Monday, February 27, 2006

ANOTHER SENSIBLE RULING REGARDING RECREATIONAL SPERM DONORS

This is an old ruling, from 2004.

I’m sure it’s been overturned by this time, but still it makes a lot of sense to me.

First of all never-married men should have NO RIGHTS to children conceived out of wedlock. Those children should be the responsibility of the mother and her family ONLY.

Additionally, mothers should NOT be permitted to take a never-married man to court for child support, especially a man she knew was married to someone else BEFORE she even started having an affair with him.

Nor should never-married men have any automatic rights as far as visitation, interfering in adoption proceedings or attempting to intervene in any manner whatsoever with any decision made regarding a child.

If the mother attempts to collect a public benefit for this child, then the STATE should be enabled to go after these never-married men (or recreational sperm donors as I call them) to be reimbursed for part of the state cost; as it was through their contributory negligence that the taxpayers were saddled with an additional burden.

By the way, there is nothing inherently discriminatory about treating never-married couples differently when they owe the public money. There is precedence for this, as when people owe the government they are not allowed to include that money in their bankrupty debt, for instance. Those who owe taxes and/or student loans are never allowed to include those debits within a bankruptcy. Thus, private debtors are treated differently from public debtors ALL the time.

Actually this has the potential to cut down a lot of the nonsense that goes on today with never-married men feeling it's okay to foster children on women they never intend to marry; and then think they should be treated to the same legal rights as married fathers.

Thus, the ONLY time one of these ‘recreational sperm donors’ should be allowed rights is when the children they have carelessly spawned become a public burden and that's only because we have to do it then, not because it's right or fair to the mothers and children involved.

After all if every men is treated like a father whether or not he marries, what is the incentive for men to marry?

None...

So, this ruling makes a lot of sense.

It actually is similar to the one from Ireland that I posted a few weeks ago on this blog. Where Ireland’s laws would remain intact regarding marriage as the vehicle where men get rights to children and not this one-night stand or casual sex business. Where never-married men invest NOTHING in a child, yet expect full rights immediately after birth.

That needs to end.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38406

Saturday, May 8, 2004

Court: Sperm donor not liable for kids

Sperm donors don't have the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood without a contract, a state appeals court has ruled.

In a complicated case in Washington state, the court said a man who fathers a child through a sexual relationship can be made to pay support, but has no responsibility if the same child is born in a test tube, the Seattle Times reported.

Michael Kepl of Pierce County, Washington, a married man, made a sperm donation to his long-term girlfriend, Teresa Brock, without his wife's knowledge.

In 1998, Brock gave birth to a boy through in-vitro fertilization, and Kepl began paying up to $650 a month in unofficial child support, the Times said. He also took out a life insurance policy in the baby's name and signed a paternity statement.

But for the court, the key issue was Kepl did not sign a contract saying he accepted legal responsibility

Washington's law shield's sperm donors from the legal duty of fatherhood unless couples sign a contract that specifically makes the donor part of the child's life.

Brock had a second child with Kepl's sperm in 2001, when their affair began to fall apart. Kepl insists he did not approve of the second pregnancy, but Brock contends it was his idea, the Seattle paper reported.

In 2002, Kepl stopped paying the child support, which led to a case brought before Pierce County Superior Court that granted Brock nearly $900 a month in child support, plus her attorneys' fees.

The trial court favored Brock because it was a consensual affair.

But in its four-page ruling Thursday, the appeals court reversed the award, citing the state law. Kepl, who says the affair was a mistake, claims he gave the benefits to Brock to keep her from talking to his wife.

"I would try to do anything I could to prevent her from finding out," Kepl said, according to the Times. "The girlfriend knew it."

Brock, with two mouths to feed along with her own, said the appeals court decision was financially devasting.

"This is a huge ruling, and not just for me," she said. "There's a lot of children out there where the father could walk away now."

Lisa Stone, executive director of the Northwest Women's Law Center, told the Times the case was important because of its potential effect on adoptive couples, particularly homosexual couples who rely on sperm donors.

"It's just a weird case," she said.

Stone noted the case protects people who want to have a child this way, along with the sperm donor.

"If you provide sperm, you're not the father unless there's a separate piece of paper that says this person will be the father and donor," he said.

