PA: Sperm doner MUST pay child support
 

http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews...that_male.html

Superior Court holds sperm donor responsible for child support for
children of separated lesbian couple
Posted by Reggie Sheffield/The Patriot-News May 09, 2007 13:00PM
In what legal experts are calling a precedent, a three-judge panel of
the state Superior Court has ruled that a York County man must pay
child support for two children of a lesbian couple for whom he acted
as a sperm donor.

Quoting an earlier court decision, Senior Judge John T.K. Kelly wrote
that "stepparents who have held a child out as their own are liable
for support; biological parents who have exercised the rights
appurtenant to that status can be no less bound."



Overturning a Dauphin Common Pleas judge's ruling in the case, Senior
Judge John T.K. Kelly Jr. cited a 2004 ruling by Dauphin Common Pleas
Judge Scott A. Evans

Jodilynn Jacob and Jennifer L. Shultz-Jacob were a couple who lived in
York County and who had undergone a commitment ceremony in Pittsburgh
and a civil union in Vermont.

The couple cared for four children, two of whom were adopted nephews
of Jacob's and the other two who she had with Carl Frampton, a
longtime friend of Shultz-Jacob's who had agreed to act as a sperm
donor. Frampton is also named as an appellant in the case.

In February 2006 Jacob and Shultz-Jacob separated, with Jacob moving
from York County to Dauphin County. The separation was followed by
Shultz-Jacob asking a York County judge for full legal and physical
custody of all four children.

Later, Jacob asked a Dauphin County judge for child support for two of
the children from Shultz-Jacob, arguing that Frampton was "essentially
a third parent" to two of the children. Frampton died from a stroke
earlier this year.

Kelly noted in his opinion that Frampton had held himself out as a
stepparent to the children by being present at the birth of one of the
children, contributing "in excess of $13,000" over the last four
years, buying them toys and having borrowed money to obtain a vehicle
in which to transport the children.

"While these contributions have been voluntary, they evidence a
settled intention to demonstrate parental involvement far beyond
merely biological," wrote the judge.

Sperm doner MUST pay child support
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews...ules_that_male.
html

Superior Court holds sperm donor responsible for child support for
children of separated lesbian couple
Posted by Reggie Sheffield/The Patriot-News May 09, 2007 13:00PM
In what legal experts are calling a precedent, a three-judge panel of
the state Superior Court has ruled that a York County man must pay
child support for two children of a lesbian couple for whom he acted
as a sperm donor.

Quoting an earlier court decision, Senior Judge John T.K. Kelly wrote
that "stepparents who have held a child out as their own are liable
for support; biological parents who have exercised the rights
appurtenant to that status can be no less bound."

During the same-sex marriage/civil union/domestic partner debate I sent an
email to both state representative and state senator saying no matter how
they proceeded they needed to simultaneous develop dissolution/child
custody/child support laws to allow couples to get out of these
arrangements.

Both responded they saw no need to create new laws covering same-sex
relationships.

Although I live in a different state from this case, circumstances like this
one show the need for legislatures to act and not allow the courts to
dictate what the law should be.

Just an aside - How in the devil does the appellate court propose the lower
court come up with a CS order and visitation plan for the deceased
bio-father?

Sperm doner MUST pay child support
 

Here's another story, this one from KYW in Philadelphia:

Deceased Sperm Donor Held Liable For Child Support
Provided Sperm To Lesbian Couple To Conceive 2 Children
(AP) HARRISBURG A sperm donor who helped a lesbian couple conceive two
children is liable for child support under a state appeals-court
ruling that a legal expert believes might be the first of its kind.

A Superior Court panel last week ordered a Dauphin County judge to
establish how much Carl L. Frampton Jr. would have to pay to the birth
mother of an 8-year-old boy and 7-year-old girl.

"I'm unaware of any other state appellate court that has found that a
child has, simultaneously, three adults who are financially obligated
to the child's support and are also entitled to visitation," said New
York Law School professor Arthur S. Leonard, an expert on sexuality
and the law.

But Frampton, 60, of Indiana, Pa., died suddenly of a stroke in March,
leaving lawyers involved in the case with different theories about how
his death may affect the precedent-setting case.

Jodilynn Jacob, 33, and Jennifer Lee Shultz-Jacob, 48, moved in
together as a couple in 1996, and were granted a civil-union license
in Vermont in 2002. In addition to conceiving the two children with
the help of Frampton, a longtime friend of Shultz-Jacob's, Jacob also
adopted her brother's two older children, now 12 and 13.

