Sperm donor in Pennsylvania not required to pay child support

Filed under: Moms, Dads, Parental relationshipsI have always believed strongly that every family law case is different and each situation should be considered independently and separately from others, especially when children are involved. This is because one ruling or precedent set does not apply to every family's circumstances, especially with science advancing every day. As a result, legal issues regarding sperm donors can get very complicated.The first post I wrote here at Parent Dish was about a lesbian couple who had used a relative as a sperm donor who was now suing them for custody because there was not a formal agreement regarding him being a sperm donor. In that case, the sperm donor was actually listed on the birth certificate as the child's father and had been an active part of the child's life since birth. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently ruled that a sperm donor who had an agreement with a woman not to pay child support was not required to do so. Joel L. McKiernan agreed to be a sperm donor for Ivonne Ferguson, his former girlfriend and co-worker. Ferguson was married at the time and made an agreement with McKiernan that he would have no legal or financial responsibility towards this child. In 1994, Ferguson gave birth to twin boys. Ferguson's husband at the time was listed on the birth certificates as the children's father. Ferguson later changed her mind and sued McKiernan for child support.A lower court originally ruled that McKiernan should pay child support to Ferguson, but this ruling was overturned last week by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, stating: "[w]here a would-be donor cannot trust that he is safe from a future support action, he will be considerably less likely to provide his sperm to a friend or acquaintance who asks, significantly limiting a would-be mother's reproductive prerogatives,"I happen to agree with the Court's ruling in this case. I completely support the courts going after men who are not meeting their financial obligation towards their children. However, this is not one of those cases. If Ferguson had not known the sperm donor, she would have no way to sue him for child support. I do not know her motives for changing her mind and suing McKiernan. However, she must live with her original decision and agreement. The dissenting opinion by Justice J. Michael Eakin stated a parent cannot bargain away a child's right to support. "The children point and say, 'That is our father. He should support us,"' Eakin wrote. "What are we to reply? 'No! He made a contract to conceive you through a clinic, so your father need not support you.' I find this unreasonable at best."Do you agree with the Court's opinion? If a man agrees to be a sperm donor, must he live the rest of his life (or at least 18 years) in fear that he will be sued for child support if the mother changes her mind?ReadPermalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments