A woman scorned...

No. It just means that the donor base will slide in quality to the point that sperm donors will be those that can't pay because they never made it out of the trailer park.
 
unclehobart said:
No. It just means that the donor base will slide in quality to the point that sperm donors will be those that can't pay because they never made it out of the trailer park.
Click to expand...

And people think humans aren't still evolving. Well, devolving anyway. :lloyd:
 
Superior Court Judge Patrick R. Tamilia wrote that the oral contract between McKiernan and Ferguson is essentially worthless, because the rights for child support belong to the twins, not to either parent.
Click to expand...

Fascinating! You can now be involved in legally binding contracts before you're even conceived! How does that relate to the abortion argument?

Frankly, out of all of it, that's what scares the hell out of me and has the longest reaching consequences.
 
I can now see the mafia formulating plans to discover the richest spems donors, steal it, impregnate a few confederates, and then suing for gobs of child support.

I wonder if such actions can be levied against estates if the donor is long dead and buried.

The tables should be turned on the women doing this sort of suing. The fathers should sue for custody or parental visitations.
 
What has me confused is that the story states the woman's ex-husband was listed as the father on the birth certificate. At least in California, if you're listed as the father on that certificate, you're pretty much stuck with the support even if it comes out later that you're not really the father.
 
Inkara1 said:
What has me confused is that the story states the woman's ex-husband was listed as the father on the birth certificate. At least in California, if you're listed as the father on that certificate, you're pretty much stuck with the support even if it comes out later that you're not really the father.
Click to expand...
well that doesn't make sense. in most states men have to sign the certificate (you don't in louisiana if you are married) so that might be taken as an acceptance of responsibility...but if subsequent tests have shown that you are not the father that should clear you of responsibility.
 
tonksy said:
well that doesn't make sense. in most states men have to sign the certificate (you don't in louisiana if you are married) so that might be taken as an acceptance of responsibility...but if subsequent tests have shown that you are not the father that should clear you of responsibility.
Click to expand...

That isn't always the case. Most states hate to see that loss of revenue. It goes like this...Person 'A' is declared to be the father of a child, and, grudgingly, pays child support. If this support isn't paid, then the state must make up the difference. So...if Person 'A' is subsequently cleared of the responsibility, the state will argue against that simply from a monetary stand-point. What they like to throw out there in these trials is 'assumed responsibility'. California is famous for that tactic.
 
The state Supreme Court is currently 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 can shield sperm donors from being forced to assume parenting responsibilities. Pennsylvania has no such law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top