A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

PA: Sperm doner MUST pay child support



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 9th 07, 09:02 PM posted to alt.child-support
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 171
Default 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.

  #2  
Old May 10th 07, 02:52 AM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default 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?


  #3  
Old May 10th 07, 03:58 PM posted to alt.child-support
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 171
Default 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.


  #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.




  #5  
Old May 11th 07, 03:40 PM posted to alt.child-support
John Meyer[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default 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.
  #6  
Old May 11th 07, 07:08 PM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default 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.




  #7  
Old May 12th 07, 11:32 PM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default PA: Sperm doner MUST pay child support


"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.







  #8  
Old May 13th 07, 01:52 AM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default PA: Sperm doner MUST pay child support


"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.


  #9  
Old May 13th 07, 04:59 AM posted to alt.child-support
Relayer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 301
Default 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.

  #10  
Old May 13th 07, 06:01 AM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default 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.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sign our Child Support patition for child support reform [email protected] Child Support 0 February 24th 07 10:01 AM
Dad paid support for 11 years after child killed - and he just found out child is dead Dusty Child Support 47 June 17th 06 10:24 PM
P. Diddy: Child support lawsuit really about 'adult support' Dusty Child Support 0 September 13th 04 12:35 AM
Child Support HELP She wants child support & I had custody! Live Wire Cycles NY/LI Child Support 18 August 1st 03 10:04 PM
Fear of child unfair child support laws have shaped and defined my life... Hobbit Child Support 9 July 11th 03 01:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.