Sperm donor forced to pay child support for lesbian's child???

Question

What in the world?? Add to this strange bit, the guy was dead?? Does anyone else see a huge problem with this idea? Theoretically, a guy donates to help out couples who can't conceive, or maybe just for the cash, then gets hit with a child support suit. I think it's wrong. He didn't choose to have a child, nor did he actually engage in the child making act that created the child. Is he responsible for the child? I'd like to hear both sides of this discussion.
http://cbs3.com/local/local_story_130091936.html

This man was involved in the kids' lives and they called him Papa. He spent money on them while he was alive. That makes the argument for this a little more understandable, but what about the precedent for others who are not involved?

This man was involved in the kids' lives and they called him Papa. He spent money on them while he was alive. That makes the argument for this a little more understandable, but what about the precedent for others who are not involved?

Answer 1

well, the courts found that because he was providing support already and acting as a "parent", the court felt that he had a vested interest in the children.
'
from the article:

Jacob, who now lives in Harrisburg, said Frampton provided some financial support over the years and gradually took a greater interest in the children.


That means, he was providing support, and thereby, by taking an interest, he was also expressing his parental role.


If Frampton had just donated the sperm, and be done with it (ie dont BUY them a car, which he did' he gave them money, and helped with clothes and school) the child -support issue would have been moot.


It wont set a precedent because in most "sperm" donations, the donor is anonymous, and the couple/mother receiving the donation is unknown to the donor; and because of the anonymity of the entire process, child-support cannot be argued or used

Answer 2

I concur with you, the entire notion is ridiculous.

The donor has no relationship with the mother (physical or other), secondly, it wasn't his intent to be involved in the kids life.

The fact that the guy is deceased just goes to show you how screwed up the child support industry is in this country. Don't get me wrong men that get women pregnant should pay for their kids, but a sperm donor that is doing something to help somebody that's a whole different issue.

Of course, maybe this case is an example of why homosexuals shouldn't be able to adopt kids, or use the services of sperm donor facilities.

Answer 3

The precedent that was set is wrong, but in this particular case the sperm donor was active in raising the child and not just some anonymous donor.

Answer 4

solid question. I too questioned that. Me, i think of not =o I mean it became by no skill his toddler, extraordinarily in the event that they have been given married, custody could be to the two dad and mom interior the marriage, plus the guy donating does it anonymously top? and of direction its not merely going to immediately swap back to the donor after a divorce... Shouldnt the significant different divorcing the different be pressured to pay toddler help? If that exceeded off previous to it quite is incredibly screwed up and unfair. i don't understand the top answer yet i could say no because of the fact it became by no skill his toddler, extraordinarily if the couple have been given married and the youngster grew to alter into the two one in all theirs =o. in the event that they break up custody won't immediately swap to the donor... plus they do it anonymously top...? The donor has not something to do with the youngster, he's merely giving sperm.. he shouldn't ought to do something, if that have been the case and that they did ought to pay toddler help of direction no you would be donating... yet idk...

Answer 5

Hey, he's genetically linked to the child. He's the biological father. He's going to get it stuck to him.

Just think, now couples that can't conceive a child on their own, won't be able to find a donor for fear of having to support a child they never met.

I would like to thank the lesbians who did this for pointing out the loophole and saving allot of men the pain of paying for a child they will never see.

It's just f__ing wrong, and a lawyers behind it, you can bet your bottom dollar.

Answer 6

It sounds like he went over and above his responsibility. He didn't have to provide the support that he did. She should have been grateful for what he gave to her and her children.

Answer 7

I think it is stupid. He did not actually have sex with the woman, nor did he decide to have the child, it was her decision. He shouldn't have to pay.