But the women's relationship fell apart, and Jacob and the children
moved out of their Dillsburg home in February 2006.

Shortly afterward, a court awarded her about $1,000 a month in support
from Shultz-Jacob. Shultz-Jacob later lost an effort to have the court
force Frampton to contribute support, a decision that the Superior
Court overturned April 30.

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

"Part of the decision came down because he was so involved with them,"
Jacob said Wednesday. "It wasn't that he went to the (sperm) bank and
that was it. They called him Papa."

The process was very informal, Jacob was inseminated at home.

Lori Andrews, a Chicago-Kent College of Law professor with expertise
in reproductive technology, said as many as five people could claim
some parental status toward a single child if its conception involved
a surrogate mother, an egg donor and a sperm donor.

"The courts are beginning to find increased rights for all the parties
involved," she said. "Most states have adoption laws that go dozens of
pages, and we see very few laws with a comprehensive approach to
reproductive technology."

In his written opinion requiring Frampton to help pay for the child's
support, Superior Court Judge John T.J. Kelly Jr. noted that Frampton
spent thousands of dollars on the children, including purchases of
toys and clothing.

"Such constant and attentive solicitude seems widely at variance with
the support court's characterization of (him) having 'played a minimal
role in raising and supporting' the children," Kelly said.

The children knew he was their biological father and attended his
funeral, but Frampton opposed the effort to compel support from him.

"We made the argument that, according to Pennsylvania law as it
stands, there can really only be two adult individuals that can be
held liable for support in a child-custody case," said Frampton's
lawyer, Matthew Aaron Smith.

Shultz-Jacob's lawyer, Heather Z. Reynosa, wants Frampton's support
obligation to be made retroactive to when Jacob first filed for
support. Frampton's Social Security survivor benefits may also help
reduce Shultz-Jacob's monthly obligation.

It's unclear how the child-support guidelines, which assume two
parents, will be adapted to account for three parents.

"That's what's going to be interesting, because there's not a whole
lot of guidance out there," Reynosa said.

The state Supreme Court is currently considering a similar case, in
which a sperm donor wants to enforce a promise made by the mother that
he would not have to be involved in the child's life. That biological
father was ordered to pay $1,520 in monthly support.

About two-thirds of states have adopted versions of the Uniform
Parentage Act that can shield sperm donors from being forced to assume
parenting responsibilities. Pennsylvania has no such law.

Sperm doner MUST pay child support
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews...that_male.html

Superior Court holds sperm donor responsible for child support for
children of separated lesbian couple
Posted by Reggie Sheffield/The Patriot-News May 09, 2007 13:00PM
In what legal experts are calling a precedent, a three-judge panel of
the state Superior Court has ruled that a York County man must pay
child support for two children of a lesbian couple for whom he acted
as a sperm donor.

Quoting an earlier court decision, Senior Judge John T.K. Kelly wrote
that "stepparents who have held a child out as their own are liable
for support; biological parents who have exercised the rights
appurtenant to that status can be no less bound."



Overturning a Dauphin Common Pleas judge's ruling in the case, Senior
Judge John T.K. Kelly Jr. cited a 2004 ruling by Dauphin Common Pleas
Judge Scott A. Evans

Jodilynn Jacob and Jennifer L. Shultz-Jacob were a couple who lived in
York County and who had undergone a commitment ceremony in Pittsburgh
and a civil union in Vermont.

The couple cared for four children, two of whom were adopted nephews
of Jacob's and the other two who she had with Carl Frampton, a
longtime friend of Shultz-Jacob's who had agreed to act as a sperm
donor. Frampton is also named as an appellant in the case.

In February 2006 Jacob and Shultz-Jacob separated, with Jacob moving
from York County to Dauphin County. The separation was followed by
Shultz-Jacob asking a York County judge for full legal and physical
custody of all four children.

Later, Jacob asked a Dauphin County judge for child support for two of
the children from Shultz-Jacob, arguing that Frampton was "essentially
a third parent" to two of the children. Frampton died from a stroke
earlier this year.

Kelly noted in his opinion that Frampton had held himself out as a
stepparent to the children by being present at the birth of one of the
children, contributing "in excess of $13,000" over the last four
years, buying them toys and having borrowed money to obtain a vehicle
in which to transport the children.

"While these contributions have been voluntary, they evidence a
settled intention to demonstrate parental involvement far beyond
merely biological," wrote the judge.

