Sperm doner held liable for child support.
December 9, 2001 8:52 PM Subscribe
Sperm doner held liable for child support. Lawyers run amok in America? Guess again. And, the sperm doner knew the mother. Should that make any difference? Can this happen here?
The verdict poses a legal dilemma, however, because under Swedish law a sperm donor is not regarded as the legal parent of children conceived with the help of his semen.
I guess the li'l ol' county court that ruled the donor liable for child support isn't up on the laws governing their country. Boneheads.
posted by KLAX at 9:04 PM on December 9, 2001
I guess the li'l ol' county court that ruled the donor liable for child support isn't up on the laws governing their country. Boneheads.
posted by KLAX at 9:04 PM on December 9, 2001
In the US, aren't there papers signed by the sperm donor prior to his semen's use which protect him from this sort of thing? I ask because I haven't donated myself and have no frame of reference, but I would assume it to be routine. In a country where one can sue McDonald's for having hot coffee, I wouldn't run the risk without speaking to a lawyer myself. Then again, I have donated my blood before without signing such paperwork. I wonder, if my blood turned out to not help save the life to which it was given, would I be held liable? Is that too far fetched?
Well, so is this.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:33 PM on December 9, 2001
Well, so is this.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:33 PM on December 9, 2001
Ah! The perils of the other lonely Swedish, as their women complain about the lack of intimacy. Another Fark linkchronicity!
I guess the sperm donor should've listened to Tom Green and kept his bum elsewhere:
I guess the sperm donor should've listened to Tom Green and kept his bum elsewhere:
My bum is on the cheeseposted by tamim at 9:43 PM on December 9, 2001
Bum is on the cheese
If I get lucky I'll get a disease
My bum is on the Swedish
Swedish 3x
unless there is something totally logical missing from the article's explanation, then that judge is a crackpot.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:10 PM on December 9, 2001
posted by mcsweetie at 10:10 PM on December 9, 2001
ZachsMind:
The process for becoming a sperm donor is quite thorough and usually takes (if I recall correctly) at least 6 months (to insure that you are free of any STDs, etc.) I remember there being a multitude of paperwork/rules that protect *both* the donor, and the child (ie, you're not going to be paying child support, but you're not allowed to contact the person who receives your sperm, etc, etc.)
Of course, I don't know if it's like giving blood -- there's typically a screening process where they make sure your spunk is up to speed -- not everyone has what it takes to be a sperm donor. (If you're wondering, I didn't end up going through the process -- I wanted to start seeing ducats immediately, not six months later. Also, they advise against attempting to maintain a sexual relationship with anyone, as they require some insane measure of jism twice a week, and you usually have to commit for half a year. I didn't really want anyone to have that tight of grip on my testes, no matter the potential for terrible puns whenever someone asked about my employment -- feh, at least I get to reminisce about the time I thought about donating sperm -- that's proved to be pretty fruitful. )
it kinda sounds like the guy in the story might have circumvented typical legal processes for donors in Sweden (he isn't properly anonymous, that's for sure, and if *most* donors are, well, I'm guessing he did something different than most donors.) If that's the case -- well, he might have got himself into some bad trouble.
posted by fishfucker at 10:40 PM on December 9, 2001
The process for becoming a sperm donor is quite thorough and usually takes (if I recall correctly) at least 6 months (to insure that you are free of any STDs, etc.) I remember there being a multitude of paperwork/rules that protect *both* the donor, and the child (ie, you're not going to be paying child support, but you're not allowed to contact the person who receives your sperm, etc, etc.)
