Sperm donors must pay child support

[snopes]

Comment: One of my friends told me he wouldn't donate sperm because he
could be sued and held responsible for child support payments. He said he
knew of a (very wealthy) man being court ordered to pay child support
after the recipient tracked the donor down and took him to court.

Does this hold any water?

[diddy]

Originally Posted by snopes

Comment: One of my friends told me he wouldn't donate sperm because he
could be sued and held responsible for child support payments. He said he
knew of a (very wealthy) man being court ordered to pay child support
after the recipient tracked the donor down and took him to court.

Does this hold any water?

How could you track them down? Even if they weren't anonymous donations, I would hope that they would be covered by Doctor patient privilege.

Besides, child support implies a relationship between two people. None occurs since the donor has no idea who gets his donation.

[Not_Done_Living]

There was a case in Canada where a man and woman got pregnant, and then split up.

The woman decided to give the child up for adoption while pregnant, found a family, and they made an agreement.

Meanwhile, Daddy files for custody of the (unborn) child and is declined (as the father apparently has no rights to the child).

Once the child was born, and in the custody of it's adoptive parents, THEY filed for child support against the father, and won.

Cite here



Mind you Canada also allows women to file for support payments against men who are not the childs biological parent, if the man had a "signifcant" relationship with the child. (and yes this means that a woman may be collecting from more then ONE man).

[snopes]

Originally Posted by diddy

Besides, child support implies a relationship between two people. None occurs since the donor has no idea who gets his donation.

Not so. Child support is based upon the best interest of the child, not whether the father was "responsible" for the pregnancy or had any kind of relationship with the mother. A man can be ordered to pay child support even if (as has happened) he didn't actually have vaginal intercourse with the mother.

- snopes

Originally Posted by Not_Done_Living

Mind you Canada also allows women to file for support payments against men who are not the childs biological parent, if the man had a "signifcant" relationship with the child. (and yes this means that a woman may be collecting from more then ONE man).

That's awesome. I wish it were the same way here.

But about the OP, I'm sure women who receive donated sperm sign waivers about child support, just as I'm sure men who donate sign waivers about custody.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by snopes

Not so. Child support is based upon the best interest of the child, not whether the father was "responsible" for the pregnancy or had any kind of relationship with the mother. A man can be ordered to pay child support even if (as has happened) he didn't actually have vaginal intercourse with the mother.

- snopes

My concept of "relation" is not a purely sexual one. A relation begin once you actually meet somebody. I avoided the word "sexual" to make the point that you cannot demand child support from somebody for whom you have never met, much less had anything to do with the impregnation of the child.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by Not_Done_Living

Mind you Canada also allows women to file for support payments against men who are not the childs biological parent, if the man had a "signifcant" relationship with the child. (and yes this means that a woman may be collecting from more then ONE man).

Bolding mine. I suspect that men in Canada can file for and receive child support on the same terms as women. It's more common for women to be single parents, but I doubt very much that Canadian law discriminates that way against male single parents.

I've heard of non-bio parents (usually fathers) paying child support here, too, especially if a non-bio parent was married to the child's bio-parent. The idea is that if a stepparent has been helping to support a stepchild for a number of years, that child's standard of living should not change simply because the adults in his/her life ended their relationship.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by diddy

My concept of "relation" is not a purely sexual one. A relation begin once you actually meet somebody. I avoided the word "sexual" to make the point that you cannot demand child support from somebody for whom you have never met, much less had anything to do with the impregnation of the child.

Again, not so. If, say, you had sex with Woman A, and she collected semen from the condom you used and gave it to Woman B, who used that semen to impregnate herself, you could still be ordered to pay child support for the child of Woman B. That you may never have met Woman B is irrelevant.

- snopes

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by Not_Done_Living

Meanwhile, Daddy files for custody of the (unborn) child and is declined (as the father apparently has no rights to the child).

Or, perhaps, because the father wasn't a proper caretaker.

Ah. Yes, just as I suspected:

The relationship ended following an incident in which the man had been drinking alcohol and struck her, court was told

[Venus]

Originally Posted by snopes

Again, not so. If, say, you had sex with Woman A, and she collected semen from the condom you used and gave it to Woman B, who used that semen to impregnate herself, you could still be ordered to pay child support for the child of Woman B. That you may never have met Woman B is irrelevant.

- snopes

That's incredibly messed up.

[Troodon]

Originally Posted by Trixie Tang

That's awesome. I wish it were the same way here.

Doesn't that make men much less inclined to have relationships with women who already have children?

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by Troodon

Doesn't that make men much less inclined to have relationships with women who already have children?