From the article: "About two-thirds of states have adopted versions of the
Uniform Parentage Act that shields sperm donors from being forced to assume
parenting responsibilities."

This couldn't be FURTHER from the truth! By definition, ALL fathers are
"sperm donors". This bears itself out by the fact that the woman ALONE makes
the SOLE choice whether or not to give birth. Once a man has given her his
sperm, he has absolutely NO SAY in what she chooses to do with it. If she
wants to douche it out, keep it in her uterus, create a child with it, etc.,
she has the SOLE LEGAL right to do so. The man, on the other hand, has
absolutly NO rights/control over the sperm. And we all know that if he
discards it in a waste receptical and she recovers it, it now becomes her
sole and separate property. Such arrangement fully qualifies as being a
donation. But don't take MY word for it; check out the word "donate" in a
dictionary of your choice.

PA: Sperm doner MUST pay child support
 

wrote:
http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews...that_male.html

Superior Court holds sperm donor responsible for child support for
children of separated lesbian couple
Posted by Reggie Sheffield/The Patriot-News May 09, 2007 13:00PM
In what legal experts are calling a precedent, a three-judge panel of
the state Superior Court has ruled that a York County man must pay
child support for two children of a lesbian couple for whom he acted
as a sperm donor.

Quoting an earlier court decision, Senior Judge John T.K. Kelly wrote
that "stepparents who have held a child out as their own are liable
for support; biological parents who have exercised the rights
appurtenant to that status can be no less bound."


Actually, isn't this the case where the estate has to pay child support?
And if that's the case, I have a question: in joint couples, I believe
requirements for support stop when you die. There's inheritance, but
that is not a regular payment.

PA: Sperm doner MUST pay child support
 

"John Meyer" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:

http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews...ules_that_male.
html

Superior Court holds sperm donor responsible for child support for
children of separated lesbian couple
Posted by Reggie Sheffield/The Patriot-News May 09, 2007 13:00PM
In what legal experts are calling a precedent, a three-judge panel of
the state Superior Court has ruled that a York County man must pay
child support for two children of a lesbian couple for whom he acted
as a sperm donor.

Quoting an earlier court decision, Senior Judge John T.K. Kelly wrote
that "stepparents who have held a child out as their own are liable
for support; biological parents who have exercised the rights
appurtenant to that status can be no less bound."


Actually, isn't this the case where the estate has to pay child support?
And if that's the case, I have a question: in joint couples, I believe
requirements for support stop when you die. There's inheritance, but
that is not a regular payment.

CS does not terminate if one of the parents die. An inheritance is
considered a gift to the child and does not replace CS payments required to
be paid to the CP, i.e. any gift to a minor child does not count towards
ongoing CS payments owed to the adult judgment creditor.

There are three possible scenarios a court can order for CS after the death
of the obligor. 1.) Payments can be continued. This is usually by
agreement of the parties. 2.) Payments can be converted to a lump sum.
This is usually the life insurance value required to guarantee future CS.
3.) Payments can be terminated.

All of those options are for dealing with an existing CS order. What is
unique about the subject ruling is CS, and how it will be handled in the
event of the obligor's death, is going to be set after the obligor has died.
And of course, the CS will be allocated between three parents rather than
two.

When the obligee dies, payments continue until the court order is modified
to change the custodian for the children. Then the CS payments are either
continued, ceased, modified, and paid to a different custodian. Since the
obligee is dead they no longer have the need for housing, transportation,
food, etc. so the value of these "saved" amounts are counted as income which
is used to establish CS payments to the new custodian. This is one of the
scenarios where a second husband can be ordered to pay CS to the bio-dad who
gets custody of children after his wife's death.

PA: Sperm doner MUST pay child support
 

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"John Meyer" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:


http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews...ules_that_male.
html

Superior Court holds sperm donor responsible for child support for
children of separated lesbian couple
Posted by Reggie Sheffield/The Patriot-News May 09, 2007 13:00PM
In what legal experts are calling a precedent, a three-judge panel of
the state Superior Court has ruled that a York County man must pay
child support for two children of a lesbian couple for whom he acted
as a sperm donor.

Quoting an earlier court decision, Senior Judge John T.K. Kelly wrote
that "stepparents who have held a child out as their own are liable
for support; biological parents who have exercised the rights
appurtenant to that status can be no less bound."


Actually, isn't this the case where the estate has to pay child support?
And if that's the case, I have a question: in joint couples, I believe
requirements for support stop when you die. There's inheritance, but
that is not a regular payment.

