The guy was an idiot for donating sperm to his ex in the first place.

Logic as opposed to emotion ruling the day when it comes to children? Who's messing with my court system?

Sperm is an infectious disease, and those who eject it should be forced to pay for the treatment of the festering sores that result.

"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."

I swear some judges are insane. You say, "I'm sorry, but your mother made the decision to try to raise you on her own. And while this is sad, in this world we are supposed to honor and support our contracts and promises. It is a shame that she is unable to support you as she promised, but it would be no less a shame to punish an innocent man for her poor judgement."

Some decisions are emotionally hard to make, you should have known that before you put on the robe, dumbass.

Nerdlinger: "I'm sorry, but your mother made the decision to try to raise you on her own. And while this is sad, in this world we are supposed to honor and support our contracts and promises. It is a shame that she is unable to support you as she promised, but it would be no less a shame to punish an innocent man for her poor judgement."

Logic again. You guys are killing me!

Jethro is on the Pa Supreme Court?????

I thought he was still directing movies.

"The children point and say, 'That is our father. He should support us,"' Eakin wrote.

Sorry to use the same quote as you Nerdliner.

When the hell did children get to say who their parents are and where their responsibilities lie? Who didn't picture having someone different/ better/ cooler/ less embarrassing as a parent when they were younger? With adoption and sperm donation, even being a single parent such common and accepted practices for achieving dreams of having a child, the idea that both, and only, the two genetic contributors to a child are responsible for it is a huge laugh.

The guy is a dumbass for not hiring a lawyer to draw up a contract with his ex to outline exactly what his roll in the creation (1/2) and raising (0) of the child would be. But if he decided several years into the child's life that he suddenly wanted visitation rights, he should have no more right to do that than she should have for support.

With as complete an understanding as our society has of what is involved in making a baby, and with all the "nontraditional" childrearing relationships that exist there needs to be a much more clearly defined line between those who contribute their genes, and those who raise the kid.

Define "nature" and define "nurture" and realize that they are different things.

real shaman: Jethro is on the Pa Supreme Court?????

I thought he was still directing movies.

It's just a phase. He'll go back to wanting to be a street car conductor in a week or two.

"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."

Sorry judge, but a deal is a deal.

Nerdlinger: Some decisions are emotionally hard to make, you should have known that before you put on the robe, dumbass.

So which position is the best for the kids? Which is best for society?

Who's the dumbass now?

Can parents make promised and contracts that adversely affect everything in their children's lives? That's what both the donor and the mother did here. Do the kids have rights at all (once they are born)?

Unshavenhelga: Can parents make promised and contracts that adversely affect everything in their children's lives? That's what both the donor and the mother did here. Do the kids have rights at all (once they are born)?

It's always possible to require the man pay child support, but treat the payments as a loan to the mother. Once the child becomes an adult, she can pay him back -- plus interest -- over the next 18 years.

What is really comes down to is should both biological parents involved with the "creation" of the child financially responsible for them until they are 18? That seems like either a yes or no question, in that, if it isn't absolutely "yes", then, the "no" stipulations need to be looked at fairly, and without the "think of the poor kids" hanging over it.

Evidentially, legally, sperm donors (generally anonymous) are exempt from being financially responsible.

So, since it isn't 100% "no", you now open the door. If there was a legal contract in this case, even though the donor wasn't anonymous, it still is basically the same case as the anonymous donor.

Then you could go make the arguments down the road of the "daddy rights" camp, that if a woman who gets pregnant gets the legal "option" of having the baby (and the financial responsibility) vs. an abortion or adoption (which then, she isn't financially responsible for the baby either), that the father should get the same rights (he is there physically and financially, or he can sign off his rights to have any contact and financial responsibility).

FTFA:
"Absent the parties' agreement, however, the twins would not have been born at all, or would have been born to a different and anonymous sperm donor, who neither party disputes would be safe from a support order," Baer wrote.

Mr. Baer needs a lesson in biology, methinks.

Nerdlinger:

I agree. The mother said no visitation for you and no child support. Whoops! Parenting is hard! I change my mind!

The dissenting judge is a dumbass and should not wear a robe.

buckler:

FTFA:
"Absent the parties' agreement, however, the twins would not have been born at all, or would have been born to a different and anonymous sperm donor, who neither party disputes would be safe from a support order," Baer wrote.

Mr. Baer needs a lesson in biology, methinks.

Yeah, seriously. Wtf?

blah

Goddamn right. Now make the biatch repay all that back child support.

She doesn't deserve the money or even the kids for that matter. They should be given to a responsible parent, like K-Fed.

GOOD

I'm a woman and I don't feel sorry for her--if she's going to make a promise like that and reneg on it, she has no business giving birth. People don't seem to realize that planning and saving ahead of time are crucial steps in having other people be dependent upon you.

I don't think this would have set a precedent in anonymous sperm donor cases--the fact that they had a previous sexual relationship and agreed face to face to do this makes it pretty unusual.

I see sperm donation like adoption, but in that only one half of the parents give up the child. Sperm donation, like adoption, severs the link between child and parent, IMHO. Until the child is an adult themselves, there should be no legal way for anyone to reestablish that link. Otherwise the point of both goes away.

The Grinch: Goddamn right. Now make the biatch repay all that back child support.

For some reason I read that as "black child support"...I need some coffee

"This court takes very seriously the best interests of the children of this commonwealth, and we recognize that to rule in favor of (McKiernan) in this case denies a source of support to two children who did not ask to be born into this situation," Justice Max Baer wrote

I was gonna make the Jethro joke but I see it's been well covered. Well done couch potatos!

For the idiot who thinks Justice Jethro made the wrong decision it is YOU who couldn't be more wrong. The most important issue regarding adherence to a contract has been well made. Almost equally important is the fact that if a sperm donor can be made to pay child support, it will clearly have a chilling affect on the entire practice.

bottom line is that our society has been told for years by radical femenists that men are irrelevant and traditional families unnecessary. If you are a woman with the gaul to purposely make a baby doomed to be fatherless because you don't think one is necessary or that a marriage commitment unimportant then live with it. Of course the part that sucks is the child, who wasn't asked if he/she wanted a mom AND a dad will suffer too but that is all YOUR fault and YOUR'S to deal with. You had a choice as to whether to buy into yet another ridiculous concept promalgated by 60's Liberal idiots, in this case the femenist movement. You chose wrong. Deal with it.

The Gordie Howe Hat Trick: For some reason I read that as "black child support"...I need some coffee

No milk and sugar I bet.

/get it?

I find her reprehensible, she gives women a bad name

He will want a relationship with those children when they are adults, like all men that want the relationship without any of the responsibility

If the judge had any balls he'd make the koont pay back the $252,000 she owes the doner, plus interest.

/At a conservative 2% annually, that's a total of $295,000
/Pay-up, biatch.

"This court takes very seriously the best interests of the children of this commonwealth, and we recognize that to rule in favor of (McKiernan) in this case denies a source of support to two children who did not ask to be born into this situation," Justice Max Baer wrote in the majority opinion issued last week.

Guess my vote for the guy with the coolest sounding name worked out in '03.

Unshavenhelga: Nerdlinger: Some decisions are emotionally hard to make, you should have known that before you put on the robe, dumbass.

So which position is the best for the kids? Which is best for society?

Who's the dumbass now?

Would you create an environment that destroys the chance for single women to get pregnant then? Because if they held this precident no one would donate sperm ever again.

JWMthree: "This court takes very seriously the best interests of the children of this commonwealth, and we recognize that to rule in favor of (McKiernan) in this case denies a source of support to two children who did not ask to be born into this situation," Justice Max Baer wrote in the majority opinion issued last week.

Guess my vote for the guy with the coolest sounding name worked out in '03.

McKiernan? That name sucks.

Ilmarinen: The Gordie Howe Hat Trick: For some reason I read that as "black child support"...I need some coffee

No milk and sugar I bet.

/get it?

Hot, black and bitter is usually how I get it.

But for my coffee I use 1/2 and 1/2.


/you saw that coming a mile away, right?

+1 for the judges that for once made a sensible ruling, and protected a man's rights in a child-support case.

Wow.

A woman changed her mind and then expects to have zero repercussions.

Never heard of that before.

skinink: My hair wants child support!!!

Hilarious

She ain't messin' with no broke nubians

Common sense?! In my court system?

