Sperm Donor Ordered To Help Pay Child's College Costs

NEW YORK -- A New York man who said he donated sperm to a female co-worker as a friendly gesture — and then sent presents and cards to the child over the years — is legally considered the father and may have to pay child support for the college-bound teenager, according to a judge’s ruling.“What’s the saying? No good deed goes unpunished,” said Deborah Kelly, a lawyer for the man, who acknowledged that he is named as the father on the child’s birth certificate.Like all the involved parties, the man remains anonymous because of privacy concerns.Nassau County Family Court Judge Ellen Greenberg ruled on Nov. 16 that despite the mother’s willingness to have the child’s DNA tested, the man was barred from seeking a paternity test to determine if he is truly the father because the results could have a “traumatic effect” upon the child, who is now 18 years old and lives in Oregon with the mother. The next step is a meeting with a support magistrate to determine the amount of child support payments — if any — the man would have to pay until the teen turns 21, Kelly said.The magistrate will determine child support based on the mother’s earning capacity; the reported income of her female partner; and the income of the father.Even without genetic evidence, the man’s interactions with the child over the years had a patriarchal nature, said Jeffrey Herbst, an attorney who represents the mother in the lawsuit through a federal agreement called the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.“It’s still a parental relationship,” Herbst said.According to the man’s testimony, in the late 1980s he was a physician at the same Nassau County hospital where the child’s mother was a resident. After learning the woman and her female partner wanted to have a baby, the man donated his sperm and the woman gave birth on July 26, 1989. Married at the time, the man agreed that he would not have any rights or benefits in raising the child, but the verbal agreement was never put in writing, according to court documents.Still, he took the unusual step of allowing his name to appear on the child’s birth certificate because he thought it was in the child’s “best interests that he would have an identity when he grew older,” he said in court documents.Before the mother, her partner, and the child moved to Oregon in 1993, the man had contact with the child, according to court documents. He also sent the child money, gifts, and cards and letters signed “Dad” or “Daddy,” and spoke to him by phone about seven times in the past 15 years.That correspondence, coupled with an affidavit from the child stating that he “has never known anyone other than (the man) to be his father,” is enough for a parental relationship, according to Herbst.“The fact of the matter is that he held himself out as the child’s father for 18 years until he asked for DNA testing,” Herbst said.In the murky legalities of artificial insemination by a known donor, the best protections are to have everything in writing and “do your homework,” said reproductive lawyer Melissa Brisman of Park Ridge, N.J.“You can’t be half a father, and half a not, under the law,” she said.But the man’s trust was abused, his lawyer said.“The doctor was told this is how it’s going to be,” Kelly said. “And 18 years later, you end up dealing with something that you didn’t know you were going to deal with. Sometimes people aren’t really thinking about the legal ramifications.”

Legal Note

Although spouse claiming permanent alimony must show he or she was not at fault in breakup of marriage, that spouse need not be totally blameless in marital discord.
Wagner v. Wagner, 686 So.2d 946 (1997)
"Source: West Law"

To All Kids Who Survived The 1930's, 40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while
they were pregnant.

They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and
didn't get tested for diabetes.

Then after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby
cribs covered with bright colored lead-based paints.

We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and
when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention the risks we
took hitchhiking.

As infants & children, we would ride in cars with no car seats,
booster seats, seat belts or air bags.

Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat.

We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.

We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE
actually died from this.

We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank Kool-aid made
with sugar, but we weren't overweight because WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE
PLAYING!

We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we
were back when the streetlights came on.

No one was able to reach us all day.
And we were OK.

We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride
down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running
into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.

We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at
all, no 150 channels on cable, no video movies or DVD's, no
surround-sound or CD's, no cell phones, no personal computers, no
Internet or chat rooms....... .WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and
found them!

We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no
lawsuits from these accidents.

We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live
in us forever.

We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with
sticks and tennis balls and, although we were told it would happen,
we did not put out very many eyes.

We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or
rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them!

Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who
didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard
of. They actually sided with the law!

These generations have produced some of the best risk-takers, problem
solvers and inventors ever!

The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.
We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned
HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!

If YOU are one of them, CONGRATULATIONS!

You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow
up as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated so much of
our lives for our own good.

While you are at it, forward it to your kids so they will know how
brave (and lucky) their parents were.

Kind of makes you want to run through the house with scissors, doesn't
it?!
(Source: Paralegals@yahoogroups.com)

Legal Humor

Not every defiant act by high school student is constitutionally protected "speech."

Bivens By and Through Green v. Albuquerque Public Schools, 899 F.Supp. 556 (1995)

She Can't Sue Her Father for Back Support!

