since we're talking about men getting the short end of the stick in custody arrangements I thought I'd bring it up. Just to irritate asbestosman a bit. ;)

What about when the husband doesn't know and ends up supporting those kids even after a divorce? Woo doggie, talk about some irritated males. :)

[_skippy the dead]

Seems that men should just not become fathers (biological) or otherwise if they don't desire to support the child. I would think that if one does desire to do this that they should relinquish parental rights -- yet most courts won't do that unless there is another male willing to adopt the child (at least that is my understanding of it).

in my opinion, both parents should always get joint custody UNLESS one parent is inherently dangerous (read felonies like sex abuse) to the children. Wouldn't that be in the best interest of the children? I also would prefer child support to work the same way in joint custody as it does in relationships where the child and both parents all reside together--the natural way. Then I wouldn't feel like any man with an ounce of brains will get snipped ASAP (and probably get gender reassignment and false documents to make him look like a woman just to be sure that he's not falsely accused either).

Sometimes I wonder why I bother with being an American. Is Canada better? If so, I could get used to that.

Oh, abman, you seem so bitter this evening. Sorry. :(

I agree with what you write about custody. It is imperative that children have both parents in their life -- unless one is harmful. No disagreement there. At all! Have you heard of PAS? http://www.paskids.com/

Are you planning on having children?

Of course, it used to be that the fathers retained the children in the event of a divorce (being their property, and all). Then the "best interests of the children" test came along, and courts began to look at who performed the actual care-taking of the children. Note that parents usually do get joint legal custody of kids, it's the physical custody that gets more tricky. And I've seen enough cases to know that 50/50 physical custody can be hard on kids, especially little ones (which is why often for toddlers, physical custody simply cannot be 50/50). I have also obtained primary physical custody for fathers on many occasions, when the father has been the primary emotional parent.

PAS goes both ways (against either parent), and it's unfortunate when parents are so petty and adversely affect their kids.

[_Moniker]

Of course, it used to be that the fathers retained the children in the event of a divorce (being their property, and all). Then the "best interests of the children" test came along, and courts began to look at who performed the actual care-taking of the children. Note that parents usually do get joint legal custody of kids, it's the physical custody that gets more tricky. And I've seen enough cases to know that 50/50 physical custody can be hard on kids, especially little ones (which is why often for toddlers, physical custody simply cannot be 50/50). I have also obtained primary physical custody for fathers on many occasions, when the father has been the primary emotional parent.

PAS goes both ways (against either parent), and it's unfortunate when parents are so petty and adversely affect their kids.

Well, I'm certain you know more about this then I do. It seemed to go from men retaining custody (property) to the assumption that mother's were always better care givers. I'm glad there's been a shift in this. PAS is awful! I wonder, skippy, did you see much of that when you did family law?