CS does not terminate if one of the parents die. An inheritance is
considered a gift to the child and does not replace CS payments required
to
be paid to the CP, i.e. any gift to a minor child does not count towards
ongoing CS payments owed to the adult judgment creditor.

There are three possible scenarios a court can order for CS after the
death
of the obligor. 1.) Payments can be continued. This is usually by
agreement of the parties. 2.) Payments can be converted to a lump sum.
This is usually the life insurance value required to guarantee future CS.
3.) Payments can be terminated.

All of those options are for dealing with an existing CS order. What is
unique about the subject ruling is CS, and how it will be handled in the
event of the obligor's death, is going to be set after the obligor has
died.
And of course, the CS will be allocated between three parents rather than
two.

When the obligee dies, payments continue until the court order is modified
to change the custodian for the children. Then the CS payments are either
continued, ceased, modified, and paid to a different custodian. Since the
obligee is dead they no longer have the need for housing, transportation,
food, etc. so the value of these "saved" amounts are counted as income
which
is used to establish CS payments to the new custodian. This is one of the
scenarios where a second husband can be ordered to pay CS to the bio-dad
who
gets custody of children after his wife's death.

This just goes to show you that the "you should pay because you are the
biological father" argument is false. If it was true, then there would be no
third party in the equation. Needless to say, the "keep it in your pants"
argument is also debunked. It's simply about forcing someone to pay a mother
free cash whether they are the parent or not. Give it time, and the
"justice" system will increasingly expose this truth. My guess is that the
categories of folks who get sued for "child support" will eventually expand
to the point of including grandparents, aunts/uncles, siblings, neighbors,
and even somone who is merely friends with the child. As I said, give it
time.

PA: Sperm doner MUST pay child support
 

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"John Meyer" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:



http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews...ules_that_male.
html

Superior Court holds sperm donor responsible for child support for
children of separated lesbian couple
Posted by Reggie Sheffield/The Patriot-News May 09, 2007 13:00PM
In what legal experts are calling a precedent, a three-judge panel
of
the state Superior Court has ruled that a York County man must pay
child support for two children of a lesbian couple for whom he acted
as a sperm donor.

Quoting an earlier court decision, Senior Judge John T.K. Kelly
wrote
that "stepparents who have held a child out as their own are liable
for support; biological parents who have exercised the rights
appurtenant to that status can be no less bound."


Actually, isn't this the case where the estate has to pay child
support?
And if that's the case, I have a question: in joint couples, I
believe
requirements for support stop when you die. There's inheritance, but
that is not a regular payment.

CS does not terminate if one of the parents die. An inheritance is
considered a gift to the child and does not replace CS payments required
to
be paid to the CP, i.e. any gift to a minor child does not count towards
ongoing CS payments owed to the adult judgment creditor.

There are three possible scenarios a court can order for CS after the
death
of the obligor. 1.) Payments can be continued. This is usually by
agreement of the parties. 2.) Payments can be converted to a lump sum.
This is usually the life insurance value required to guarantee future
CS.
3.) Payments can be terminated.

All of those options are for dealing with an existing CS order. What is
unique about the subject ruling is CS, and how it will be handled in the
event of the obligor's death, is going to be set after the obligor has
died.
And of course, the CS will be allocated between three parents rather
than
two.

When the obligee dies, payments continue until the court order is
modified
to change the custodian for the children. Then the CS payments are
either
continued, ceased, modified, and paid to a different custodian. Since
the
obligee is dead they no longer have the need for housing,
transportation,
food, etc. so the value of these "saved" amounts are counted as income
which
is used to establish CS payments to the new custodian. This is one of
the
scenarios where a second husband can be ordered to pay CS to the bio-dad
who
gets custody of children after his wife's death.

This just goes to show you that the "you should pay because you are the
biological father" argument is false. If it was true, then there would be
no
third party in the equation. Needless to say, the "keep it in your pants"
argument is also debunked. It's simply about forcing someone to pay a
mother
free cash whether they are the parent or not. Give it time, and the
"justice" system will increasingly expose this truth. My guess is that the
categories of folks who get sued for "child support" will eventually
expand
to the point of including grandparents, aunts/uncles, siblings, neighbors,
and even somone who is merely friends with the child. As I said, give it
time.

Fathers can protect themselves by establishing a will. Legal language in a
will can be structured in such a way some of these issues can be overcome.
For example - I leave $100,000 to my child and this amount is intended to be
used to support my child until age 18 in lieu of child support. Should
child support be ordered by a court, this amount is to be applied against
that court order instead of going directly to the child.

