All kinds of theft are unfair. The state doesn’t swoop in and fix it when an old lady gets conned out of her life savings, or someone’s car gets stolen. Even when you have insurance, when the thief is KNOWN we have a host of civil remedies in place and you have to use them. What makes this theft different?
And Lee and Jenner and Forsythe and Dickinson and…
ETA: And this guy
I don’t know…you might have gone too far with Jenner.
Three ex-wives and six kids…if he’s gay, he’s doing it wrong.
I mentioned theft as a charge you could possibly bring against the sperm stealer, because I don’t see how you could prosecute the lady in the OP for rape. I make no assertion that the state forcing an individual to pay child support is a form of theft. They seem wildly different concepts to me. I wouldn’t encourage the state going around unreservedly compensating every individual for all unfair circumstances dished out by life, but I’m also extremely uncomfortable with the state actively inflicting what I consider injustices on individuals, such as by forcing a person who bears no responsibility to pay for child support. Regardless of DNA, Bruce is no more responsible for that child than Derek, Adam, or any one of us and unless we as a society are comfortable leaving that kid on a hill to die of exposure, the only reasonable course of action is to share that burden.
I must emphasize, though, that these would be extremely extenuating circumstances. In the vast, Vast, VAST majority of circumstances it makes most sense to hold the biological parents responsible.
I finally got around to watching that. I thought Mia Farrow was excellent, although her character’s bizarre kleptomania (she’d steal anything that moves :D) was a bit over-the-top.
You misunderstand me: I am sorry that I wasn’t clear. The woman is the thief, not the state. The woman has effectively done $250K or whatever in damages to the man, as a result of her theft. The obligation from the father to the child is not something “inflicted” by the state, it’s enforced by the state. The man should sue the woman to pay him back for the child support he has to pay–in the same way he would sue her for the same amount in medical bills if she got drunk and t-boned him when running a red light. In that case, the hospital would bill the man and the state would help enforce the hospital’s claims. The man would sue to recover, if he could, the total owed. One advantage to the child support scenario is that the man would know the woman had the money, because he’d be sending it to her. So he’d certainly be able to prove she had it to send back. In the car crash scenario, if he had $250K in medical expenses and she was broke, he’d just be SOL and no recourse.
The problems with your system is that 1) if the state starts sending cash payments to women who illicitly impregnate themselves, the incentives are . . .screwy. 2) If the state can’t compel a man to take responsibility for a child because he has no connection to it, how can that state support another man’s claim to parenthood under identical circumstances? 3) It’s not as rare as you think, because any situation you posit is going to apply to children conceived through rape, as well. Do you really want a system where if a woman conceives through rape, she gets a monthly cash payment?
Whereas currently, the state forces involuntary sperm donors to send cash payments to women who illicitly impregnate themselves. No screwy incentives there?
I don’t see a problem here. A person should not be responsible for a child that happens to be genetically theirs if they have not accepted (the possibility of) parenthood by some voluntary act. In the vast majority of cases, that voluntary act is the consensual sex that led to the child’s existance. In cases where there was not consensual sex, the genetic parent should be allowed, but not required, to voluntarily declare legal parenthood.
Women have forced themselves on underaged boys, gotten themselves pregnant and then successfully demanded child support for the results of the rape. So yeah; he’s liable.
this is why you should always give the person a deep french kiss after they blow you and such out the sperm.
I second this, with the addition of something like “or some other act or statement implying consent to the possibility of parenthood” after “In cases where there was not consensual sex.”
If Bruce had said, “Sure, Clarice, take this glass and a turkey baster and go to town,” it would be a different story.
If absent some declaration like that, the law says Bruce is on the hook for the kid whether he wants to be or not, then the law is an ass. Wouldn’t be the first time.
The remedy is 1) sue the woman for the money. I’m not suggesting any actual money go to the woman. This sucks for the child (if she has custody) because it means he’s not supported, but we don’t worry if someone has a kid when we sue them for other things. 2) Arrest the woman for fraud. Those are powerful disincentives.
