Minor Miracle--PA. Supreme Ct. Denies Deceitful Woman Child Support Bounty
January 3rd, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesFrom my co-authored column ‘Sperm Theft’ Ruling a Step Forward for Men’s Reproductive Rights (Houston Chronicle, 3/6/05):
"All’s fair in love, war, and paternity cases. When child support is sought, there is scarcely any deceit that courts won’t push aside under the “best interests of the child” test.
"Courts have ruled that boys who were statutorily raped by older women must pay child support. Courts have ruled that when a woman has taken the semen from a condom a man used for sex with a different woman and has inserted it in herself, the man must still pay child support. Courts have ruled that when a woman has concealed her pregnancy (denying the man the right to be a father) and then sued for child support a decade later, the man must still pay child support. Courts have ruled that when a woman has deceived her husband into believing that her baby is his child, he must still pay child support. Few if any men are relieved of child support obligations due to the circumstances of the pregnancy, no matter how bizarre or unjust."
A good new ruling from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. From the Associated Press' Sperm donor wins Pa. appeal to not pay child support (1/3/08):
"A woman who promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot renege on the deal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled (pictured).
"The 3-2 decision overturns lower court rulings under which Joel L. McKiernan had been paying up to $1,500 a month to support twin boys born in August 1994 to Ivonne V. Ferguson, his former girlfriend and co-worker...
"Ferguson and McKiernan met while working together at Pennsylvania Blue Shield in Harrisburg and had a sexual relationship that had waned before Ferguson persuaded him to donate sperm for her. Courts found that the two agreed McKiernan would not have to pay child support and would not have visitation rights, but Ferguson later changed her mind and sued. Ferguson's lawyer has disputed that the agreement existed in the first place, but courts have agreed with McKiernan on that issue.
"Between the time of the donation and when Ferguson sought support in 1999, McKiernan moved to Pittsburgh, got married and had a child.
"A county judge called Ferguson's actions despicable but said it was in the twins' best interests that McKiernan be required to support them. In addition to monthly payments, McKiernan also was ordered to come up with $66,000 in back support..."
Thanks to Judge Rufus Peckham, a reader, for the story.
"));
19 queries. 0.315 seconds.
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:27 pm
The message from county judges seems consistent: many women are despicable and the court exists to make them rich!
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Notice the vote was 3-2.
It came that close to being upheld in Penn. When will we begin seeing 4-1 and finally 5-0 rulings in cases like this?
DanH
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
One step at a time, DanH, one at a time...
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
When will we begin seeing 4-1 and finally 5-0 rulings in cases like this?
We already do....
....When it's a woman who signed away her responsibilities via surrogate birth.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:26 pm
The concern of the ruling majority seemed to be that they did not want to establish a precedent that would dry up the sperm bank business. (Sorry about the unpleasant imagery in the pun.) Apparently, a woman's opportunity to use a sperm bank to conceive a child through artificial insemination was something that they wanted to take action to protect. So even though they found in favor of the donor, it wasn't because of any rights on his part.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Anyone know of cases in which a woman who donated eggs was pursued for child support?
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Anyone know of cases in which a woman who donated eggs was pursued for child support?
Unfortunately, no, I don't. However, I do that surrogacy law varies state by state. Arizona outlawed surrogacy but that law was overturned by that state's supreme court, 1994. I do not know the case or even case name, but that would be one to research.
California has an interesting case law about surrogate birth. The story is a married non-father and non-mother (neither the sperm nor the egg came from them, which does make a legal difference) were the intended recipients of a surrogate birth. Man filed for divorce just before the birth, made a claim that the child was not his, and the courts told him the child was going to be his regardless. That was interesting as he was not the biological parent and obviously he did not adopt the child.
But the basic premise remains: She's allowed to sign away her rights, he is not.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I disagree Aegis. The court was protecting the man's right to enter into a legally binding contract.
Here's something important hidden away in footnote 9 of the court's decision: The woman's attorney argued that the contract was not valid because there was no legal "consideration" since the man supposedly was not giving up anything by entering into the sperm contract. ("Consideration" is generally necessary to have a legally operative contract; specifically, a contract generally requires a bargained-for-exchange to be binding -- each party acquires a benefit and also incurs a detriment.) The court disagreed with the woman and found that there WAS consideration -- THE MAN GAVE UP HIS PATERNAL PRIVILEGES IN EXCHANGE FOR THE WOMAN'S AGREEMENT NOT TO SEEK SUPPORT. I found it interesting that the woman tried to argue, essentially, that fatherhood had no benefit to the man, and that when he entered into the contract, he was not giving up anything, so there was no valid contract.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Now all we have to do is get the two jackasses who voted for the woman off the bench!!
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Damn it pays to have people around with the patience to read that much legalese. Thanks Judge. :)
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
JD says "One step at a time, DanH, one step at a time."
I guess you are right.
Remember that the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that taping TV shows did not violate the copyright laws.
Yes, time shifting a TV show came within one vote of being illegal in the United States of America.
DanH
January 4th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Mussolini was credited with getting the trains to occasionally run on time.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
This is an extremely important decision. Generally speaking modern courts will always find pleadings based on “in the best interests of the child” to be persuasive (almost to the point of legal absurdity) in virtually any context in which it may apply. This decision actually says that the particular type of contract entered into by the parties, despite the consequence, was enforceable. This needs to be viewed with respect to the trial and appeal courts’ reasoning.
The 2004 appeals court (2004 “Ferguson V McKiernan” (McKiernan Appellant) J. A15043/04 (PA Super 289) acknowledged the prima facie validity of the contract but held that it was unenforceable viz:
“The oral agreement between the parties that appellant would donate his sperm in exchange for being released from any obligation for any child conceived, on its face, constitutes a valid contract. Based on legal, equitable and moral principles, however, it is not enforceable.”
and
“Due to the fact the contract between appellee and appellant bargained away a legal right not held by either of them, however, but belonging to the subject children, the contract was not enforceable. See Kesler, supra. We agree with the trial court, “[a]lthough we find the [appellee’s] actions despicable and give the [appellant] a sympathetic hue, it is the interest of the children we hold most dear.”
In case you missed this, it is one of the “in the best interests of the child” discretionary decisions that, put simply, says a child’s rights are greater than anyone else’s.
In the Supreme Court case the key clause of the decision states:
“The parties in this case agreed to an arrangement that to all appearances was to resemble --and in large part did resemble for approximately five years --a single-parent arrangement effectuated through the use of donor sperm secured from a sperm bank. Under these peculiar circumstances, and in considering as we must the broader implications of issuing a precedent of tremendous consequence to untold numbers of Pennsylvanians, we can discern no tenable basis to uphold the trial court’s support order. Rather, we hold that the agreement found by the trial court to have been bindingly formed, which the trial court deemed nevertheless unenforceable is, in fact, enforceable.”
The principal influence on this decision is the existence of legislation (and precedent) providing the legal basis for rights and obligations of anonymous sperm donors, recipients and resulting progeny. Otherwise, the lower courts’ decisions would have been upheld.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Well, knock me over with a feather!!! Before we get too excited, though, note that under the court's reasoning, if the mother had reneged earlier and had not waited for five years, the result would likely have been different. There is no safe haven here for men, and just wait until the pro-feminist legislature gets ahold of this one.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
STAY AWAY FROM WESTERN WOMEN, ESPECIALLY AMERICAN WOMEN!!
- M.G.T.O.W. -