PA: Sperm doner MUST pay child support
 

On May 12, 7:52?pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:


Regardless of all that crap-

"Kelly noted in his opinion that Frampton had held himself out as a
stepparent to the children by being present at the birth of one of
the
children, contributing "in excess of $13,000" over the last four
years, buying them toys and having borrowed money to obtain a vehicle
in which to transport the children. "

Since when does a step parent required to provide support? In
addition, why is this money given a show of support, when
999.9999999999999999999999% of the time, money given like that when it
is intended AS support but not earmarked as such upfront considered a
gift to child/parent by the court.

PA: Sperm doner MUST pay child support
 

"Relayer" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 12, 7:52?pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:


Regardless of all that crap-

"Kelly noted in his opinion that Frampton had held himself out as a
stepparent to the children by being present at the birth of one of
the
children, contributing "in excess of $13,000" over the last four
years, buying them toys and having borrowed money to obtain a vehicle
in which to transport the children. "

Since when does a step parent required to provide support? In
addition, why is this money given a show of support, when
999.9999999999999999999999% of the time, money given like that when it
is intended AS support but not earmarked as such upfront considered a
gift to child/parent by the court.

Because the courts have consistently ruled a gift to the child does not
apply against a CS obligation owed to the CP.

You may not have thought about this aspect of CS orders before, but this is
a most distressing portion of the CS issue. If an obligor or obligee is
deceased a legal battle can ensue over who is the next in line to pay or
receive CS. CS does not legally end when one of the parents die.
Subsequent spouses or heirs can be ordered to pay CS out of inheritances in
their names.

PA: Sperm doner MUST pay child support
 

On May 13, 12:01�am, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"Relayer" wrote in message

oups.com...





On May 12, 7:52?pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:

Regardless of all that crap-

"Kelly noted in his opinion that Frampton had held himself out as a
stepparent to the children by being present at the birth of one of
the
children, contributing "in excess of $13,000" over the last four
years, buying them toys and having borrowed money to obtain a vehicle
in which to transport the children. "

Since when does a step parent required to provide support? In
addition, why is this money given a show of support, when
999.9999999999999999999999% of the time, money given like that when it
is intended AS support but not earmarked as such upfront considered a
gift to child/parent by the court.

Because the courts have consistently ruled a gift to the child does not
apply against a CS obligation owed to the CP.

You may not have thought about this aspect of CS orders before, but this is
a most distressing portion of the CS issue. *If an obligor or obligee is
deceased a legal battle can ensue over who is the next in line to pay or
receive CS. *CS does not legally end when one of the parents die.
Subsequent spouses or heirs can be ordered to pay CS out of inheritances in
their names.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In my case, after 15 years of CS and 5 kids, there aren't many scraps
left to fight over. However, when I die, I am sad to say I might be
forced to miss the "cage match" in which my two ex wives will
certainly be engaged. I can't decide what would be better, eternal
life in Heaven or eternity in Hell plus a ticket to the "event".

PA: Sperm doner MUST pay child support
 

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Relayer" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 12, 7:52?pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:

Because the courts have consistently ruled a gift to the child does not
apply against a CS obligation owed to the CP.


See, this has always bugged me big time. As we all know, NCP's have a
long history of showering CP's with money above and beyond their CS
obligation.

It really should be the reverse. ANY money given to CP should be
considered CS unless PROVEN otherwise. The burden of proof should be
on the CP. Since when is the victim forced to show burden of proof.
And when a CP defrauds the court and defrauds the NCP, that makes the
NCP the victim. The NCP is the ONE who lost the $$, not the CP.

PA: Sperm doner MUST pay child support
 

"Relayer" wrote in message
ps.com...
On May 13, 12:01?am, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"Relayer" wrote in message

oups.com...





On May 12, 7:52?pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:

Regardless of all that crap-

"Kelly noted in his opinion that Frampton had held himself out as a
stepparent to the children by being present at the birth of one of
the
children, contributing "in excess of $13,000" over the last four
years, buying them toys and having borrowed money to obtain a vehicle
in which to transport the children. "

Since when does a step parent required to provide support? In
addition, why is this money given a show of support, when
999.9999999999999999999999% of the time, money given like that when it
is intended AS support but not earmarked as such upfront considered a
gift to child/parent by the court.

Because the courts have consistently ruled a gift to the child does not
apply against a CS obligation owed to the CP.