Unpossible!

sombreradoraloca

You are the perfect woman.

Excellent. Now make her pay back all the money she's received, plus interest.

/This biatch gives women a bad name.

glad to hear common sense finally comes about in one of these cases.

The U.S. laws that screw over men in favor of women are pretty good motivation for guys to NOT get involved in relationships, but to use prostitutes instead. Sad.

Justice J. Michael Eakin, in a dissent, said a parent cannot bargain away a child's right to support

Two things wrong with this utterly stupid statement:

1. Since when does ANYONE have a right to have "support?" Support, of course, in this case is being used as a sugar-coated euphemism for "money."

2. This, like most child support cases, has nothing to do with money for the child. It has to do with money for the mother, unless it's proposed that the man sets up a trust fund for the child or something.

Unshavenhelga: Can parents make promised and contracts that adversely affect everything in their children's lives? That's what both the donor and the mother did here. Do the kids have rights at all (once they are born)?

Well had she gone to a donation clinic she wouldn't even have known whom to sue for support. So if SHE decided to make that decision and later sue I would counter-sue for defamation, larceny by false promise, and breach of contract. I wouldn't even want the money up front just, as someone stated earlier, after 18 years @ 4.5% interest compounded monthly starting with the first payment. That's not unreasonable, heck, it's better than a credit card...

sombreradoraloca: I'm a woman and I don't feel sorry for her

Good on ya. But why should you feel sorry for another woman in the first place?

sombreradoraloca: I don't think this would have set a precedent in anonymous sperm donor cases--the fact that they had a previous sexual relationship and agreed face to face to do this makes it pretty unusual.

It's a point of law after it's rule on by a court. Should another lawyer want to use it on point or tangentially, they can. So if they had ruled for her, then other lawyers could use it as such in other remotely related cases. They could then expand upon the initial ruling. Straining at gnats and swallowing camels, that's the legal system.

buckler: FTFA:
"Absent the parties' agreement, however, the twins would not have been born at all, or would have been born to a different and anonymous sperm donor, who neither party disputes would be safe from a support order," Baer wrote.

Mr. Baer needs a lesson in biology, methinks.

Pfft, he's not claiming that the exact same twins (genetically speaking) would have born using an anonymous donor's man-gravy, but that the rights and obligations of the bio-dad in this case are equivalent to those of an anonymous donor. And if it's the "born to the sperm donor" part you're talking about, it's being used in the causative case rather than the instrumental case.

pineal: buckler: FTFA:
"Absent the parties' agreement, however, the twins would not have been born at all, or would have been born to a different and anonymous sperm donor, who neither party disputes would be safe from a support order," Baer wrote.

Mr. Baer needs a lesson in biology, methinks.

Pfft, he's not claiming that the exact same twins (genetically speaking) would have born using an anonymous donor's man-gravy, but that the rights and obligations of the bio-dad in this case are equivalent to those of an anonymous donor. And if it's the "born to the sperm donor" part you're talking about, it's being used in the causative case rather than the instrumental case.

You're that guy that's always behind me at the movies, aren't you?

Maybe the judge should have given the kids to the sperm donor and said here, now you can take care of them. See if "mom" doesn't go berserk over THAT decision. You want the father to support them? OK, you can visit them on alternate Saturdays.

/The Nation Organization of Witches would burn the courthouse to the ground

seemed right some how

I think that deliberately choosing single parenthood is INSANE. Raising kids is hard enough with 2 parents. But if you make that choice, you deal with it. And if you decide to donate sperm non-anonymously, get everything in writing.

STOP USING LOGIC LIKE ARROWS!!!

/Here the donor rate dropped dramatically when they tried the same, insane..
//I regret buying my car in 1989, so now I want my money back + a small compensation of 10.000.000 for having to reach that painful conclusion.. PAY ME !!, your honor!.

Does anyone know or have the means of making an educated guess at how many years' salary this "father" gave up in legal expense in order to have his rights respected?

10 centuries of English Common Law should have had his back from the beginning.

I am totally seriously about this; our legal system may be better than pits like Mexico, Iran, the DPRK, or Sudan, but does our civil system compare favorably with other settled Western democracies? Maybe the rest of the world is even worse off...