Kepl is now getting a divorce because of his wife's anger over the affair, but he said he has not told the whole story to his teenage daughter.

"It's been hugely traumatic," he told the Times.

© 2004

I have to admit I have little sympathy for either Brock or Kepl.

20 comments:

lia said...

Are you saying that men, unless they marry, have no rights and absolutely nothing to do with the creation of a human being?

NYMOM said...

Yes...

lia said...

I don't agree. Men contain DNA in their sperm and this contributes to the make up of the resulting child. It will influence this person from their looks, to their aptitudesand talents and also influence their emotional make up and needs. Also this person may wish to meet with the man who helped create him/her and denying this persons parentage just because they weren't (allowed or encouraged to be?) on the scene is unfair. I think the mother has to accept responsibility for her choice of partner and if she made a bad decision the resulting child should not have to pay for it by being denied parentage (let alone a relationship). It must be very painful for a child to have to hear that half of them is so unacceptable that it has been completely banished. I raised my son alone and I made sure that his father played a part in my sons life and my son is very glad he did because my son and his father (regardless of my judgement as to his parenting abilities or caliber as a human being) are very close genetically and my son needed his father to help him build identity and much more. It would have been easier to piff the father out of our lives (because I didn't want to deal with him anymore on any level) but this would have been a grossly selfish act on my part and would have caused great pain and loss to both my son and his father. Whenever I felt anger towards the father (for instance because he was better off financially than me, had more freedome etc.) I would remind myself 'but I got the kid'. My husband (not my sons father) had his right to knowing his mother denied because she had an 'affair'. His mother simply 'disappeared and he never saw her again. This was how women were punished for their indescretions in the 50's. They were routinely robbed of their children because it was judged that their lack or morality deemed them unfit as mothers. I think that this value is now being mindlessley and liberally applied to men (under the auspices of equal rights and female liberation) and neither attitude serves the resulting children. Unless the guy is a molester or an axe murder or something equally heinous, the child should not under any circumstances be denied a relationship or knowledge of their father. If the father tries to duck his responsibility he should be constantly reminded that the child needs him in its life and he shouldn't be so easily shown the door.

NYMOM said...

Well how would you feel if your child's father got the "better off financially" and "the kid" and then you were forced to pay him child support or go to jail?

See.

Because that's the reality for what COULD have happened to you. As it has already happened to millions of mothers and children today.

It's not some gender neutralized paradise where women keep their children, men keep their money and are just content to play the limited role you and your child obviously were LUCKY enough that the father was willing to accept.

You got lucky...as did your kid.

Since you could have lost your child as millions of mothers do today. You could have lost your child to some idiot, who could care less about him, but was willing to take custody to either avoid paying child support or just to mess with you...

See...

So the above scenario limits the damage to men who, at least intially, demonstrated some interest in having children (evidenced by them entering into a legal marriage) as opposed to a recreational sperm donor who was just interested in getting in your pants...

Okay...

I'm happy it worked out so well for you to give a man the exact same legal rights to your child as you have, but that doesn't mean it's okay for the state to extend that to every other situation...

BTW, I could care less zbout that DNA scenario you just mentioned. As human beings also share over 98% of their DNA with chimps as well...that doesn't mean I'm willing to hand over my kid to a band of monkeys, either just because the DNA matches...

lia said...

Well perhaps you should attack the laws in your country instead because in the country that I live in it is a given that the child stays with its mother and it more likely that the mother then proceeds to alienate the child/ren from their father causing life long trauma to the child/ren. In fact there is a high suicide rate here amongst fathers grieving the loss of their children. As for DNA I think you need more information about the strength of blood ties before you write it off as just matter that relates you to monkies.

NYMOM said...

Well that is one of the stated purposes of this blog if you read the introduction...

To discuss with like-mind people some stategies to do just that...impact laws and public policy that have allowed even recreational or accidental sperm donors legal rights to children and had resulted in millions of mothers losing their children.

That's what this blog is about.

Thanks for dropping in anyway for a brief hello...

lia said...

Thanks! I agree with a lot of what you say, particularly about donor conception. But I just wanted you to take on board that not all men are deserving of the deadbeat dad stereotype and kids do like to know both their parents and dna is important. Well... where I come from (Australia) anyway.

lia said...

