PDA

View Full Version : Sperm donor ordered to pay child support


Suburban Rhythm
05-10-2007, 12:12 PM
WTF!?!?! :confused:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07130/784968-100.stm

Thursday, May 10, 2007

The Associated Press

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 Mr. 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 Mr. Frampton -- a longtime friend of Shultz-Jacob's -- Ms. Jacob also adopted her brother's two older children, now 12 and 13.

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

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

Ms. Jacob, who now lives in Harrisburg, said Mr. 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," Ms. Jacob said yesterday. "It wasn't that he went to the (sperm) bank and that was it. They called him Papa."

The process was very informal -- Ms. 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 Mr. Frampton to help pay for the child's support, Superior Court Judge John T.J. Kelly Jr. noted that Mr. 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," Judge Kelly said.

The children knew he was their biological father and attended his funeral, but Mr. 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 Mr. Frampton's lawyer, Matthew Aaron Smith.

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

Young Drachma
05-10-2007, 12:13 PM
Holy heavens.

rkmsuf
05-10-2007, 12:14 PM
The process was very informal -- Ms. Jacob was inseminated at home.


Oh baby. Get your swerve on papa!

Suburban Rhythm
05-10-2007, 12:15 PM
Oh baby. Get your swerve on papa!

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1078991/2/istockphoto_1078991_turkey_baster.jpg

molson
05-10-2007, 12:19 PM
"Sperm donor" seems to be a a misleading term for this guy. They decided that he speficially would be the father, then he did everything but actually bang her. So I don't this is unreasonable. It's not like an annoymous donor from 12 years ago suddenly getting a child support bill in the mail.

Ksyrup
05-10-2007, 12:22 PM
I was going to say that the UPA provides protection in cases like this, but they don't have that in Pennsylvania.

Pumpy - WATCH OUT, MAN!!!

Young Drachma
05-10-2007, 12:23 PM
Of course, they've found that male rape victims are also liable for child support. So I suppose this isn't nearly as egregious as that is.

rkmsuf
05-10-2007, 12:30 PM
"Sperm donor" seems to be a a misleading term for this guy. They decided that he speficially would be the father, then he did everything but actually bang her. .

what does a turkey baster strap on count as?

spleen1015
05-10-2007, 12:33 PM
The dude was involved in ther children's lives. It is not like he was a 20 year old college student who donated to a sperm bank for $50 and never met the kids.

oliegirl
05-10-2007, 12:34 PM
I don't see why this is unreasonable...if he were truly a "sperm donor", he would not have had contact with the child(ren) and he would not have offered any financial support. I know in the state of GA, once you acknowledge paternity, it can't be taken back or revoked. So it seems completely within the line of rational thought that if they were calling him Daddy (or whatever paternal expression they used), and he was helping to support them through financial help, that he established paternity on his own, and at this point the courts are only enforcing his decision and ensuring that his kids are taken care of and provided for.

sterlingice
05-10-2007, 04:19 PM
Of course, they've found that male rape victims are also liable for child support. So I suppose this isn't nearly as egregious as that is.

Really? Where and when?

SI

Pumpy Tudors
05-10-2007, 04:35 PM
I was going to say that the UPA provides protection in cases like this, but they don't have that in Pennsylvania.

Pumpy - WATCH OUT, MAN!!!
Oh dear. :(

M GO BLUE!!!
05-10-2007, 06:05 PM
But Mr. Frampton, 60, of Indiana, Pa., died suddenly of a stroke in March
He who laughs last...

Suburban Rhythm
05-11-2007, 06:13 AM
Updated article with tons more information.
He'd been providing some support all along, though I still don't necessarily agree he is obligated, he did set a standard.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07131/785236-85.stm

Warhammer
05-11-2007, 09:16 AM
"Sperm donor" seems to be a a misleading term for this guy. They decided that he speficially would be the father, then he did everything but actually bang her. So I don't this is unreasonable. It's not like an annoymous donor from 12 years ago suddenly getting a child support bill in the mail.

My only problem is that it does establish precendent in these sorts of cases. I understand that he did help out as he could, but his estate should not be obligated to continue that support.

