Court says sperm donor liable for child support

[Amraann]

When I said that I would look on it more favorably that doesn't mean that I would necessarily agree with her breaking their agreement, but that I would be more understanding of the financial need in raising a child. He's raised now. College is expensive, but it is not an entitlement.

You are absolutely right that he could have filed for custody/visitation at any point, but he honored their agreement that he would have no rights ... she's the one that broke that agreement.

Respectfully, I wish to add that I am not so sure what their agreement was.
Since it is not in writing ... how do we know what was intended?
Putting all that aside..
As the legal father IMO whatever the child's age he should have paid support.

 

[golfmom]

I found a link when the story broke that gave more info on the case, unfortunately, with all the internet chatter on the case I can't track it down again. My understanding based on the court documents is that the mom's did not dispute the agreement ... their lawyer's argument was it doesn't matter that they had an agreement. Obviously the judge felt the same way.

This is another example of the NY law not reflecting modern technology.

Let's say I am a surrogate for a couple that wish to have a baby. They provide both the sperm and egg and we have a written agreement for them to pay all expenses and I'm to hand over the baby after delivery. However, right after the baby is born I change my mind and want to keep the baby.

Who wins?

I do, even though I have no relation to the baby. The natural parents of the baby are SOL, unless I give up the child for adoption and allow them to adopt.

crazy

 

[Amraann]

I found a link when the story broke that gave more info on the case, unfortunately, with all the internet chatter on the case I can't track it down again. My understanding based on the court documents is that the mom's did not dispute the agreement ... their lawyer's argument was it doesn't matter that they had an agreement. Obviously the judge felt the same way.

This is another example of the NY law not reflecting modern technology.

Let's say I am a surrogate for a couple that wish to have a baby. They provide both the sperm and egg and we have a written agreement for them to pay all expenses and I'm to hand over the baby after delivery. However, right after the baby is born I change my mind and want to keep the baby.

Who wins?

I do, even though I have no relation to the baby. The natural parents of the baby are SOL, unless I give up the child for adoption and allow them to adopt.

crazy

They do as they are the Bio parents.

 

[golfmom]

They do as they are the Bio parents.

Nope, not according to NY law. I was shocked.

 

[golfmom]

http://www.melissabrisman.com/news/printparentsheart.htm

 

[Amraann]

http://www.melissabrisman.com/news/printparentsheart.htm

TY for the link..
Interesting that NY was the State that led the way for child protection laws.

 

[Nocgirl]

I do not think its appropriate for a court to force a parent to pay for college. Only a couple states on the east coast I believe have had any success with this as it was overturned once in the supreme court. The notion is that if the child would have been able to go to college if the family remained intact, they think its appropriate to force a non custodial parent who probably is already paying child support, to pay for college. What is the child chooses an Ivy league? Who gets to pay for that?

Past 18 or emancipation, courts have no business forcing college expenses on any parent.

This mother here is a greedy pig because she obviously had some agreement with this man to provide her with sperm, him no parental responsibilities. I will bet you if he ever thought she would file for child support and college and get away with it, he would have played dad and had more of a relationship with the child.

If this woman and her partner are DR's, WTH is she going after him so hard?

 

[Amraann]

I do not think its appropriate for a court to force a parent to pay for college. Only a couple states on the east coast I believe have had any success with this as it was overturned once in the supreme court. The notion is that if the child would have been able to go to college if the family remained intact, they think its appropriate to force a non custodial parent who probably is already paying child support, to pay for college. What is the child chooses an Ivy league? Who gets to pay for that?

Past 18 or emancipation, courts have no business forcing college expenses on any parent.

This mother here is a greedy pig because she obviously had some agreement with this man to provide her with sperm, him no parental responsibilities. I will bet you if he ever thought she would file for child support and college and get away with it, he would have played dad and had more of a relationship with the child.

If this woman and her partner are DR's, WTH is she going after him so hard?

How is this woman greedy??
And why are children NOT entitled to college??
Legally? I get it, they are not.
But morally??
IDK, do you want to pay for their welfare?
Whatever the case... this man had an obligation either due over the course of 18 years or now..
His own stupidity for not being a blind donor???
Tooo bad..

 

[Nocgirl]

Nobody is entitled to college. If the child wants it, get a scholarship or apply for grants. If the parents BOTH agree to pay for it, then great. The courts do not force married couples to pay for it, so why should they force divorced parents, or non married parents? I do know that only a couple states passed that a court can force it, NY and MA I believe are 2. Normally if its nor written into a divorce or child visitation/support decree, college is optional.

Un and yeah, the woman is greedy for waiting 18 years and for sucker punching this guy into this huge financial obligation. Something tells me this poor kid is going to be dragged into the middle of it.

 

[golfmom]

Nobody is entitled to college. If the child wants it, get a scholarship or apply for grants. If the parents BOTH agree to pay for it, then great. The courts do not force married couples to pay for it, so why should they force divorced parents, or non married parents? I do know that only a couple states passed that a court can force it, NY and MA I believe are 2. Normally if its nor written into a divorce or child visitation/support decree, college is optional.

Un and yeah, the woman is greedy for waiting 18 years and for sucker punching this guy into this huge financial obligation. Something tells me this poor kid is going to be dragged into the middle of it.