If I am walking down the sidewalk and a drunk runs me over and breaks both my legs, why does the hospital send me the bill? I didn’t commit any voluntary act. Hell, if I am sitting in my living room and a drunk runs through my front wall and puts me in the hospital, I get the bill. I didn’t even leave my house! In no other case does the government run in and give you a “You weren’t at fault, so it doesn’t count” card. Instead, we have this whole elaborate civil court system designed to deal with ways that people do wrong things that cost others money. If a drunk runs into me while I am sitting here posting on the dope, I sue them. I hope they have money. If they don’t, everyone feels sorry for me, but those bills don’t disappear.
Look, in my system a man can sue for fraud, not be out a cent, and still have a paternal relationship with his kid–because that’s the reality. In your system, the man has to somehow magically rewrite history that either it didn’t happen at all, or there was consensual sex and now he’s a Real Dad with bills and rights. How is yours more fair?
Then why am I on the hook when I get hit by a car? Why don’t they just send the bill to the drunk?
Bruce owes the kid. Clarice owes Bruce. Clarice and the kid are not the same person.
He is boned without having boned.
This is kinda stupid, because you’re saying everyone should go through a lot of unnecessary legal gyrations in order to attempt a wash transaction.
Anonymous sperm donors aren’t on the hook for any resulting kids. All the law needs to recognize is that in terms of responsibility for offspring,
involuntary donors =< anonymous donors.
In your example, the need to deal with the injury and the determination of fault happen at two very different times. If it was possible for our legal system to instantly find the drunk X% at fault for your injuries, maybe the hospital could bill the drunk directly. But it’s not.
In this case, though, there’s no reason to have separate proceedings to determine Bruce’s potential liability and his potential lack of it. The same family court proceeding used to determine his biological paternity can be used to determine his lack of consent to that paternity, just as if he was an anonymous sperm donor who the recipient had somehow managed to identify and sue for paternity.
I don’t get this part. Why does Bruce owe the kid, any more than an anonymous sperm donor would? Like the anonymous donor, he is the biological father. And also like the anonymous donor, he did not consent to any act that would cause responsibility for his biological child to devolve on him. The only difference between the two is that the anonymous donor consented to biological parenthood, but Bruce didn’t even do that much.
The financial fortunes of Clarice and the kid are intimately interwoven. There’s a limit on how much you can help or hurt one’s finances without doing the same thing to the other.
Since when is the law concerned with efficiency? Especially in a circumstance that happens virtually never? The law is concerned with accuracy. Gyrations are part of the deal. Weirder stuff happens in estate law all the time when the executor has a relationship with the estate and is guardian of others named in the will.
It’s awkward, but it’s accurate. Anonymous donation is just nothing like having your sperm stolen. For one thing, involuntary donors have no rights to the kids that result from the donation. Your system would mean involuntary donors would not and could not claim their kid. How is that justice? For another, what is involuntary? What if the woman lied about BC or absolute sterility?
Because we have a presumption in our society that a child has a claim on the financial resources of their parents, and that people created out of your genetic material are your kids. That is the default. There are some exceptions: adoption and annoymous sperm donation. Those exceptions are codified by law and custom because they are unusual. No where in that has “voluntary” ever come into play. Many many babies are created “involuntarily” for various values of “involuntary”, and that has never been used as a metric of parenthood.
Look, I am not denying that stealing someone’s sperm to make a baby is committing a terrible, terrible, horrific crime. But the crime is done. It’s not the law’s place to say “Oh that kid isn’t yours”, anymore than the law can just undo any other crime.
This is exactly like the hospital sending YOU a bill when a drunk driver hits you. You didn’t do anything to deserve it, but you get the bill because it happened to you. That’s how the system is set up.
I know. Clarice and the kid are going to effectively live with no child support/second parent income. But guess what? If Clarice’s big sin had been, instead, to drink and drive and run over some guy, leading to a like judgment against her, they’d both be impoverished by the same amount. Them’s the breaks.
Do you think that a judge can just circumvent the law because she feels like it?
I think that we agree that this is not rape and that Bruce would be on the hook for child support. However, couldn’t he sue Adam for negligence and Clarice for some variants of: intentional infliction of emotional distress, trespass to a chattel, conversion, false light, or anything else I might later think of and get a judgment against her which would be equal or greater than his child support obligation? Then he could simply use common law set off principles when his child support comes due each month.
Has something similar been tried?