Young Drachma
05-11-2007, 09:58 AM
Really? Where and when?

SI


Link (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4D8113BF935A35750C0A965958260):

“When Shane Seyer was twelve years old, he was sexually molested, repeatedly, over a period of several months, by his babysitter.

Colleen Hermesmann, the babysitter, was initially charged with statutory rape (”indecent liberties with a child” in Kansas) but plea-bargained to a lesser charge — “contributing to a child’s misconduct.

When Colleen Hermesmann and her new baby went on welfare, the state did what it usually does in cases of single mothers seeking state assistance — it tried to find the father, in this case young Shane Seyer, and to get him to pay child support.

In March, the Kansas state supreme court ruled that when Shane Seyer was molested by his babysitter at age 12, he consented to 18 years of child-support payments. “We conclude,” the court wrote, “that the issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity and for support of the minor child of such activity.”

The court ruled that “[i]n an action by the State against a minor father for reimbursement of funds paid for support of his child, the fault or wrongdoing of the mother at the time of conception, even if criminal, has no bearing on the father’s duty to support such child.”

Logan
05-11-2007, 10:20 AM
Please God tell me that Kansas is just a fucked up state and this would never happen anywhere else. Please.

I don't understand something...he's molested, and she's charged with statutory rape, the same charge that would be brought against an 18 year old guy for having sex with his 16 year old long-term girlfriend. Does Kansas not have an actual rape charge? If the babysitter was a guy, and the 12 year old was a girl, is it a statutory charge? Of course fucking not.

Not to mention that this sentence defies all logic:

when Shane Seyer was molested by his babysitter at age 12, he consented to

DaddyTorgo
05-11-2007, 03:38 PM
Link (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4D8113BF935A35750C0A965958260):

“When Shane Seyer was twelve years old, he was sexually molested, repeatedly, over a period of several months, by his babysitter.

Colleen Hermesmann, the babysitter, was initially charged with statutory rape (”indecent liberties with a child” in Kansas) but plea-bargained to a lesser charge — “contributing to a child’s misconduct.

When Colleen Hermesmann and her new baby went on welfare, the state did what it usually does in cases of single mothers seeking state assistance — it tried to find the father, in this case young Shane Seyer, and to get him to pay child support.

In March, the Kansas state supreme court ruled that when Shane Seyer was molested by his babysitter at age 12, he consented to 18 years of child-support payments. “We conclude,” the court wrote, “that the issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity and for support of the minor child of such activity.”

The court ruled that “[i]n an action by the State against a minor father for reimbursement of funds paid for support of his child, the fault or wrongdoing of the mother at the time of conception, even if criminal, has no bearing on the father’s duty to support such child.”

gotta love Kansas. That's the most bass-ackwards, retarded thing that I have heard in a long time. Those judges ought to have their heads examined.

DaddyTorgo
05-11-2007, 03:39 PM
dola

although i'm guessing that it has been/will be overturned on appeal

sabotai
05-11-2007, 03:42 PM
Dear Kansas,

*sigh*

Leonidas
05-11-2007, 05:01 PM
I'm thinking that if you are gonna give sperm to any couple, lesbians or straight, you get their signatures on a piece of paper absolving you of all paternal obligations. Just a smarter way of whacking off into a tube.

Vinatieri for Prez
05-11-2007, 06:06 PM
Because the laws are meant to protect the kid, signatures from the lesbian/straight couple are worthless. A court order is more like it.

Desnudo
05-11-2007, 06:34 PM
what does a turkey baster strap on count as?

They may have the opportunity to set some ground breaking legislation here

Young Drachma
05-11-2007, 06:50 PM
dola

although i'm guessing that it has been/will be overturned on appeal

Nope. That case is from 1993.

Greyroofoo
05-11-2007, 08:50 PM
Dear Kansas,
You Suck

Love GreyRoofoo

cougarfreak
05-11-2007, 09:02 PM
Holy Bat Turkey Basters, I am changing my name and going into some sort of witness protection program.

sterlingice
05-12-2007, 09:14 PM
I must have completely missed that court case. Not that we don't have the most screwed up system of a lot of things here in Kansas.

SI