I found this recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling interesting not just for the case itself (although it's interesting in its own right), but for the stupidity of the judge quoted at the end of the article.
Synopsis: a man agreed to be a sperm donor for his ex-girlfriend on the grounds he would have no responsibility for child support (and also no visitation rights). The girlfriend subsequently reneged on the agreement and requested support. The lower court ruled in her favor, awarding $1,500 a month in support as well as ordering the man to find $66,000 in back support.
Now, if I were in his shoes I might have begrudgingly agreed to pay the monthly support. I'd probably have felt screwed, since we did, after all, have a contract on the matter, but I probably would have come around to doing it for the sake of the children involved.
However, asking for $66,000 more on top of that, money we specifically agreed I was not liable for, would have driven me to outrage ... and to court.
The state Supreme Court did overturn the award, on the basis that if the original contract was not honored it would threaten the entire sperm donation system. After all, who would ever willingly contribute if they could then be held liable for child support years after the fact, in spite of a contract both parties willingly entered into?
One judge dissented, from the article:
Justice J. Michael Eakin, in a dissent, said a parent cannot bargain away a child's right to support. "The children point and say, 'That is our father. He should support us,'" Eakin wrote. "What are we to reply? 'No! He made a contract to conceive you through a clinic, so your father need not support you.' I find this unreasonable at best."Of course, without that contract, the children would never have existed in the first place, and the donor wouldn't be paying child support ... so really, which is better for the children? Exist and no child support or don't exist and no child support?
I find the judge to be a moron.
No comments:
Post a Comment