HARRISBURG, Pa., Jan. 3, 2008
Pa. Sperm Donor Wins Child Support Case
State Supreme Court Rules Man Does Not Have To Support Twin Boys
-
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a woman who promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot renege on the deal. Joel L. McKiernan had been paying up to $1,500 a month to support twin boys. (AP / CBS)
-
Photo Essay Baby Bumps See some of the celebs seeing stars over their impending parenthood.
The 3-2 decision overturns lower court rulings under which Joel L. McKiernan had been paying up to $1,500 a month to support twin boys born in August 1994 to Ivonne V. Ferguson, his former girlfriend and co-worker.
"Where 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," Justice Max Baer wrote in the majority opinion issued last week.
Arthur Caplan, chairman of the Department of Medical Ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said the decision runs counter to the pattern established by similar cases, where the interests of the progeny have generally been given great weight.
"It sounds like the Pennsylvania court is trying to push a little harder into the brave new world of sperm, egg and embryo donation as it's evolving," Caplan said.
McKiernan's lawyer, John W. Purcell Jr., said Wednesday an adverse decision against his client would have jeopardized the entire system of sperm donation.
"That wouldn't just include Pennsylvania, because we found out in the course of this trial that many doctors order their sperm for their artificial inseminations out of state," he said.
According to court documents, Ferguson was married when she and McKiernan
met while working together at Pennsylvania Blue Shield in Harrisburg. They conducted their on-again off-again affair beginning in 1991 and continuing for approximately two years.
The two had a sexual relationship that waned before Ferguson persuaded him to donate sperm for her.
Her former husband is named as the twin boys' father on the birth certificates.
Courts found that the two agreed McKiernan would not have to pay child support and would not have visitation rights, but Ferguson later changed her mind and sued.
A county judge said it was in the twins' best interests that McKiernan be required to support them. In addition to monthly payments, McKiernan also was ordered to come up with $66,000 in back support. The appeal reverses that order.
Fast Facts
Elizabeth Hoffman, Ferguson's lawyer, did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment left at her office Wednesday.According to court documents, Ferguson was married when she and McKiernanmet while working together. They conducted their on-again off-again affair beginning in 1991 and continuing for approximately two years.
Justice J. Michael Eakin, in a dissent, said 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."
© MVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More From U.S.
Add a Comment See all 135 Comments
- crazy...adultress gets money for having an affair....a sperm donated what ever it''s called these day''s it''s wrong.....stone her.....
- Reply to this comment
- 1st husband/2kids didn''t pay a dime. 2nd husband paid the airfare for kids to visit 1st and Christmas gifts to 1st and wife. As adults those children have both come to us and thanked us for teaching them how to be civil. Feminist? I am a real feminist, when 2nd and I divorced, I didn''t take anything. He had provided enough for the last 25 years.
- Reply to this comment
- May I suggest ... when asked to be a sperm donor:
-say "no, but thank you for asking" or
-get someone else to donate, tell her here ya'' go, then when she drags you into court, let DNA do the talkin''. - Reply to this comment
- his reminds me of another story on here last month or so. About the lesbian couple who decided to have a child, got a friend to "donate" his sperm. Then they seperated, and the custodial parent tried to sue the donor. What ever happened with that case?
Posted by Klingon69
~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
That was in Britain, and he was forced to pay child support. - Reply to this comment
- This judge Eakins should be disbarred immediately, and the ''ho sent to live with him...He wants someone to pay her - let it be this clown who calls himself a judge.
The broad was a ''ho, period. - Reply to this comment
- Which goes to show why sperm donation, surrogacy and the like are opening a whole big can of immoral worms!
Posted by krenz4 at 06:41 PM : Jan 03, 2008
Only when immoral people are involved, like this broad. - Reply to this comment
- Which goes to show why sperm donation, surrogacy and the like are opening a whole big can of immoral worms!
- Reply to this comment
- My case was 24 years ago. Yours was 13 years ago?
Posted by formrusmcsgt at 05:54 PM : Jan 03, 2008
Yes
Posted by Klingon69 at 06:30 PM : Jan 03, 2008
Well then, possibly men received more equitable treatment in the ''90''s than we did in the ''80''s. I am happy for you. - Reply to this comment
- This reminds me of another story on here last month or so. About the lesbian couple who decided to have a child, got a friend to "donate" his sperm. Then they seperated, and the custodial parent tried to sue the donor. What ever happened with that case?
