It doesn’t mean Deon owes her $400 either. My point is, even if we agree that the child deserves $400 a month, that doesn’t mean this one guy should be paying it.
It’s not his fault that the kid was born, any more than it’s your fault or mine. The only thing linking him to the kid is his DNA, and if that’s enough to create a financial obligation on his part, then every sperm donor in the country is in trouble.
Good… so am I. $400 a month is next to nothing when you spread it among all the taxpayers.
Well, technically it wasn’t rape at all. Let’s not totally devalue the word “rape” here.
It’s hardly the same thing - he wasn’t even present at conception. All he did is produce sperm, something that every adult male does. The child’s interest is served just as well by taking money from all the taxpayers as just taking it from this one guy.
What do you think of **Lightnin’**s cloning scenario? If someone takes some of your DNA without your consent (a hair, a flake of skin, or saliva from an envelope) and clones a baby from it, should you be required to pay child support?
While I can see your point, I still don’t think that child support should be cut off. If that $400 makes major improvements in the child’s life it should continue. However it should be more of a loan by the father rather than a gift, and when the baby is grown up and on his own financially the mother can have her wages garnished to pay back the father for all the child support he paid for the child.
While is doesn’t seem fair, standard child support laws should apply and he should be required to pay. However, the wife and NYU, mostly the wife should be liable for damages to cover all child support expenses and anything else he can add on, in effect cancelling the child support payments.
The child was created illegally without the father’s knowledge or consent. The child may need $400, but that doesn’t mean the father has any more obligation to support her than any strangers children. If the child needs $400 a month than she needs to get it threw welfare. Personally I can’t understand why he didn’t press charges against his ex-wife. The best interests of the child have to be balanced the rights of a parent who had no say in her creation.
The broken condom analogy doesn’t apply. Whenever someone engages in man/woman sex s/he takes the risk that pregnancy result, irregardless of any birth control used. But when someone makes a deposit of their sperm/eggs at a clinic (and not as a donor) they should be able to assume they won’t be used without their consent. A better analogy would be if this man had been having sex with a new girlfriend, used a condom, then had his ex-wife break into his apartment and steal it out of his trash can.
I personally don’t have a site. Another poster several months back noted these circumstances in a newspaper article. IIRC, the woman was guilty of statutory rape of a boy barely able to produce sperm, and the results, well…
But I am not sure. The point is that the courts have no obligation to be fair here.
Are sperm doners required to provide child support to their children? I think not.
As soon as the couple were no longer married then the mans position moved from being a prospective father, to being a non-anonymous sperm doner. I don’t see his wife having any more right to money from the man as from an annonymous sperm doner.
(A search of the boards is coming up blank) Who recalls that story about the woman who snowballed her boyfriend(received his ejaculate / sperm orally, stored it her mouth, spit it out later)and used it later to impregnate herself?
I have to say that I think that the father should have no obligation to pay child support, because that would set a horrible precedent. I cringe at some of the scenarios people mentioned above. But then, who deosn’t want to take care of kids? Perhaps it would be best for the kid to not be in the mothers custody. She sounds like a sleazeball
The mother may have done a slew of things that are immoral or illegal but nobody’s suggesting the child did anything wrong. So you can’t punish the child for his mother’s actions. And the child is the one getting support not the mother.
Is if unfair that this man has to pay support for a child he never expected to have? Sure it’s unfair. It would also be unfair if he woke up tomorrow morning and found out he has cancer. But just because something is unfair, you can’t pretend it doesn’t exist and ignore the consequences.
If the mother adopted, or had the child by an unknown man, there would be no child support either. This is the mother’s choice to have a child, and her choice to have it without child support. Unless you think that all sperm doners should also be liable for child support of their offspring?
Children do not get support. The custodial parent gets support. The support received by the custodial parent should go towards the care and raising of the child, but nowhere is it mandated that the custodial parent do so. If custodial parent has a $400/week crack habit and the child is diaperless, the non-custodial parent still has to pay (under threat of jail time) until Child Protection intrudes and all the necessary paperwork is filed.
If the facts are presented accurately (which might be a first for the NY Post), then I hope the biological father wins and not only does the mother get no further support, but she has to repay all received support. The biological father should be held no more accountable than any poster in this thread (assuming the biological father is not one of the posters).
That’s a bad argument. If I woke up tomorrow and found out I had cancer, I’d sure as hell try to do something about it- in other words, I’d TRY to make it “fair”. Your argument is like throwing your hands up in the air and saying, “Well, it’s always been that way- changing it isn’t an option.”
If there’s a bad law on the books, generally people try to get the law changed, instead of just accepting the occasional innocent victim. Or at least, that’s what SHOULD happen.
For those who say that this child will be deprived if the biological father does not pay support, I have a sincere question. What makes you think that a child needs two income-producing parents? Many children grow up in a home (with two parents) where only one parent earns an income, but I hardly think you’re suggesting that kids with a stay-at-home-parent are deprived, are you?
I ask because I’ve managed to support a child on my income alone, quite successfully. I sense an assumption that all, or most, single mothers require government assistance, but that is not necessarily true.
In this particular case in the OP, I see no reason that the man should pay a penny. He didn’t voluntarily engage in the conception. He was wronged. (I also think it’s a bit loony if he wants to maintain a relationship with this child, but pay no support; he needs to make up his mind, one way or the other. Be a father, or don’t.)
surely i can’t be the only one here who thinks there is something not quite right with this whole story.
two of the people involved are crying fraud and theft, yet neither one of them is outraged enough to file a criminal complaint?
and deon can’t be bothered to follow up with nyu to be certain that his sperm was destroyed? a simple “hello nyu. this is deon. i didn’t pay my sperm storage bill for the past two months and i want to make sure the sperm was destroyed. what? the bill has been paid? by whom? my wife?”
sounds to me like someone came up with a way to have a child and have someone with deeper pockets foot the bill.
No, my point is that the child now exists. And the father is known. So the parent is responsible for the child - even though he had no intent to father the child.
Saying “what if the father was dead or broke or unknown?” is just a game of hypotheticals. Saying the mother shouldn’t get any money is just a case of bitter people who don’t understand the law. Saying that it’s unfair for somebody to have to pay in circumstances like this is, as I already wrote, true but irrelevant.
So, then, should every mother who uses a sperm bank for conception be able to track down the donor and extract child support from him? The donors couldn’t even say they didn’t intend to father a child; that’s exactly what sperm banks are for.
Hypotheticals are useful in cases like this to discover important principles so we can apply the law consistently.
A few hundred bucks a month makes a significant impact on one person’s standard of living; it makes almost no impact at all when it’s divided among a few million people. Paying the child support out of tax dollars (or, essentially the same, just putting the mother on welfare) ensures that the mother is able to raise her child without harming this poor guy.
Why does this apply only to fathers? What about a mother who opts to put the baby up for adoption? She had no intent to “mother” the child, so should she be liable for child support?
You can only say that with hindsight. The thought probably never crossed his mind. He probably just thought, “Well, don’t need that anymore,” and stopped paying. You would have to be super paranoid to suspect that your ex is going to FORGE DOCUMENTS in order to recover your sperm. This is the reason we are so stunned by this, no one expects it.