Of course, I don't know if it's like giving blood -- there's typically a screening process where they make sure your spunk is up to speed -- not everyone has what it takes to be a sperm donor. (If you're wondering, I didn't end up going through the process -- I wanted to start seeing ducats immediately, not six months later. Also, they advise against attempting to maintain a sexual relationship with anyone, as they require some insane measure of jism twice a week, and you usually have to commit for half a year. I didn't really want anyone to have that tight of grip on my testes, no matter the potential for terrible puns whenever someone asked about my employment -- feh, at least I get to reminisce about the time I thought about donating sperm -- that's proved to be pretty fruitful. )
it kinda sounds like the guy in the story might have circumvented typical legal processes for donors in Sweden (he isn't properly anonymous, that's for sure, and if *most* donors are, well, I'm guessing he did something different than most donors.) If that's the case -- well, he might have got himself into some bad trouble.
posted by fishfucker at 10:40 PM on December 9, 2001
Huh? It sounds like there is more to the story, because under Swedish law, according to the article, the donor is not legally the parent of the three children involved. It sounds similar to a situation where one parent has renounced legally his/her rights over the child, and thus has no longer any legal claims upon or responsibilities towards the child. Of course, I don't know jack about Swedish law...
posted by Charmian at 10:42 PM on December 9, 2001
posted by Charmian at 10:42 PM on December 9, 2001
Well, according to the story, the lawyer's case was that the normal sperm donor laws don't apply, because the man was not a normal anonymous sperm donor. But surely the point should be that it was the two women who decided to have the child, and took legal, moral and financial responsibility for it. Not the man.
I'm guessing the poor guy just didn't have the foresight to sign some sort of official pre-conceptual agreement with his 'friends' beforehand, anticipating this kind of thing. Damn this money-grabbing litigious world of ours.
On a related topic, does anyone else get a general feeling that men get an unfair deal in all these divorce/child custody/welfare cases?
posted by chrismear at 11:05 PM on December 9, 2001
I'm guessing the poor guy just didn't have the foresight to sign some sort of official pre-conceptual agreement with his 'friends' beforehand, anticipating this kind of thing. Damn this money-grabbing litigious world of ours.
On a related topic, does anyone else get a general feeling that men get an unfair deal in all these divorce/child custody/welfare cases?
posted by chrismear at 11:05 PM on December 9, 2001
So not only are these women getting checks from not being married and having a kid, but they also want money from the "father"? That's socialism for you.
posted by geoff. at 11:11 PM on December 9, 2001
posted by geoff. at 11:11 PM on December 9, 2001
A profoundly idiotic judgement.
However my deepest contempt is reserved for the mother that went after the sperm donor for the cash.
posted by bowline at 11:15 PM on December 9, 2001
However my deepest contempt is reserved for the mother that went after the sperm donor for the cash.
posted by bowline at 11:15 PM on December 9, 2001
chrismear – I agree with what you seem to be saying. The fact that the women have all of the choices, at least all of the choices after the mutual choice to copulate, never made any sense to me.
If the woman has the choice to give the child up for adoption, than I think that man should as well. And it seems silly that the woman's choice to keep it should negate the man's choice to give it up. If either one or the other wants to give the child up, then the other should be able to choose to keep it with the understanding that they will be doing it without the support of the other parent.
posted by willnot at 11:17 PM on December 9, 2001
If the woman has the choice to give the child up for adoption, than I think that man should as well. And it seems silly that the woman's choice to keep it should negate the man's choice to give it up. If either one or the other wants to give the child up, then the other should be able to choose to keep it with the understanding that they will be doing it without the support of the other parent.
posted by willnot at 11:17 PM on December 9, 2001
willnot: Problem is that in theory, the peson who gives up the child would also need to be allowed to see the child. Otherwise, it'de be easy to have a baby. Say you (the dad?) don't want to keep the child. By your theory, the dad would not have to support the kid. If this were true, then the dad should not be able to see the kid or (by my theory) it would be unfair to the mother who decides to keep the kid
posted by jmd82 at 11:50 PM on December 9, 2001
posted by jmd82 at 11:50 PM on December 9, 2001
In the case of a woman giving up a child for adoption, isn't consent of the father necessary? Haven't there been cases of adoptions being overturned because the father did not sign the papers, or was incorrectly identified, or something of the sort?