You may not have thought about this aspect of CS orders before, but this
is
a most distressing portion of the CS issue. If an obligor or obligee is
deceased a legal battle can ensue over who is the next in line to pay or
receive CS. CS does not legally end when one of the parents die.
Subsequent spouses or heirs can be ordered to pay CS out of inheritances
in
their names.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In my case, after 15 years of CS and 5 kids, there aren't many scraps
left to fight over. However, when I die, I am sad to say I might be
forced to miss the "cage match" in which my two ex wives will
certainly be engaged. I can't decide what would be better, eternal
life in Heaven or eternity in Hell plus a ticket to the "event".

--------------

That's right. The race will be on to see which ex-spouse can file first to
receive any Social Security Survivor Benefits. If things turn out, they may
kill each other on the steps of the Social Secutity office.

PA: Sperm doner MUST pay child support
 

Bob Whiteside wrote:
CS does not terminate if one of the parents die. An inheritance is
considered a gift to the child and does not replace CS payments required to
be paid to the CP, i.e. any gift to a minor child does not count towards
ongoing CS payments owed to the adult judgment creditor.

Okay, a "gift" as in voluntary, right? All right, how about this: I
set up my estate to make those child support payments until the child
turns 18. Also, in my will, I state that the child will inherit
nothing. Let's see how fast it takes them to turn that "gift" into a right.

PA: Sperm doner MUST pay child support
 

"John Meyer" wrote in message
. ..
Bob Whiteside wrote:
CS does not terminate if one of the parents die. An inheritance is
considered a gift to the child and does not replace CS payments required
to
be paid to the CP, i.e. any gift to a minor child does not count towards
ongoing CS payments owed to the adult judgment creditor.

Okay, a "gift" as in voluntary, right? All right, how about this: I
set up my estate to make those child support payments until the child
turns 18. Also, in my will, I state that the child will inherit
nothing. Let's see how fast it takes them to turn that "gift" into a
right.

I'm not your enemy. I'm just pointing out reality. And obviously this is
an area of CS law you have not considered before. CS obligations after
death do not automatically end. The courts still have jurisdiction over
both parents' estates and can rule against what is in a will unless the will
fits into the legal perimeters court's recognize.

PA: Sperm doner MUST pay child support
 

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"John Meyer" wrote in message
. ..
Bob Whiteside wrote:
CS does not terminate if one of the parents die. An inheritance is
considered a gift to the child and does not replace CS payments required
to
be paid to the CP, i.e. any gift to a minor child does not count towards
ongoing CS payments owed to the adult judgment creditor.
Okay, a "gift" as in voluntary, right? All right, how about this: I
set up my estate to make those child support payments until the child
turns 18. Also, in my will, I state that the child will inherit
nothing. Let's see how fast it takes them to turn that "gift" into a
right.

I'm not your enemy. I'm just pointing out reality. And obviously this is
an area of CS law you have not considered before. CS obligations after
death do not automatically end. The courts still have jurisdiction over
both parents' estates and can rule against what is in a will unless the will
fits into the legal perimeters court's recognize.



I know Bob, and I'm not attacking you. I'm just saying that you'll see
a lot of two-faced judges out there who will turn that "gift" into a
legal right of some sorts. Heads you lose, tails you lose.

PA: Sperm doner MUST pay child support
 

"John Meyer" wrote in message
. ..
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"John Meyer" wrote in message
. ..
Bob Whiteside wrote:
CS does not terminate if one of the parents die. An inheritance is
considered a gift to the child and does not replace CS payments
required
to
be paid to the CP, i.e. any gift to a minor child does not count
towards
ongoing CS payments owed to the adult judgment creditor.
Okay, a "gift" as in voluntary, right? All right, how about this: I
set up my estate to make those child support payments until the child
turns 18. Also, in my will, I state that the child will inherit
nothing. Let's see how fast it takes them to turn that "gift" into a
right.

I'm not your enemy. I'm just pointing out reality. And obviously this
is
an area of CS law you have not considered before. CS obligations after
death do not automatically end. The courts still have jurisdiction over
both parents' estates and can rule against what is in a will unless the
will
fits into the legal perimeters court's recognize.



I know Bob, and I'm not attacking you. I'm just saying that you'll see
a lot of two-faced judges out there who will turn that "gift" into a
legal right of some sorts. Heads you lose, tails you lose.

There are two gross inequities in family law related to this topic.