Oh! BTW I don't think that I got lucky. I think my kid and his father got lucky because I was prepared to put a lot of time and energy into making sure that 'dad' took on his responsibilities towards his child. This was definitely not a soft option and I had to be very strong. It had nothing to do with me being lucky it required hard yards.

NYMOM said...

My point is that you and your child got lucky that he didn't decide to exercise the 'nuclear' option and go to court for sole custody for himself...many fathers do this today.

Actually I read in the Times that MOST custodial fathers get custody by returning to court after the original custody arrangement is made...

Frankly I have found many fathers are allowed to get a change in custody based upon very filmsy changes in circumstances...

Mothers have to show a substantial change in circumstances, fathers appear to be getting a free pass on the 'substantial' part...

It's considered trendy and progressive today by court officials to give a father custody.

I don't care if fathers get visitation, who could be against that? The problem is that when you give someone legal rights to your child, its not just limited to visitation. It's extending them the exact same rights to make decisions over your child that you have and to get custody as well if they wish to.

Even if a child's father has been a very disinterested father throughout the first half of their childhood there is NOTHING stopping him from turning around in the second half and deciding he wants custody...they can even blame you, with little or no evidence btw, as being the reason they did not pay attention to the child. Thus absolving themselves of any responsibility for this...

AND I know plenty of mothers this has happened to and they lost custody of their child just by this tactic.

You don't limit someone rights to just visitation...once you give someone rights, those rights are the same as yours and can be exercised by them at ANY time...not to mention they can be exercised by any woman they decide to marry...as step persons today are given much consideration in courts today as well.

I mean if you had to work so hard to force this man to take on his responsibities for his child, I have to wonder if it was the correct thing to do...in spite of the propaganda put out there today about fathers...it appears you gave a disinterested man the same legal rights to your child as you had...virtually gambling on your child's future that he wouldn't misuse the legal rights you forced on him (as you claim you had to work hard to get him to act like a parent)...

I don't consider a father's rights to be more significant then any child's right to a stable future and having dependable adults around that sincerely care about them...not just being a presence because I have had to shame them or browbeat them to be there...

lia said...

See you keep talking about 'your child' but it is in fact 'our child' and once you start to see the poor victim as a human being with both a father and a mother and a right to a reletionship with both and then try to serve the childs rights there may be less need for people to go to court. Also, call me old fashioned, but I believe that women do have a lot of power in terms of keeping families together.

NYMOM said...

See and I have a problem when you keep saying 'our child' when it's frequently just a guy trying to get in your pants or a recreational sperm donor that you are conveying all this high and noble motivation to...

Basically I don't want that guy having any rights to say anything about my child's life.

Nothing...

If you and he were married fine...but 30% of custodial fathers are never-married men and I have a problem with a recreational sperm donor having any rights.

That's the issue.

AND I believe many men feel the same way. As when they are allowed to speak w/o being shamed and browbeaten into parroting the party line and having to feint love for a kid they could care less about, they say the same thing I do...

Actually right now a mens rights group has lodged a case with the court trying to fight just this designation... claiming that agreeing to have sex in a society, where casual sex is everywhere, doesn't mean they signed on to be a father.

They want the same rights women do for that early 3 to 4 month period where women can chose NOT to be a mother by getting an abortion and I agree with THEM...

Regarding women having a lot of power in terms of keeping families together, that is not true either. I don't know if it ever was.

We must accept the fact that's it a joint effort and if our partner, for any reason or none at all, wishes to stop trying it's over. You cannot control anyone actions but your own...so to act like women have all this power isn't true and just sets a lot of women up for disappointment, not to mention increases their risk of losing their children at some point down the road since generally the person who files for divorce FIRST get custody....and that rarely changes later.

lia said...

Well... my aunt who raised 4 children on her own told me, when my sons father and I separated, that he would go his own way and lose interest in our son. I made up my mind (as a feminist and a powerful woman) that this was NOT going to let this happen, my sons father would accept full responsibility for our/his son and take part in his life. As much as I would have liked to get rid of him in the same way that I got rid of all my other unsuitable lovers (except this guy stuck because he made a human being with me). I do believe that marriage is just a bit of paper while having a baby with someone is for keeps.