Perhaps with the type of man who is far more concerned with his money than he is with the welfare of children in our society. But, then again, one must ask why on earth you'd want to date such a man in the first place.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by snopes

Again, not so. If, say, you had sex with Woman A, and she collected semen from the condom you used and gave it to Woman B, who used that semen to impregnate herself, you could still be ordered to pay child support for the child of Woman B. That you may never have met Woman B is irrelevant.

- snopes

But that is entirely different in this case. We are talking about child support from sperm donation. You are reffering to a woman staling sperm meant for disposal.

How could you be ordered to pay support if you never met the gal? It woiuld have to be in a close knot community where the amount of separation os tiny compared to sperm donation where the order is far greater.

What you are arguing is that the guy has a tougher time convincing a judge of not knowing a person.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by diddy

But that is entirely different in this case. We are talking about child support from sperm donation. You are reffering to a woman staling sperm meant for disposal.

No, it's not "entirely different." You claimed that "you cannot demand child support from somebody whom you have never met." I offered a scenario under which that result is in fact possible. You're now trying to make distinctions that weren't part of your original claim.

How could you be ordered to pay support if you never met the gal?

Because, as I stated earlier, the court's primary consideration is the best interest of the child, not how responsible the father was for fertilizing an egg or what relationship he had with the child's mother.

- snopes

[diddy]

Originally Posted by snopes

No, it's not "entirely different." You claimed that "you cannot demand child support from somebody whom you have never met." I offered a scenario under which that result is in fact possible. You're now trying to make distinctions that weren't part of your original claim.



Because, as I stated earlier, the court's primary consideration is the best interest of the child, not how responsible the father was for fertilizing an egg or what relationship he had with the child's mother.

- snopes

Even so (and I still disagree with you), the judge is not going to order child payments. The biological father has no relationship at all with the mother and has no obligation to the child. Unless this woman wants to claim that she got his sperm in an unlawful means. However, your case has a far smaller degree of separation than the OP. Can you provide a cite as to where this has actually happened?

[erwins]

It all depends on the jurisdiction in the US. Some states have adopted the Uniform Parentage Act, which addresses some of the issues. In most cases, under the UPA, donors aren't considered parents. But only 19 states have adopted one of the versions of the UPA. Some cases have limited "donors" though to only apply when the procedure is supervised by a physician -- so known donors who don't go through doctors, or even the "stolen sperm" cases would not be covered.

As snopes mentioned, there have been cases involving pregnancies where sperm was collected after fellatio or from a used condom. In those cases the interests of the child in receiving support were considered to be controlling. Essentially, whether the fathering of the child was voluntary or not is an issue to be resolved between the parents -- not between the parent and the child.

erwins

[LilacFields]

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.

Perhaps with the type of man who is far more concerned with his money than he is with the welfare of children in our society. But, then again, one must ask why on earth you'd want to date such a man in the first place.

I don't agree. If the laws here were rewritten to state that a person who dates another with a child and the relationship is "significant", I wouldn't date a man with a child. And I don't feel that it makes me a more selfish person.

Exactly how well defined is significant? I can see arguing that stepparents should pay child support, maybe. But I can't see making that argument in a dating situation, even if the relationship lasted several years. I've dated my bf for 6 years and our finances are separate. So if he had a kid, asking me to pay child support would be unreasonable. And it's ridiculous to expect child support if the dating relationship lasted six months.

But if the potential were there and significant wasn't extremely well defined (with no loopholes), I wouldn't date a guy with a kid. Years of child support is a steep price to pay for a few dinners and a movie. And that does not make a terrible human being.

Lilac

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by LilacFields

I don't agree. If the laws here were rewritten to state that a person who dates another with a child and the relationship is "significant", I wouldn't date a man with a child. And I don't feel that it makes me a more selfish person.

Exactly how well defined is significant? I can see arguing that stepparents should pay child support, maybe. But I can't see making that argument in a dating situation, even if the relationship lasted several years. I've dated my bf for 6 years and our finances are separate. So if he had a kid, asking me to pay child support would be unreasonable. And it's ridiculous to expect child support if the dating relationship lasted six months.

If the adult parties' finances were never combined, there'd be no grounds to order child support. As I said above, the point of child support is to ensure that a child's standard of living does not drop because the adults in his/her life ended their relationship.

[erwins]

Originally Posted by Lainie

If the adult parties' finances were never combined, there'd be no grounds to order child support. As I said above, the point of child support is to ensure that a child's standard of living does not drop because the adults in his/her life ended their relationship.

Exactly. If you aren't a genetic parent, and you don't support the kid in the first place, then you won't be ordered to support them later.

erwins

[diddy]

Originally Posted by erwins

Exactly. If you aren't a genetic parent, and you don't support the kid in the first place, then you won't be ordered to support them later.

erwins

Which is close to my case. Despite Genetics (weather through anonymous donation or theft), if you have had no involvement with the kid at all (even to the point of knowing about the birth) there is little grounds to ask for paternity.