"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"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.