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