I thought this was relevant to some of the comments Polish Knight had been making about sperm donors so I re-posted it. I came across it when I was looking for the post debunking those stats on single mothers.
More nonsense from another sperm donor.
Of course, I believe he could win this particular case in spite of the fact that he has only ONE FAMILY LAW EXPERT supporting him versus 21 supporting the mother.
AND no, despite the article's attempted spin on this situation, it has nothing to do with the law just catching up to new technology. Use of sperm donors has existed for decades now. It's quite a common and simple procedure.
What has changed is not the technology but the legal climate favoring men. Who even when they, themselves, make the decision to be nothing but sperm donors STILL wish to retain the legal option to change their mind afterwards.
I mean what if the woman had a handicapped child and he would have been on the hook for lifetime child support, would he have shown up to contest his original agreement to be a sperm donor then????
Of course, all fathers rights nuts will be supporting this guy even through they are constantly screaming about men having no legal right before birth. Many men want legal rights to interfere with abortions or for men to have the right to a 'paper abortion', for instance, where they can opt out of paying child support.
YET when they get decision-making power, such as this man had, they also wish the prerogative to change their minds at anytime after the fact and throw some mother and her children lives in turmoil, similar to what that recreational sperm donor did to Bridget Marks and her poor twins in New York.
Frankly, this guy exercised his right to a paper abortion and now wants to rescind it...
Nobody forced him to donate sperm which he knew was going to be used for this woman to artifically inseminate herself with...they never even had sex or any sort of relationship. So he can't even claim the standard "I was 'tricked' into getting her pregnant" like many men in these situations try to claim. He went into this with both eyes wide open...
It's simply outfreakinrageous that he should be allowed to rescind his decision now and throw those kids lives as well as the life of their mother into such turmoil.
Posted on Sun, Dec. 03, 2006
Kansas lawsuit could be landmark
The case involves a sperm donor who wants parental rights to twins born last year.
By DAVID KLEPPER
Family law experts across the country are watching as Kansas’ Supreme Court takes up a case that could decide the parental rights of sperm donors.
The suit, set for arguments before the court Monday, concerns a Shawnee County man who donated sperm to a friend. The woman underwent artificial insemination and delivered twins in May 2005. The man argues that he always intended to act as a father to the children. No agreement was put into writing, however, and a judge later decided the man had no rights as a father.
That’s because Kansas law denies parental rights to sperm donors unless they have a written agreement with the mother specifying that they will act as father. The 1994 law was designed to protect children conceived through artificial insemination from frivolous custody disputes, as well as to safeguard donors from child support lawsuits. (Emphasis mine: Exactly right, the law protects everybody concerned, especially the children protecting them from frivolous custody disputes.)
The unmarried woman, who, like the donor, is identified only by initials in court documents, argues that she never intended to share parenting with the man. She chose the man, whom she had known for 10 years, because of his good medical history.
“He is a donor only,” wrote the woman’s attorney, Susan Barker Andrews. Andrews argued that the man should have put his intentions in writing if he wanted to be a father.
The man appealed his case to the high court, arguing that the law is unconstitutional.
His attorney, Kurt James of Topeka, said his client had discussions with the woman about sharing parental responsibilities.
He said a better law would require donors to sign an agreement waiving their rights as parents.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule in February.
The verdict could affect laws governing sperm donation throughout the country.
(Emphasis mine: Family law experts have lined up on both sides of the case. Ummm ONE person, Linda Henry Elrod, does NOT fit the definition of plural experts. She is ONE expert.
Linda Henry Elrod, a family law professor at Washburn University, filed a legal brief in which she sided with the donor.) Elrod argues that to require a man to have a written agreement before he has parental rights over his biological children is to violate his constitutional rights. The law, she wrote, “cannot take away a constitutional right to be a parent” without due process.
(Emphasis mine: But 21 other family law experts across the country filed a brief supporting the woman.) They argued that the Kansas law in effect protects the interests of children created through sperm donation, as well as the mothers and the donors, by requiring any agreements to be set down in writing.
One of those professors, Nancy Polikoff, a family law professor at American University, said “biology is not enough” to give the man parental rights. The law assumes the mother (and any husband or partner she might have) will have custody when it comes to children of sperm donors. Without the Kansas law, she said, women could face custody battles from donors, or donors could find themselves being asked to support a child they never intended to know.
Both professors agreed that the case, the first of its kind in Kansas, is blazing new legal territory.