The adult daughter of a failed marriage should not be able to sue her father to enforce a child support provision from her parents' property settlement agreement that would benefit her directly, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled unanimously in a case of first impression.
However, the six justices that heard Chen v. Chen split as to whether the result should be based on contract law or public policy grounds.
Two justices argued the majority should not have pointed to public policy concerns in their opinion, while two other justices reasoned that the public policy questions raised by the case amounted to the matter's essential issue.
In so holding, the justices reversed both a Northampton County, Pa., trial court and a three-judge panel of the Superior Court.
The Superior Court panel had ruled in December 2003 that Richard Chen should have been obligated to supplement his $25-per-week child support payments to daughter Theresa in accordance with raises in his salary during the time she was growing up. The panel affirmed the trial court's order that Richard pay $59,292 in resulting arrearages to Theresa, who was born in 1982.
But the Supreme Court majority in Chen, while noting that Pennsylvania contract law precedent supported a reversal of the Superior Court, focused on the practical aspects of child-rearing in modern America.
"As a society, we allow parents to make decisions concerning how to allocate their incomes between savings and spending, between themselves and their children, and between individual children," Justice Max Baer wrote on behalf of the majority. "While parents may include their children in discussions of expenditures, especially as children age, the final decision regarding the family's budget is for the parent or parents."
Baer was joined by Justice Sandra Schultz Newman.
In a separate opinion, Justices Thomas G. Saylor and J. Michael Eakin asserted the majority did not need to rely exclusively on the contract law issues in the case, and the public policy concerns raised were more vital.
Chief Justice Ralph J. Cappy and Justice Ronald D. Castille, however, wrote in concurring opinions that Chen could be easily decided on contract law bases alone and that the public-policy concerns need not have been addressed by the majority.
Richard Chen and former wife Wheamei Jenq Chen were married for six years while both were students at Lehigh University. According to opinions filed in Chen, the couple had two children before separating: a son, born in 1978, and Theresa, born in February 1982. After their divorce, the son went to live with Richard, while Theresa remained in Wheamei's custody.
Pursuant to the child support provision of their property settlement agreement, Richard agreed to pay $25 per week to Wheamei for Theresa's support, and he also submitted to having his payments increased following any salary raises in conjunction with the Northampton County Domestic Relations Guidelines.
Wheamei has never sought support increases; she later stated that their marriage ended due to physical abuse and that she was afraid of Richard. According to the opinions, Wheamei sought child support arrearages in April 2000. After her 18th birthday, Theresa petitioned to intervene in Wheamei's action in May 2000. The trial court deemed Theresa an appropriate third-party beneficiary and awarded her arrearages in June 2002 following a nonjury trial. (Wheamei withdrew her petition before the trial began).
The Superior Court, in a lead opinion penned by now-President Judge Kate Ford Elliott, affirmed.
In his majority opinion, which was filed Monday, Baer wrote that the justices' contract law analysis of Chen centered on Section 302 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, which was adopted into state law by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in its 1983 decision in Guy v. Liederbach.

Early Child Custody Advice. Why You May Need It .

The demand for child custody advice has risen dramatically overthe last 40 years. The reason for this sharp increase forinformation is that more and more married couples are seekinglegal separation or divorce. This can mean a great deal of painfor children involved – unless the parents can keep their"fight" away from their children's eyes and ears. It also pointsto the great need for good legal advice for each parent. It seems that most parents would agree that the most gutwrenching, and heartbreaking consequence of divorce is decidingthe details of the custody of their children. The parents maynot love each other anymore but, they still strongly love theirchildren and feel a need to protect them – this means a need tophysically be with them, and that means wanting custody. As a result then, in cases of marital dispute, the custody ofthe children becomes paramount in the minds of the parents. Dueto the high emotional pain this decision can inflict, it canquickly take the separation or divorce from an amicablediscussion, to one of very heated strife. A good lawyer, who considers not just the end result ofcustody, but also the welfare of the children during the courtproceedings, should do his/her best to shelter the children fromthe pain of the custody battle. It is important for parents tokeep in mind that the end (custody) doesn't always justify themeans (painful battling where the child suffers). Despite the common sense notion to keep the kids out of itthough, many parents will blindly do "whatever it takes". In theworse case scenario then, tragically, the children can become aweapon used by the parents to inflict hurt and pain on eachother. Unfortunately, when this occurs the children may wellbecome the most traumatized mentally and emotionally of allconcerned. When this occurs, the parents should seek the adviceof qualified professionals, to guide them in providing help forthe children. Fortunately most children are very resilient, but even thestrongest may need additional help from all concerned in thedivorce or separation. The parents need to remember that theyare the primary caregivers for the children whether they aremarried or not. This means using good lawyers who don't need toslander and torture the other spouse to reach a reasonablesettlement. It's also a good idea, where possible, to get legal advicebefore a separation occurs. If one is considering a separationor divorce, a visit to a lawyer can often be very helpful inknowing one's rights. Advice about who will likely get whatbased on your current living situation an financial ability canbe quiet enlightening and also can prevent simple mistakes. For example, the parent living in the family home can be morelikely to get custody of the children. Whether this is the casein your state or province is very important to note if you arethinking of "moving out" and letting your spouse keep the home.What may seem like a kind gesture may come back to bite youlater. Early child custody advice can prevent such mistakes fromhappening.