Believe me I went through many phases where I wished I had moved interstate or alienated my son (through brainwashing) from his father. Because i really did not want to deal with this jerk (used lover) any more. But I stuck to my guns and refused to allow my sons father to cop out on his parental responsibilities.

I found that men also have hearts and do love their children as much as mothers do, but they are very easily discouraged. They react in two ways, either they walk away (because they can't bear the pain - we all know that men can't deal with pain) or they become really agressive and go to the courts (and we all know that the legal sytstem is still pretty much male dominated, however.... good news, this is changing fast).

Anyway, my son is now 22 and very close to his father. It can be very difficult because he has his fathers genes and boy does he sometimes remind me of his father and it is usually not pleasant. Remember I rejected this guy. But my son is ACE!

Si what should can I do? This jerk gave me kids how cool is that? He is not an axe murderer he is not an alcholic and not on drugs. And my son loves, truely loves, his father, and better than that, my sons father is the only person on this planet who loves my son as much as I do. He really does, and that means a lot to me. What mother doesn't want a person in their lives that loves their children as much as they do?

Well I hope this brings us closer!

NYMOM said...

Well it worked out for me too...

y daughter is 21 and her father, when he filed for divorce, stipulate sole custody to me and gave himself liberal visitation (which meant basically whatever I would approve)....

I never even went to court for our divorce, my ex handled all the paperwork for BOTH of us and after he got the papers in the mail confirming that we were divorced and I had custody, he gave me a copy so I would have it, if needed.

My daughter was about 10 months old when this happened...

We never had a custody fight nor did I know anyone then who had one until today that is...Then all of the other women I knew who were divorced handled it the same way, ex stipulated custody to them.

Or custody was never addressed. Mother had defacto custody and parents handled everything themselves.

YET that was 20 years ago.

Because that was my experience does that mean I could use it as the basis for other mother's experience today????

No. Of course not.

I also go to post on a non-custodial mothers' board and guess what a lot of those mothers lose custody of their kid simply because their ex filed for divorce FIRST and it's a fight for them just to SEE their kids as even that is not guaranteed today...

We have a mother over there who last year paid over $30,000 to her attorney just to get her ex husband to honor the court order for her visitation as the police dept. refused to enforce it...Her 6 year old daughter didn't see her for 2 years until last summer finally...and what if she didn't have $30,000...then what...

So yes, that strategy worked for our generation (I'm assuming we are close in age since our kids are) YET today things are different and we must acccept that fact...Not continue acting like the ONLY responsibility mothers have is make sure their kids' fathers have a good relationship with them...

I did the same thing as you by the way, even buying Christmas presents for my daughter and pretending they were from her father since he didn't always remember to do this...it didn't ultimate help as he retired a few years ago and left the city and she has seen him ONCE since then...

So I don't agree that women can always intervene successfully in these situations...

AND it's far more hurtful for a kid to find out at 16 years old that their mother has been planting a 'cover story' about their father all these years and that person, who they thought loved them doesn't really exist.

See, so there is a danger in that sort of propaganda as well. It could backfire and do worse damage to a child whose father really was NOT that interested and you keep pushinng the issue...

NYMOM said...

Well it worked out for me too...

y daughter is 21 and her father, when he filed for divorce, stipulate sole custody to me and gave himself liberal visitation (which meant basically whatever I would approve)....

I never even went to court for our divorce, my ex handled all the paperwork for BOTH of us and after he got the papers in the mail confirming that we were divorced and I had custody, he gave me a copy so I would have it, if needed.

My daughter was about 10 months old when this happened...

We never had a custody fight nor did I know anyone then who had one until today that is...Then all of the other women I knew who were divorced handled it the same way, ex stipulated custody to them.

Or custody was never addressed. Mother had defacto custody and parents handled everything themselves.

YET that was 20 years ago.

Because that was my experience does that mean I could use it as the basis for other mother's experience today????

No. Of course not.

I also go to post on a non-custodial mothers' board and guess what a lot of those mothers lose custody of their kid simply because their ex filed for divorce FIRST and it's a fight for them just to SEE their kids as even that is not guaranteed today...

