View Single Post
  #4  
Old May 10th 07, 08:24 PM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default 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.