posted by Charmian at 12:12 AM on December 10, 2001
posted by Charmian at 12:12 AM on December 10, 2001
In Washington state, if no genetic father is available to pay,EX STEPFATHERS have to pay child support! At least the guy in Sweden would be supporting his own kids, which he should be wanting to do. If anyone in that story made a mistake it was him.
posted by Mack Twain at 12:32 AM on December 10, 2001
posted by Mack Twain at 12:32 AM on December 10, 2001
The brevity and basic stupidity of Yahoo news stories always = confusion. What do you expect from four brief paragraphs? Trying to draw from this any larger view of social mores and the efficacy (or lack of it) of our modern laws is an exercise in futility.
posted by lucien at 1:07 AM on December 10, 2001
posted by lucien at 1:07 AM on December 10, 2001
If anyone in that story made a mistake it was him.
Mark Twain, what exactly was his mistake? As I understand the story, one of the "moms" asked him to donate so that the female couple could become parents. Was his mistake not telling them to go through the usual process of getting sperm through ananymous doner? I imagine they wanted *his* sperm for a specific reason -- probably the same reason for which Melissa Ethridge wanted David Crosby's sperm.
But the fact that he complied with her request -- the Swede, that is -- was not a mistake on his part.
posted by Rastafari at 5:03 AM on December 10, 2001
Mark Twain, what exactly was his mistake? As I understand the story, one of the "moms" asked him to donate so that the female couple could become parents. Was his mistake not telling them to go through the usual process of getting sperm through ananymous doner? I imagine they wanted *his* sperm for a specific reason -- probably the same reason for which Melissa Ethridge wanted David Crosby's sperm.
But the fact that he complied with her request -- the Swede, that is -- was not a mistake on his part.
posted by Rastafari at 5:03 AM on December 10, 2001
Complying with that request without legal counsel (which he obviously didn't get) was a mistake.
First rule of modern society: Always act so as to reduce your exposure to liability. Don't we all know that by now?
posted by yesster at 6:18 AM on December 10, 2001
First rule of modern society: Always act so as to reduce your exposure to liability. Don't we all know that by now?
posted by yesster at 6:18 AM on December 10, 2001
Yesster, spoken like a true lobbyist for the ABA (American Bar Assocoation). you're not a lawyer, are you?
posted by Rastafari at 7:25 AM on December 10, 2001
posted by Rastafari at 7:25 AM on December 10, 2001
> But the fact that he complied with her request -- the
> Swede, that is -- was not a mistake on his part.
I wonder if he thinks so now? Basic mistake = "I can help create a new human and then I won't have any responsibility for that human, ever." Guys, keep those little wigglies in their bag unless you're prepared to support a kid.
posted by jfuller at 7:42 AM on December 10, 2001
> Swede, that is -- was not a mistake on his part.
I wonder if he thinks so now? Basic mistake = "I can help create a new human and then I won't have any responsibility for that human, ever." Guys, keep those little wigglies in their bag unless you're prepared to support a kid.
posted by jfuller at 7:42 AM on December 10, 2001
I am not a lawyer.
And I don't think the "first rule" I mentioned is the way things ought to be, just the way they are.
posted by yesster at 8:02 AM on December 10, 2001
And I don't think the "first rule" I mentioned is the way things ought to be, just the way they are.
posted by yesster at 8:02 AM on December 10, 2001
Basic mistake = "I can help create a new human and then I won't have any responsibility for that human, ever."
So you think clinical sperm donors should be held financially accountable for each child their specimens help procreate? You must be a stitch at parties.
posted by KLAX at 9:24 AM on December 10, 2001
So you think clinical sperm donors should be held financially accountable for each child their specimens help procreate? You must be a stitch at parties.
posted by KLAX at 9:24 AM on December 10, 2001
The *mistake* he made revolves around the issue of remaining anonymous; that is the key difference between being a 'sperm donor' or a parent. Remaining anonymous protects all parties from claims of parenthood...revealing yourself as the father makes you, well, the father.
posted by Mack Twain at 10:03 AM on December 10, 2001
posted by Mack Twain at 10:03 AM on December 10, 2001
In the case of a woman giving up a child for adoption, isn't consent of the father necessary?