We have a mother over there who last year paid over $30,000 to her attorney just to get her ex husband to honor the court order for her visitation as the police dept. refused to enforce it...Her 6 year old daughter didn't see her for 2 years until last summer finally...and what if she didn't have $30,000...then what...

So yes, that strategy worked for our generation (I'm assuming we are close in age since our kids are) YET today things are different and we must acccept that fact...Not continue acting like the ONLY responsibility mothers have is make sure their kids' fathers have a good relationship with them...

I did the same thing as you by the way, even buying Christmas presents for my daughter and pretending they were from her father since he didn't always remember to do this...it didn't ultimate help as he retired a few years ago and left the city and she has seen him ONCE since then...

So I don't agree that women can always intervene successfully in these situations...

AND it's far more hurtful for a kid to find out at 16 years old that their mother has been planting a 'cover story' about their father all these years and that person, who they thought loved them doesn't really exist.

See, so there is a danger in that sort of propaganda as well. It could backfire and do worse damage to a child whose father really was NOT that interested and you keep pushinng the issue...

lia said...

Well the fact that my sons father loves his son is not fiction. I've always been very open and honest with my son about everything, including some of his fathers less attractive features. I've always respected the
fact though that my son loves his father though, regardless of my experience.

I think it gives a kid confidence to know that their parents have some redeeming features. Anyway, to that extent, I do have to admit that I have been both lucky and persistant in ensuring that we got the best deal out of a bad situation. My sons father suffers depression and that is a real load on us but you can't deny a man a relationship with his child because he has a mental health problem... as much as I would like to protect my son from that.

But yes, things are different nowdays. I feel that we have moved further down the road of capitalism, and so we think we can buy everything we want, including our children. Where there is a buck to be made, people are ruthlessly exploited. Look at the ever expanding infertility industry which preys on the insecurities of women by advertising the concept of single mothering by choice.

It all comes down to the fact that when a person finds themselves in a needy situation the money makers are there, ready to exploit them. I mean really, it is disgusting that someone had to cough up $30,000 to have access to their own child. And yes, what if they couldn't come up with that sort of money?

Its the law (and our current system) that sucks. Really if the law is going to be fair then no money should change hands AT ALL when it comes to settling family disputes. But I can here you already suggesting that I must be living in LA LA land to believe this.

What I am guarded against and this probably stems from the fact that I have a son, is the fact that feminists are quick to make sexist, stereotype accusations towards men and this does not help anyone. Particularly the children of sexist females. It doesn't give them the opportunity to place trust in males and there are good males about. I guess, from a personal and selfish point of view, I would really be gutted if my son had a child with a woman who later turned round and alienated that child from my son and all those related to him.

That happens more here in Australia than the other way round. Mens groups here are lobbying hard for access to their children, on the whole it is easy to tar a man in the Australian Family Law Court (which is female dominated). All a woman has to do is accust the male of incest and he is dead meat, that accusation will stick because men have a poor reputation already. It is almost the reverse to what happened to women in the past.

NYMOM said...

Well as I said before I'm happy it worked out for you, your son and his father...It doesn't mean I'm going to tell mothers that's it is okay to give a mentally ill man Joint Custody of any kid...because it worked out so well in your case...

Nor should you be telling other women that...

Additionally I take exception to the final remark and implication that you tried to sneak under the wire there "It is almost the reverse to what happened to women in the past"...acting like mothers in the past never raised our kids or something akin to that, this is bullcrap actually...

A 'deconstruction' of our history by gender neutralized feminists and latched onto by men to try and 'normalize' so many mothers losing custody of their kids today...

Mothers raised their children in every society; as divorce was rare in the past. Most people NEVER even saw the inside of a courtroom for any reason, never mind to decide custody of their children...unless we are talking about children with an estate or some resources to manage...

Thus, it is ONLY today in the WEST that we see this going on, with millions of mothers losing custody of their children. Millions of them...

This is an abomination...not something that happened all the time in our past; so it's just fine with mothers and children today.

Okay...

The gender neutralized feminists who have instigated this are monsters...as our the men who have gone along with it for financial advantage to themselves.

Just to let you know...

lia said...