Don't forget loans ... I know lots of students who take out loans for college.
Really, between loans, grants, scholarships, and working that's the way most student's get through college. NOT by relying on their parents to support them.

 

[Amraann]

TY for the link..
Interesting that NY was the State that led the way for child protection laws.

It should be noted that the article does not say that the BIO parents do not get the children just that its a process.

 

[CyberLaw]

He has financial responsibility for this child for the last 18 years. He just "thought" that he did not. Yes, ladies and gents, he does and has been legally responsible for support for 18 years. The mother "raised" the child at her own expense of 100% for the last 18 years. He had no expense for child support for his own son.

Well guess, what, he did have financial responsibility and does have financial responsibility. What if this women "had a court order" that required him to pay financial child support and that "lets just say" kicked in when the child was 5. He did not pay Mom. So Mom raised the child on her own supporting the child without any "financial" support from the Dad. Then 10 years later when the child is 15 the "Dad is taken to court". He owes a lot of "back child support" and then is he to say: Well I don't owe anything for the last 10 years. because she waited 10 years to "force me to pay back child support". Does that make sense. No. He has financial responsibility from the day the child was born.

Just because the man is a "sperm" donor, just because he did not take an active role in the child's life, just because he feel he is not financially responsible to "his son", does preclude the "financial responsibility to the child. After all it is not called "biological mother support", it is "called child support.

If the child uses the "back child" support for college, a house, a vacation around the world, or a new car, it is the child's money.

 

[golfmom]

The biological parents had no rights until surrogate mother allowed them to go through the process.

In the case of the sperm donor. He had an agreement with a couple of co-workers who wanted a child. A known donor is preferred as you have all the medical history, etc. you need. They had an oral agreement that he would have no rights or responsibilities ... they wanted to raise the child. He upheld the agreement, the bio mother didn't. It appears under NY law that even a written agreement wouldn't have gotten him out of his responsibility to pay child support. So, why did they wait until he was 18 years old? Silliness to consider child support for a man.

He is not liable for any back child support in this case. If they had an order for child support dating back to when the child was younger and he refused to pay, he would have been liable to pay.

We are solely talking about child support and college expenses for an 18 year old man.

 

[Amraann]

How is he not liable for back support?

 

[Nocgirl]

He is not liable for back support because she did not file for it. A custodial parent is only entitled to child support if and when they apply for it. Most states will only allow a person to back a couple years, in many states it is from when the person files for it.

Also it is unclear whether paternity was actually ever legally established. It sounds like it never was since he originally was just a sperm donor. If paternity is not legally established, there is no legal father, therefore no child support.

 

[golfmom]

The respondent's response to the law guardian's motion for equitable estoppel explains that in 1988, while he was working as a physician in a hospital, he agreed to be a sperm donor at the request of the petitioner, who at the time was a resident at the same hospital. He submits that while he was married at the time, he agreed, based upon numerous promises that he would have no rights or benefits in raising the child, nor any financial responsibilities.
...........
The respondent submits that he allowed his name to be put on the child's birth certificate, as the child's father, stating, "I felt it was in K.K.'s best interests that he would have an identity when he grew older and consented to have the birth certificate changed to reflect that I was the father'".
The respondent further states that from the child's birth until 1993 he did have contact with the child, until the child, his mother, and her partner moved to the state of Oregon. The respondent admits to making financial contributions to the petitioner, as well as sending gifts, cards and letters to the child for birthdays, Christmas and other occasions.
The respondent also reports that, over the last fifteen years, he spoke to the child seven or eight times over the telephone, and did see him about three years ago for a few hours when they visited Pennsylvania.

 

[golfmom]

What's even more interesting that they used the very controversial law that forces non-biological fathers to pay child support.

 

[Nocgirl]

"What's even more interesting that they used the very controversial law that forces non-biological fathers to pay child support."

?? He is though likely the bio father though right?

The only time a non bio father pasy support is if a child is born within a marriage and paternity is not legally disputed by the husband, or the non married man signs an acknowledgement of paternity and also does not dispute paternity within state allowed timeframe.

Basically, once a man is established as the legal father via marriage, or signing birth paperwork, its hard to back peddle out of it and if they are non bio, they can still be forced to pay support because he is the legal father.

 

[golfmom]

This is right off the court documents ....

In fact, the Court in Shondel J. v. Mark D 7 NY3d 320, 853 N.E.2d 618 (2006) relying on the best interests of the child standard, declared the non biological father to be the father where he held himself out as such even though he did so under the mistaken belief that he was the biological father.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, the respondent is estopped from denying paternity and his application for genetic testing is denied.

 

[golfmom]

Jeez do I feel like a dork! :doh:

Here I've been thinking how stupid he was that he only had a verbal agreement. But after reading a bit of NY law, even a written agreement wouldn't have been upheld under these circumstances. Then I started thinking, well what could he have done? Obviously, as tough as the process is in that state, his only solution would have been to allow the other mother to adopt the child. Today, that makes sense, but 18 years ago, there is no way in heck that the state would have allowed a lesbian adoption. One of the saddest situations is the non-biological parent of a gay relationship having no rights to a child that they loved and raised. Our laws evolve to meet the needs of a changing society ... a perfect example is the internet harassment case. Seems to me that the only way he could have protected his rights in this situation was to refuse their request to be a sperm donor.