First, only the obligor is required to carry life insurance to guarantee
their CS payments. It would seem to me that if the CP actually has an
obligation to provide their share of CS too, then they would also be
required to carry life insurance to guarantee their portion of CS.

And second, life insurance is ordered in a fixed amount. That means the
last payment (let's say it's $500 per month) is guaranteed by the full
amount of the insurance policy (let's say it's $100,000). What really needs
to be done about this is to allow decreasing term life insurance that goes
down in value and cost over the course of the CS payments.

PA: Sperm doner MUST pay child support
 

On May 14, 1:08 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:

First, only the obligor is required to carry life insurance to guarantee
their CS payments. It would seem to me that if the CP actually has an
obligation to provide their share of CS too, then they would also be
required to carry life insurance to guarantee their portion of CS.

Isn't this part of a due process and equal protection argument in how
child support is ordered in the first place.

I have never seen a Virginia Child Support Order mandate that a
custodial parent pay ONE DIME toward the support of a child - never.
As such, I'm placed into a category of being ordered to support a
child merely because I was named the non-custodial parent.

I'm off to Roanoke, Virginia today, folks. There is a U.S. District
Court hearing relating to a father suing the Prince William County
Circuit Court, which happens to be the jurisdiction all of my support
proceedings take place in. The hearing is obviously a Motion to
Dismiss by the Judges, etc. If it's not dismissed, I'm going to join
as a third-party plaintiff.

The hearing is a 1:30 this afternoon for any local parties who may
wish to attend.

PA: Sperm doner MUST pay child support
 

On May 15, 9:29�am, " wrote:
On May 14, 1:08 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:



First, only the obligor is required to carry life insurance to guarantee
their CS payments. *It would seem to me that if the CP actually has an
obligation to provide their share of CS too, then they would also be
required to carry life insurance to guarantee their portion of CS.

Isn't this part of a due process and equal protection argument in how
child support is ordered in the first place.

I have never seen a Virginia Child Support Order mandate that a
custodial parent pay ONE DIME toward the support of a child - never.
As such, I'm placed into a category of being ordered to support a
child merely because I was named the non-custodial parent.

I'm off to Roanoke, Virginia today, folks. There is a U.S. District
Court hearing relating to a father suing the Prince William County
Circuit Court, which happens to be the jurisdiction all of my support
proceedings take place in. The hearing is obviously a Motion to
Dismiss by the Judges, etc. If it's not dismissed, I'm going to join
as a third-party plaintiff.

The hearing is a 1:30 this afternoon for any local parties who may
wish to attend.

Illinois also does not require the CP to pay a dime towards the
upbringing of the children. The CP could sit on her ass all day,
eating bon-bons and watching soap operas and thats A-OK with Illinois.

PA: Sperm doner MUST pay child support
 

On May 11, 2:08 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"John Meyer" wrote in message

. .. wrote:

http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews...ourt_rules_tha....
html







Superior Court holds sperm donor responsible for child support for
children of separated lesbian couple
Posted by Reggie Sheffield/The Patriot-News May 09, 2007 13:00PM
In what legal experts are calling a precedent, a three-judge panel of
the state Superior Court has ruled that a York County man must pay
child support for two children of a lesbian couple for whom he acted
as a sperm donor.

Quoting an earlier court decision, Senior Judge John T.K. Kelly wrote
that "stepparents who have held a child out as their own are liable
for support; biological parents who have exercised the rights
appurtenant to that status can be no less bound."

Actually, isn't this the case where the estate has to pay child support?
And if that's the case, I have a question: in joint couples, I believe
requirements for support stop when you die. There's inheritance, but
that is not a regular payment.

CS does not terminate if one of the parents die. An inheritance is
considered a gift to the child and does not replace CS payments required to
be paid to the CP, i.e. any gift to a minor child does not count towards
ongoing CS payments owed to the adult judgment creditor.

There are three possible scenarios a court can order for CS after the death
of the obligor. 1.) Payments can be continued. This is usually by
agreement of the parties. 2.) Payments can be converted to a lump sum.
This is usually the life insurance value required to guarantee future CS.
3.) Payments can be terminated.

All of those options are for dealing with an existing CS order. What is
unique about the subject ruling is CS, and how it will be handled in the
event of the obligor's death, is going to be set after the obligor has died.
And of course, the CS will be allocated between three parents rather than
two.

