As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Sperm donor ordered to pay child support
MrBallbaggins
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
A man who donated sperm for a lesbian couple's two children must pay support, the state Superior Court ordered in a ruling that legal experts are calling a precedent.
In reaching the decision, the three-judge panel said that since Carl L. Frampton Jr., who died while the case was pending, had involved himself as a stepparent, he assumed some of the parenting duties.
Legal experts say the ruling is unique in making more than two people responsible for a child. It also brings into question when a sperm donor is liable for support, though at least one expert said the ruling shouldn't worry truly anonymous donors.
Senior Judge John T.K. Kelly wrote in the April 30 ruling that Frampton had held himself out as a stepparent to the children by being present at the birth of one of them, contributing more than $13,000 during the last four years, buying them toys, and having borrowed money to obtain a vehicle in which to transport the children.
"While these contributions have been voluntary, they evidence a settled intention to demonstrate parental involvement far beyond merely biological," the judge wrote.
Robert Rains, who teaches family law at Penn State Dickinson School of Law in Carlisle and is a co-director of the school's family law clinic, said the decision should not intimidate men who contribute to sperm banks.
"This should be entirely different from a guy who goes to a sperm bank and makes a donation with the understanding that he will remain anonymous," Rains said.
But a court essentially recognizing three parents?
"I'm unaware of any other state appellate court that has found that a child has, simultaneously, three adults who are financially obligated to the child's support and are also entitled to visitation," said New York Law School professor Arthur S. Leonard, an expert on sexuality and the law.
Jodilynn Jacob, 33, and Jennifer Lee Shultz-Jacob, 48, moved in together in 1996 and were granted a civil-union license in Vermont in 2002. In addition to conceiving the two children with the help of Frampton, a longtime friend of Shultz-Jacob's, Jacob adopted her brother's two older children, now 13 and 12.
But the women's relationship fell apart, and Jacob and the children moved out of their Dillsburg home in February 2006.
Shortly afterward, a court awarded Jacob, who now lives in Harrisburg, about $1,000 a month in support from Shultz-Jacob. Shultz-Jacob later lost an effort to have the court force Frampton to contribute support -- a decision the Superior Court decision overturned.
Frampton, 60, of Indiana, Pa., died of a stroke in March.
"I just think that if three people are saying they're all parents of the kids, the responsibility should be shared by the three, and that's what everybody was saying," Shultz-Jacob said yesterday.
"I think there's probably more families out there like ours," she said.
"I think it's an interesting area of the law that we're probably going to see more of. The families are becoming more and more complex, and our courts rightfully or wrongfully are going to have to deal with these types of situations," said Heather Z. Reynosa, Shultz-Jacob's attorney.
As part of the Superior Court order, a Dauphin County judge was directed to establish how much Frampton would have to pay Jacob.
Reynosa, wants Frampton's support obligation, which might have to come from his Social Security survivor benefits, to be made retroactive to when Jacob first filed for support. His support payments might also help reduce Shultz-Jacob's monthly obligation.
Lori Andrews, a Chicago-Kent College of Law professor with expertise in reproductive technology, said as many as five people could claim some parental status toward a single child if its conception involved a surrogate mother, an egg donor and a sperm donor.
"The courts are beginning to find increased rights for all the parties involved," she said. "Most states have adoption laws that go dozens of pages, and we see very few laws with a comprehensive approach to reproductive technology."
The state Supreme Court is considering a similar case, in which a sperm donor wants to enforce a promise made by the mother that he would not have to be involved in the child's life. That biological father was ordered to pay $1,520 in monthly support.
About two-thirds of states have adopted versions of the Uniform Parentage Act that shields sperm donors from being forced to assume parenting responsibilities. Pennsylvania has no such law.
http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/05/superior_court_rules_that_male.html
I didn't see any topics about this, but I apologize if I missed it.
So, does anyone else think that this ruling could be used to make grandparents, aunts & uncles, cousins, etc. to pay child support simply because they show an interest in the happiness and well being of the child? When does the line between being a kind and caring friend or relative cross into being a step parent?
Does no good deed truly go unpunished?
Discuss.
MrBallbaggins on
0
Posts
He doesn't have to pay shit. He's dead.
Why was a judgement even made in this case?
Bullshit. That's like saying godparents have to pay child support because they buy christmas presents.
Yeah, the guy involved himself in their lives, and he probably wouldn't have taken umbrage with contributing financially after his death, but that should have been his choice, not the court's.
Dude, it's judges in Vermont.
They're fucking bored.
No kidding?
For one, he probably left something of value when he died. It's possible that could go towards support. For two, precedent. Past decisions affect future decisions. If the (now dead) guy has to pay, the next guy in this situation would likely have to pay (unless it gets appealed to a higher court who says otherwise).
Stepparents are legally recognized as parents, no? And he's only kind of a stepparent, considering the child is actually his biologically.
edit: Basically what I'm saying is that if the method of conception were different (i.e. sex), but other variables were the same, he would have to pay support, and that kind of precedent is probably what the court is going off of to reach this decision. We'll see what higher courts say about it in the future (probably soon if he has anyone else receiving inheritance).
I'm basically talking out of my ass here, so take it with a grain of salt, but I think step parents are only legally parents as long as the other legal parent is still alive. I think that's why it's such a big too-do, when a step parent adops their step kid.
'course, in states that have made it illegal for homosexual couples and singletons to use commercial IVF services, they have no option to use an anonymous donor, which means they're being dealt with unfairly.
Anyway, the article didn't strike me as anything special. It even notes that anonymous sperm donors have nothing to worry about. It's more in that this donor took motions to act as a sort of parent, and despite being dead now, these lesbians want money.
It's up to the state. In Nebraska, the stepparent has zero legal obligation to kids that are not his/hers.
You let gay people have children and pretty soon people are marrying their dogs. I told you so.
Wouldn't the step-parent relationship dissolve if they got divorced, also? I mean, Woody Allen. How could he be legally recognized as both parent and spouse of the same person? His parental status as unadopting step-parent must have disappeared when his relationship to the adoptive mother did.
So if the sperm donor cuts off his relationship with the adoptive parent(s), shouldn't his parental status disappear in the same way?
Sperm aren't children. Yet.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1664667.html?menu=
The man shouldn't have to pay anything additional. He was going above and beyond the call of duty by providing for his child. All he had to do was donate and say bye. People really shouldn't be punished for doing extra. heck if the two women didn't want him to get involved and considered him a burden, they could have just forced him to go away. If there was any type of legal action going on, it would reasonably to expect child support. There wasn't any, so the two women should be grateful for what they got.
HAH HAH HAH
And if by "increased rights" she means "no rights whatsoever if you have a penis but lots of financial obligations" then she's right.
Otherwise she's just another dumb bitch talking out of her ass.