Sorry it seems that it doesn't matter what I say or how I put it you seem to become antogonised. This is the ourtcome of conflict however. My last comment was a follow on from something I wrote in an earlier post. I will tell you again. In the 50's (when we were children) it was common, if a woman committed adultry, that she automatically lost her children. The man I am currently married to was told when he was 9 that his mother had 'gone'. His father then sent him (and his brother) to Australia on a Child Migration Scheme. The father did that to punish the mother, but it was not just the mother who was punished, my husband and his brother (who resides in a mental insitution) were punished for life. This is the common outcome when children are separated a parent as a result of a dispute between the parents. Parents should find a better way of sorting things out. Children are not chattels and it is time society caught up this, just as women stood up and fought for the right to be considered human (not chattels). Trouble is that children cannot stand up and fight for their rights. Adults need to do that for them. What hope have they got when people like you openly advocate the banishment of fathers from their lives? Better to have an ill father than no father. I am a humanist first and foremost.

NYMOM said...

As I am an advocate for mothers and their children...not concerned about men who have plenty of advocates for them on this issue...

They don't need another one...

Let's just end this already.

This is a blog, as you can clearly see if you read the introduction to it, that is for like-minded people to discuss some strategies to amend the current situation.

As it stands now millions of mothers have lost their children due to gender neutralized feminists attempting to negate the mother/child bond and force women out of the home and into the workplace, military, etc., Men have gone along with this in an attempt to avoid crippling child support.

If you have some useful ideas on how this issue, as it impacts mothers and their children ONLY, can be addressed, I'm open to hearing them.

Otherwise you should probably look for someplace else to post. This is a site for WOMEN IN THEIR ROLE AS MOTHERS...not another place for supporters of men...there are plenty of places like that all over the internet.

Go find one of those to preach on...

Anonymous said...

My 25 year old daughter (just before she started her last year of college) got knocked up last summer after a 2 week thing with a not-so-ideal guy that she realized (shortly into the fling) that she has nothing in common with. He was 29, had an 8 year old daughter living in another state from a prior marriage whom he doesn't see but has child support payments that are automatically withdrawn from his paycheck. (He REALLY resents the payments but has no choice. He makes about $32K per year and really needs to stretch to pay his bills...and is not shy about talking about it.)

My daughter was on the Pill and got a bladder infection during the month she was with this guy and so the pill failed her and she got pregnant. A healthy baby boy was born in April and she graduated from college in May and has a full time job. She and her baby lives here in our house in an attached apartment with my husband and I. We are supporting her a little financially and with the help of a part-time nanny.

The father who I shall hereafter refer to as SD (Sperm Donor) initially told her he wanted her to do whatever she wanted...ie, have an abortion, adoption...maybe keep the baby..etc. Maybe they'd move in together...but no marriage.

My daughter got wise to him but because of the pregnancy tried to make it work for about 8 weeks after she found out she was pregnant. She had told him when she first met that she someday wanted children and he mocked her for that in front of another couple...he made it clear that he did not want them at all----he had enough with this daughter he did not see.

So she broke up with him and had the baby and moved back with us. She really wants nothing to do with him as she has determined he's a creep. Before the baby (boy) was born, we found out that he had a vasectomy to make sure that he'd never have this happen again. He still wants sex---just no consequences.

This loser is now trying to take the infant BOY (his "show" puppy) on a 50/50 basis. He doesn't want to pay child support but suddenly he wants to be a "father". He has already promised to teach the baby the opposite of our beliefs, so he fully intends to mess with his mind. His concerns are now about him having a SON to show off to his buddies.

We really don't want anything from him (including child support). We just want him to go away as he has very opposite world views and will develop a lot of conflict in the child as he gets older.

How can we get him to go away? He's just an awful guy but nothing is sufficient so far to prove this to the courts (he's a heavy drinker, a biker, heavily into porn and kinky sex with multiple partners, he smokes, and we don't trust him not to hurt the baby, either by accident or deliberately)

Any ideas? Any case law that can help frame our argument?

This is essentially stranger casual sex that resulted in a child and now the stranger wants to impose himself on our lives and the baby's innocence.

Help!!

NYMOM said...

See my post of October 7, 2007 in response to your comments.

Thanks.