When the obligee dies, payments continue until the court order is modified
to change the custodian for the children. Then the CS payments are either
continued, ceased, modified, and paid to a different custodian. Since the
obligee is dead they no longer have the need for housing, transportation,
food, etc. so the value of these "saved" amounts are counted as income which
is used to establish CS payments to the new custodian. This is one of the
scenarios where a second husband can be ordered to pay CS to the bio-dad who
gets custody of children after his wife's death.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, once again, children of intact family are NOT entitled to further
financial support
from their parents...in any case, an inheritance...yet the children of
divorce are entitled
once again...sickning.

PA: Sperm doner MUST pay child support
 

"whatamess" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 11, 2:08 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"John Meyer" wrote in message

. ..
wrote:


http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews...ourt_rules_tha....
html







Superior Court holds sperm donor responsible for child support for
children of separated lesbian couple
Posted by Reggie Sheffield/The Patriot-News May 09, 2007 13:00PM
In what legal experts are calling a precedent, a three-judge panel
of
the state Superior Court has ruled that a York County man must pay
child support for two children of a lesbian couple for whom he acted
as a sperm donor.

Quoting an earlier court decision, Senior Judge John T.K. Kelly
wrote
that "stepparents who have held a child out as their own are liable
for support; biological parents who have exercised the rights
appurtenant to that status can be no less bound."

Actually, isn't this the case where the estate has to pay child
support?
And if that's the case, I have a question: in joint couples, I
believe
requirements for support stop when you die. There's inheritance, but
that is not a regular payment.

CS does not terminate if one of the parents die. An inheritance is
considered a gift to the child and does not replace CS payments required
to
be paid to the CP, i.e. any gift to a minor child does not count towards
ongoing CS payments owed to the adult judgment creditor.

There are three possible scenarios a court can order for CS after the
death
of the obligor. 1.) Payments can be continued. This is usually by
agreement of the parties. 2.) Payments can be converted to a lump sum.
This is usually the life insurance value required to guarantee future
CS.
3.) Payments can be terminated.

All of those options are for dealing with an existing CS order. What is
unique about the subject ruling is CS, and how it will be handled in the
event of the obligor's death, is going to be set after the obligor has
died.
And of course, the CS will be allocated between three parents rather
than
two.

When the obligee dies, payments continue until the court order is
modified
to change the custodian for the children. Then the CS payments are
either
continued, ceased, modified, and paid to a different custodian. Since
the
obligee is dead they no longer have the need for housing,
transportation,
food, etc. so the value of these "saved" amounts are counted as income
which
is used to establish CS payments to the new custodian. This is one of
the
scenarios where a second husband can be ordered to pay CS to the bio-dad
who
gets custody of children after his wife's death.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, once again, children of intact family are NOT entitled to further
financial support
from their parents...in any case, an inheritance...yet the children of
divorce are entitled
once again...sickning.

Another way of looking at this is once the government becomes involved in
making/mandating family decisions, the government never relinquishes its
control over the parents and children. Even with the death of a parent the
government still intrudes upon decisions in a way they would never dream of
doing for an intact family.

PA: Sperm doner MUST pay child support
 

"Relayer" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 15, 9:29?am, " wrote:
On May 14, 1:08 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:



First, only the obligor is required to carry life insurance to guarantee
their CS payments. It would seem to me that if the CP actually has an
obligation to provide their share of CS too, then they would also be
required to carry life insurance to guarantee their portion of CS.

Isn't this part of a due process and equal protection argument in how
child support is ordered in the first place.

I have never seen a Virginia Child Support Order mandate that a
custodial parent pay ONE DIME toward the support of a child - never.
As such, I'm placed into a category of being ordered to support a
child merely because I was named the non-custodial parent.

I'm off to Roanoke, Virginia today, folks. There is a U.S. District
Court hearing relating to a father suing the Prince William County
Circuit Court, which happens to be the jurisdiction all of my support
proceedings take place in. The hearing is obviously a Motion to
Dismiss by the Judges, etc. If it's not dismissed, I'm going to join
as a third-party plaintiff.

The hearing is a 1:30 this afternoon for any local parties who may
wish to attend.

Illinois also does not require the CP to pay a dime towards the
upbringing of the children. The CP could sit on her ass all day,
eating bon-bons and watching soap operas and thats A-OK with Illinois.

That's because they know it's possible to provide for a child without
spending money. "Child support" is nothing more than "for the children"
terminology for backdoor alimony and/or prostitution fees. MOST people know
that so-called "child support" is immoral and corrupt at its very core. So
one might ask: If that is the case, then how come they keep getting away
with it? Answer: Because they have BIGGER guns!