Every Sperm is Financially Responsible
In what can only be called both ridiculous and logical in a nonsense kind of way, a judge in Nassau County, New York (on Long Island) has ruled that a man who donated his sperm to a woman has to now pay child support for the child created from his sperm. Now, given most of my opinions on child support, privacy, responsibility and men's rights, one could reasonably expect this to become a rant four square against this ruling. The problem is, like most things in this world, it's not that simple. See, the "dad" in this case put his name on the birth certificate so the child could have "an identity". He only had a verbal contract with the woman, not a written. This was not done through a blind donation agency, but by private arrangement, and not well at that. He gave gifts and cards all signed "dad". Roughly, he had much the same relationship as many divorced dads out there.
First of all, let's set up the fact that non-custodial parents, especially fathers, rights in this country are pretty fucked up. There are a lot of times when fathers are forced to pay more than is fair when they shouldn't because courts naturally favor mothers. This is not quite one of those times. Yes, this man probably expected he would never be forced to pay for the rearing of the child since that was not in the deal, but he also didn't make a good deal. If this was two people entering into this with mutual goals, he probably trusted her. Bad move. Something like this, you put everything in writing. Not because the trust won't be returned but because things happen that are unforeseen. What if mom had gotten injured, married or what have you? The sperm donor clearly wanted more than just a quick donation and gone. He sent cards, he sent gifts and he generally had some contact with the family. He put himself in a position, out of honest concern and emotion, that left him actionable for this kind of thing.
That's the real issue with all this. It's an extremely emotional issue for all parties involved. The mother and father are both in all kinds of emotional states about what to do, what not to do, what to tell, what not to tell, what to provide and what not to provide. Then the child's wants and needs get taken into account, such as what to tell the child, what to do when the child asks the uncomfortable questions and what to do when the child gets old enough to perform an investigation or at least a google search. So, emotions are running, people want it settled and done, so they look for reasons and ways it's all done. They understand what's going on, bam, it's done. That's not always the case. Two people looking at an emotional issue rarely have the same outlook on things, and almost never the same understanding. When two people engage in an emotionally charged issue that could affect the lives of children and possible financial responsibilities, it should be done with forethought and some kind of legal arrangements.
This is, of course, why God invented marriage. Marriage was mostly created as a ceremony to mark when two people were sharing property, financial responsibilities and rearing of children. It's taken on something greater in many people's minds, in terms of religion and who should and should not be married, but it all started as a basic "see, this is us. both of us, and just us, are gonna be financially responsibility and any children the woman has belong to the man." That's it. Now, well, we have artificial insemination for non-fertile couples, so now, the child, biologically, might be someone else's, but is recognized legally as the husband's child. Granted, that is in a standard case and this was not a standard case. This was done not even on the back of a napkin since nothing was written down. So, there are couples who had children that biologically not theirs, but all of it is recognized and clearly written down somewhere.
This, by the way, might be the best argument for gay marriage. Are you a person serving a surrogate or sperm donor want a little more legal protection? If you performed services for a legally recognized couple, then well, you're more off the hook than if they were not. A married couple has legal recourses a co-habitating does not. This makes some sense; if you're willing to go through legal rigamarole, you get more protection under the law (this is true in so many other cases, like taxes). So, really, all potential sperm donors should be begging for lesbians to be recognized to be married, since they would be less likely to be found financially responsible. So, in an effort to financially secure and legally covered, written declaration of mutual legal and financial responsibility covers most of the thornier "who is liable for what" issues.
Did this guy get screwed? Yeah, a little. Did he leave himself in a position to be screwed? Yeah, a little. Could there be more protections accorded to sperm donors or surrogate mothers? Hell, yeah. And this is something that will affect greater numbers of people as time goes on. Sperm donors and surrogate mothers are not seen as evil by the standard foes of gay marriage, yet they could use a little reform in that direction. Divorce and custody laws need a good thorough looking as well. After all, if the donor has to pay child support, does he have custody rights? Does he now get more say in how the child is raised, which courts have upheld for non-custodial parents? What about new grandparents? Is the sperm donor now a father, with all the rights, duties, joys and despairs that come with it?
