new donor judgement

[happythoughts 0]

clicky

Quote

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- 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.

Despite a binding contract.

Quote

McKiernan, who has paid up to $1,520 a month in support since losing the case at trial, said he was not pleased with the ruling, but declined to comment further.

Over the next 18 years? Roughly 1/3 of a million dollars.

[wmw999 2,476]

I just found out yesterday about what are considered to be "unconscionable" terms in contracts. Fortunately not the hard way.

Apparently if you write something into a contract that's against established procedure, it might be overturned regardless of the intent of the contract. That's part of where a skydiving waiver really can't waive negligence.

Sounds like the judge thought this way. Since it sounds like a large part of the purpose of the contract was to ensure this, that really sucks.

I guess that sometimes a contract is only as good as the word of the person making it.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Kerr 0]

Quote

Ferguson's lawyer, Elizabeth Hoffman, said there was never evidence of an agreement between the two in which McKiernan would not have to pay any support.

Might have helped if they'd, you know, writen it down. Sounds like she's claiming there was no such agreement.

--
Kerr

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Sounds like the judge thought this way.

You'll rarely hear me say "the judge thought". Think of the 20 most interesting legal cases that you can remember in the last 5 years. Judges do whatever they want and it has little to do with thought, reason, logic, or fairness.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

According to the trial judge's opinion, Ferguson and McKiernan met while working together and had a two-year affair. The relationship waned by late 1993, when Ferguson convinced McKiernan to act as a sperm donor with no responsibility for any child born as a result, the opinion said.

It's an oral contract. The judge looked at it as a "binding agreement". Writing it down would have been better, but it probably would have had the same effect in court.

Actually, I think the binding written contract where you agree to support any children kids is called a marriage contract. It seems like if you didn't sign one of those, then you haven't made a child-support contract.

Legal is whatever an attorney can make a judge say. Right is a totally different thing.

[FallRate 0]

The article doesn't say whether or not the mother sought child support or if the State was acting independently.

Quote

Ferguson's lawyer, Elizabeth Hoffman, said there was never evidence of an agreement between the two in which McKiernan would not have to pay any support.

Hmm...I guess this would support an opinion that the mother was actively seeking support.

Sucks to be that guy.

FallRate

[kallend 2,057]

There's been ta least one case in which a man who was not the biological father has been ordered to pay child support, and that decision was upheld on appeal.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Sounds like the judge thought this way.

You'll rarely hear me say "the judge thought". Think of the 20 most interesting legal cases that you can remember in the last 5 years. Judges do whatever they want and it has little to do with thought, reason, logic, or fairness.

BS. Judges are bound to follow the law. Apparently, the law said here what it says in many other places - you donate sperm, you are on the hook for child support if it is necessary.

For example, here in Cali, I cannot get an enforceable stipulation that says, "No court may order child support for this child." Why not? Because it is contrary to public policy.

So, if there is a law saying, "You can't do that" then the judge has to say, "You can't do that."

The judge has to make his ruling on the law, and I've seen judges say, "I hate doing this, but I am bound by the law to do it."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Nightingale 0]

um... marriage and child support are independant issues. You have a kid, you help pay for it, unless another agreement is in place (and yes, I think the guy is getting screwed here).

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

The article doesn't say whether or not the mother sought child support or if the State was acting independently.

another version

Quote

HARRISBURG, Pa. The state Superior Court says a mother's promise to her sperm donor that he won't have to support the child isn't valid.

The decision issued yesterday concerns twins born to Ivonne Ferguson nearly 10 years ago.

Her ex-boyfriend claims he agreed to donate his sperm on the condition that he wouldn't have to pay child support.

But a Dauphin County judge ruled that the mother couldn't bargain away her children's right to support.

The mother claims she never made that promise. She sued for custody payments five years ago.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

There's been at least one case in which a man who was not the biological father has been ordered to pay child support, and that decision was upheld on appeal.

Not just one. There is hundreds.

Quote

...the case of Carnell Smith of Decatur, Ga., a $120,000 child-support bill for an ex-girlfriend's offspring who did not belong to him..

Assemblyman Roderick Wright (D-Los Angeles), author of a paternity reform bill slated to be heard by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, said payments sometimes take a hefty chunk of a man's earnings.

"It ain't his baby and we know it ain't his baby and here we're hitting him for 60% of his salary," Wright said. "In any other area of law, if that happened, that would be fraud. We'd be going out and screaming bloody murder." ***

This has become so widespread in California that legislators out there are in the forefront of the new laws.

(edited for markup)

[happythoughts 0]

Florida. Cathy Anderson vs Michael Anderson - Jan. 03.

1. She states she was never married before.
2. She states she has not had sex with other men.
3. She tells him, twice, that he is the father.
4. She states, in court, that he is the father.

Within 1 year of the divorce, a DNA test proves that he is not the father.

The child support order stands.
She is never prosecuted for perjury.
She is never prosecuted for fraud, lying to collect money.

This was the first time that the two local papers, St. Pete Times and Tampa Tribune, ever agreed on anything. They thought it was wrong by law.

Judges do whatever they want.