- Reply to this comment
- My case was 24 years ago. Yours was 13 years ago?
Posted by formrusmcsgt at 05:54 PM : Jan 03, 2008
Yes - Reply to this comment
- I agree with the opinion 100%. As someone who once donated sperm, it would be jaw-dropping to me if someone traced me down and demanded child support. If I sued, most courts would back me, as I donated to a clinic who said I would be anonymous. In a situation where the donor is known, and there is an agreement that the donor won''t support the kids, as the receiving people are married, they shouldn''t be able to change their minds in the future and sue for support just because their financial situation changed and they need the money. The justices got it right.
- Reply to this comment
- I was at an even more difficult situation as we were not married. She was still married, but seperated, from a man in Colorado. However, I had an excellent attorney. He went after her tooth and nail. I have had custody of my son for 13 years now. His name is Blount and his practice was in Suphur Springs, Tx.
Posted by Klingon69 at 05:50 PM : Jan 03, 2008
My case was 24 years ago. Yours was 13 years ago? - Reply to this comment
- How come nobody listens to me on here?
Posted by dougandslug at 05:52 PM : Jan 03, 2008
Why do you think? - Reply to this comment
- In my case, the court ordered both of us to advise the other of any change of address.
She moved without notice, which violated the court order. The court was notified and did absolutely nothing about it. Nothing.
I finally found my kids after several months of calling an increasing circumference of school districts.
By that time, she''''d already convinced them that I did not care for them.
Posted by formrusmcsgt at 03:23 PM : Jan 03, 2008
I was at an even more difficult situation as we were not married. She was still married, but seperated, from a man in Colorado. However, I had an excellent attorney. He went after her tooth and nail. I have had custody of my son for 13 years now. His name is Blount and his practice was in Suphur Springs, Tx. - Reply to this comment
- wow, a reasonable opinion from a judge? It wasn''t a Clinton appointee!
- Reply to this comment
- Bro, I went through the exact same exercise in Texas in the ''''80''''s.
The court just gave enforcement of visitation lip service, but had I not complied with the child support, I''''d have had my license revoked and sent to jail.
I hope it is more balanced now, but in the ''''80''''s, it was let the woman get away completely with ignoring the court and hang the man if he should do so.
My sympathies, bro. I know what you''''ve been through.
Posted by formrusmcsgt at 03:09 PM : Jan 03, 2008
It hasn''t changed yet. Texas still sides with the woman, whether she is the custodial parent or not. - Reply to this comment
- Not all women are selfish, grasping harpies.
Posted by flreason at 04:12 PM : Jan 03, 2008
Maybe not, but the one described in this article most definitely is..... - Reply to this comment
- Abortion: BIRTH CONTROL IS NOT JUST A WOMAN''''S RESPONSIBILITY. If a pregnancy results and a woman doesn''''t opt for an abortion, the father has a responsibility, like it or not. All men know this, so there''''s no excuse.
Domestic Violence: According a 2003 US Dept of Justice report, 85% of domestic violence victims are female. As for support services--maybe you guys should organize and financially support such services the way women do.
Don''''t expect sympathy from me.
Posted by flreason at 01:01 PM : Jan 03, 2008
Allow me to interject something here.
Abortion; yes birth control is and should be both parties responsibility, however, if a couple believe they are in love and even if they use BC(we all know the only 100% effective way is not to have ***)pregnancy can occur. Why does the father of that child not have a voice of dissention against the mother getting an abortion?
As for domestic violence, your figures are based on REPORTED cases. Many times when the woman does abuse the man, it is never reported. Have you ever heard of a battered MANS shelter? Many men feel it emasculates them to report that the little lady has been abusing them, so those figures you quoted are not indicative of true abuse cases, same with many cases where the woman is abused, but doesn''t report it.
Nobody is asking for sympathy, and as yourself has done, so did my wife and I. Until we got custody, BTW she has never paid a red cent of the adjudged support she was supposed to pay. - Reply to this comment
- Until the people who scream about throwing deadbeat dads in jail for not paying their support, scream equally as loud at mothers who use visitation as a weapon against their ex-husbands, then there''''s going to be understandable resentment and anger from men.
Posted by SgtRDS at 04:23 PM : Jan 03, 2008
I could not have said it better myself. - Reply to this comment
- Children don''t ask to be born, the deserve love. That is one absolute.
- Reply to this comment
International recording artist Shakira on love, career and more.