Well, he wouldn't be the first guy who got screwed AFTER he got laid.
So it is written, so do I see it.
First of all, let's set up the fact that non-custodial parents, especially fathers, rights in this country are pretty fucked up. There are a lot of times when fathers are forced to pay more than is fair when they shouldn't because courts naturally favor mothers. This is not quite one of those times. Yes, this man probably expected he would never be forced to pay for the rearing of the child since that was not in the deal, but he also didn't make a good deal. If this was two people entering into this with mutual goals, he probably trusted her. Bad move. Something like this, you put everything in writing. Not because the trust won't be returned but because things happen that are unforeseen. What if mom had gotten injured, married or what have you? The sperm donor clearly wanted more than just a quick donation and gone. He sent cards, he sent gifts and he generally had some contact with the family. He put himself in a position, out of honest concern and emotion, that left him actionable for this kind of thing.
That's the real issue with all this. It's an extremely emotional issue for all parties involved. The mother and father are both in all kinds of emotional states about what to do, what not to do, what to tell, what not to tell, what to provide and what not to provide. Then the child's wants and needs get taken into account, such as what to tell the child, what to do when the child asks the uncomfortable questions and what to do when the child gets old enough to perform an investigation or at least a google search. So, emotions are running, people want it settled and done, so they look for reasons and ways it's all done. They understand what's going on, bam, it's done. That's not always the case. Two people looking at an emotional issue rarely have the same outlook on things, and almost never the same understanding. When two people engage in an emotionally charged issue that could affect the lives of children and possible financial responsibilities, it should be done with forethought and some kind of legal arrangements.
This is, of course, why God invented marriage. Marriage was mostly created as a ceremony to mark when two people were sharing property, financial responsibilities and rearing of children. It's taken on something greater in many people's minds, in terms of religion and who should and should not be married, but it all started as a basic "see, this is us. both of us, and just us, are gonna be financially responsibility and any children the woman has belong to the man." That's it. Now, well, we have artificial insemination for non-fertile couples, so now, the child, biologically, might be someone else's, but is recognized legally as the husband's child. Granted, that is in a standard case and this was not a standard case. This was done not even on the back of a napkin since nothing was written down. So, there are couples who had children that biologically not theirs, but all of it is recognized and clearly written down somewhere.
This, by the way, might be the best argument for gay marriage. Are you a person serving a surrogate or sperm donor want a little more legal protection? If you performed services for a legally recognized couple, then well, you're more off the hook than if they were not. A married couple has legal recourses a co-habitating does not. This makes some sense; if you're willing to go through legal rigamarole, you get more protection under the law (this is true in so many other cases, like taxes). So, really, all potential sperm donors should be begging for lesbians to be recognized to be married, since they would be less likely to be found financially responsible. So, in an effort to financially secure and legally covered, written declaration of mutual legal and financial responsibility covers most of the thornier "who is liable for what" issues.
Did this guy get screwed? Yeah, a little. Did he leave himself in a position to be screwed? Yeah, a little. Could there be more protections accorded to sperm donors or surrogate mothers? Hell, yeah. And this is something that will affect greater numbers of people as time goes on. Sperm donors and surrogate mothers are not seen as evil by the standard foes of gay marriage, yet they could use a little reform in that direction. Divorce and custody laws need a good thorough looking as well. After all, if the donor has to pay child support, does he have custody rights? Does he now get more say in how the child is raised, which courts have upheld for non-custodial parents? What about new grandparents? Is the sperm donor now a father, with all the rights, duties, joys and despairs that come with it?
Well, he wouldn't be the first guy who got screwed AFTER he got laid.
So it is written, so do I see it.