Yes. Adoption laws vary a lot from state to state, but in my experience it is absolutely a requirement that the biological father be notified, as part of having his parental rights terminated.
posted by groundhog at 10:46 AM on December 10, 2001
Yes. Adoption laws vary a lot from state to state, but in my experience it is absolutely a requirement that the biological father be notified, as part of having his parental rights terminated.
posted by groundhog at 10:46 AM on December 10, 2001
Hank Pellissier's "Confessions of a Lesbian Sperm Donor" seems relevant. Many, many lesbians have had babies which were conceived the mason-jar and turkey-baster way. The potential for legal mischief is enormous!
posted by Carol Anne at 11:21 AM on December 10, 2001
posted by Carol Anne at 11:21 AM on December 10, 2001
I am guessing that in this discussion, we are getting very confused between American law and Swedish law regarding artificial insimination, ananymous sperm doners, and biological fathers and adoption. The relevent facts are that according to Swedish laws, sperm doners are relieved from any liability from child support, however, in this case, the sperm dones knows one or both the "female parent" who have since broken up.
The issue here is, should it matter that the adopting parent know the sperm doner, and, can it happen here, in the States?
posted by Rastafari at 1:05 PM on December 10, 2001
The issue here is, should it matter that the adopting parent know the sperm doner, and, can it happen here, in the States?
posted by Rastafari at 1:05 PM on December 10, 2001
> So you think clinical sperm donors should be held
> financially accountable for each child their specimens
> help procreate? You must be a stitch at parties.
I think everyone should be held accountable for everything he does. Consequently I am not, y'know, much of a party animal...
posted by jfuller at 1:20 PM on December 10, 2001
> financially accountable for each child their specimens
> help procreate? You must be a stitch at parties.
I think everyone should be held accountable for everything he does. Consequently I am not, y'know, much of a party animal...
posted by jfuller at 1:20 PM on December 10, 2001
This is a non-story. The judge's order will almost certainly be reversed upon appeal, as it runs in direct contradiction to the law. It probably only made the wires because of the controversial aspects - legal wrangling, sperm donation, lesbians, the kind of stuff that people gobble up like. . . well, like 30 MeFites.
As to liability -- regardless of the law, yesster has a point. There is no way that anyone should ever get involved in any endeavor involving mixed parentage or custody of children without a lawyer-approved (at very least) agreement first. If the relationships involved go awry, there is a lot of potential for friction and harm, especially to the child(ren) involved, and having the lines drawn up front can help keep that friction in check.
(Btw, is spell check broken?)
posted by Dreama at 2:05 PM on December 10, 2001
As to liability -- regardless of the law, yesster has a point. There is no way that anyone should ever get involved in any endeavor involving mixed parentage or custody of children without a lawyer-approved (at very least) agreement first. If the relationships involved go awry, there is a lot of potential for friction and harm, especially to the child(ren) involved, and having the lines drawn up front can help keep that friction in check.
(Btw, is spell check broken?)
posted by Dreama at 2:05 PM on December 10, 2001
The issue here is, should it matter that the adopting parent know the sperm doner, and, can it happen here, in the States? Yes, that is how you defined your question; rhetorical, wasn't it? If people not related by genetics or adoption, such as stepdads (Wash) and gay stepparents (BC) are already paying court-ordered support, I think the answer would be: duh
posted by Mack Twain at 4:25 PM on December 10, 2001
posted by Mack Twain at 4:25 PM on December 10, 2001
I don't agree with Maggie Gallagher on much, but her column does raise some good questions about this Brave New World of parents and children.
posted by Carol Anne at 4:36 AM on December 11, 2001
posted by Carol Anne at 4:36 AM on December 11, 2001
« Older Cougars: | this is very odd indeed Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by jmd82 at 8:58 PM on December 9, 2001