“It’s the Wild West out there,” Elrod said. “The advances in technology are just way ahead of where the law is.”
To reach David Klepper, call (785) 354-1388 or send e-mail to email@example.com.
posted by NYMOM | Saturday, December 09, 2006
LeRoy Dissing said...
I agree with Elrod on this one. Parental rights belong to the biological parent unless they waive those rights. I am not sure how donor clinics work but I would not be surprised if they do not make sperm donors sign a waiver of any parental rights they may have from children produced from their sperm. I do NOT see this has causing as big a deal because signing a waiver by someone willing to dontate/sell their sperm is not going to cause them any problem.
In this case, I believe their should have been an agreement drafted by an attorney and signed by the donor waiving their parental rights. It protects him as much as her. I don't see it as protecting the child since I believe the child will want to know who they came from at some point in the future.
I see and why should they have had to draft a special 'agreement' when Kansas law apparently already covers it...Because as usual men are allowed to skirt the law whenever they feel like it, that's why.
ONE out of 21 experts and you agree with the ONE who supports what is an obvious sperm donor.
Of course it's going to cause a 'big deal' as few women will wish to use the services of sperm donors anymore if they have to wait until AFTER the birth of a child in order to ensure a waiver is signed...since what's to stop the sperm donors from changing their mind after the child is born and suing for custody in order to get money and other financial benefits from the mother????
Nothing of course...
Clearly if you treat obvious sperm donors just like other 'parents' then the whole waiver business won't be legal until AFTER the birth...and a lot of Judges won't allow you to waive your parental rights anyway, unless there is another person to step in and fill the void...as in a single mother waiving her rights in order to surrender her child for adoption.
But in the ordinary course of events Judges don't allow it, especially with fathers as too many of them would do it to get out of paying child support.
Twenty one family law experts are clearly upset about it, as it leaves a loophole that a greedy sperm donor can drive a truck through...and yes it will harm the children...because in spite of what you say FEW children of sperm donors are that interested in the men who donated. This is just spin from men trying to be in charge of everything again and make sperm donors equivalent to mothers who give up children for adoption.
As you well know I posted an article a while back clearly showly that in places where they have allowed adult children to contact sperm donors, NONE took advantage of the law.
None of the adult children were interested. That's just spin on your part to say that the child would care about a sperm donor.
LeRoy Dissing said...
If it is as you say a "spin", then there should not be any problem in making it a choice for the child. I have read more than a few blogs which would contradict what you claim and especially when it comes to adoption which I know is a different scenario.
The case in point is about a KNOWN man who dontated his sperm to a woman friend. They actually discussed parenting roles prior to the child being born. This is not the case of an annoymous donor. In this case, the man may be granted parental rights since he was a KNOWN quanity and expressed his desire to parent prior to the birth of the child. I see little difference between this scenario than her becoming pregnant by natural means with a live-in.
Well as you know many bloggers already have a point of view and frequently tailor their blogs to support it. YET when one society actually implemented some of the changes you suggested no adult children of sperm donors followed through with a request to meet these sperm donors...
So being curious about something doesn't always equate with caring about it...
I'm curious about many things, just not curious enough to go to any trouble in many cases to bother following through...
AND btw, that's the sperm donor's story that they discussed parenting roles. The mother's story is that they didn't, he knew very well he was expected to be just a sperm donor.
Why would he expect to have parental rights in a state that had laws that sperm donors have no rights unless they spell it out ahead of time????
The law is pretty clear to most people, even those who never used a sperm donor.
Actually, it's pretty common knowledge generally that sperm donors don't have parental rights, after all sperm donors have been around for decades now.
It's not like it's a new technology anymore, like the article tried to spin it. This was sooooo new that it caught the law by surprise. No, sperm donations as a way for women to get pregnant has been around for decades now. There is nothing new or unusual about it.
So again, why would he think he would have parental rights?
The big difference between this (and there is one, although you and your cronies would never admit it) and getting someone pregnant through 'natural means' as you call it, is that doing it through natural means obviously you'd expect to automatically have parental rights.
AND you would be right.
This way of inseminating a woman, as every sperm donor knows since donating sperm has been around for decades now, is that a sperm donor doesn't usually have any rights...
This is a very standard expectation of a sperm donor to have no parental rights.
So this is nonsense that he expected to have a parental role and this is no different from having children by natural means. There is a big difference and I believe he knew it...