Sperm Donor 'Dad' Must Pay Child Support

December 3, 2007 7:24 PM

Sperm Donor 'Dad' Must Pay Child Support. His mistake? An oral contract that fails the enforceability rules and a signed Acknowledgement of Paternity.

There's really no wiggle-room. I can't imagine how he thought the judge could possibly rule otherwise.

Another donor risk: embryos that develop genetic abnormalities, which apparently leads to endless lawsuits. (I suspect that's a soon-to-disappear PDF; here's free trial access to a lesser edition. It's enough to scare one potential donors away.

Adopt. There are children waiting.

posted by five fresh fish (13 comments total)

Pre-flagged for your enjoyment. Proceed as normal.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:24 PM on December 3, 2007

Double? (And it was deleted the last time, too!)
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 7:32 PM on December 3, 2007

Insert Limerick here.
posted by Pants! at 7:35 PM on December 3, 2007

I don't understand. This post is more fleshed out and yet the OP still insisted on linking to a Google search for the first link. Is it so difficult to operate within the guidelines and link to a single post? You could even turn the phrase "see similar articles here" into a URL, and it wouldn't be nearly as crappy.

I think this is an interesting, crazy topic, and it is sad the people posting it insist on presenting it in a shitty, treading-on-the-guidelines manner.
posted by Anonymous at 7:35 PM on December 3, 2007

Flagged your flagging. You could probably counter-counter-flag.

(Sometimes, the only way to win is not to play at all.)
posted by SteelyDuran at 7:36 PM on December 3, 2007

Ir was deleted because it was a spectacularly crappy post. Triple-f has actually done it justice this time, and its a perfectly acceptable slice of Newsfilter this time out. (The last tag might have tipped you off that he knows what he's doing.)
posted by Horace Rumpole at 7:37 PM on December 3, 2007 [1 favorite]

Everything I read about family law suggests it's broken, but I accept that I might be seeing an axe-grindy, distorted slice. Any nice summary treatments?
posted by grobstein at 7:39 PM on December 3, 2007

Precisely what schroedinger said. This is very interesting for its legal and moral implications, and it's something I want to watch, and that I want to think about in the future. Done right, this would be a fantastic, thought-provoking FPP, the kind that I come here for, even if (and especially if) it's frustrating to think about.
posted by SteelyDuran at 7:39 PM on December 3, 2007

Wait, I take that back. It's a damn good FPP. It's entirely the pre-emptive first comment that I take issue with.
posted by SteelyDuran at 7:41 PM on December 3, 2007

The New York Post does a fairly nice job of eviscerating him.

Turns out the dumbass was sending presents to the kid all these years, too. It must have been a slow news day, because the real headline is "Father Who Acted As Father Found Liable for Child Support."

Which is enough to warrant deletion, IMO. Not only did Suiaka do a terrifically shitty job of making the original FPP, it turns out to not even merit the least bit of attention from anyone outside the court room. The topic is a dead parrot.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:44 PM on December 3, 2007

Well, this is a weird post.

That said, how is this guy a "sperm donor"? Is it because he didn't actually have sex with the mother? It didn't go through a sperm bank or anything like that. And yeah, family law is pretty screwed up.
posted by delmoi at 7:44 PM on December 3, 2007

Wait, did you just sell out your own post? Now I'm totally confused.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 7:49 PM on December 3, 2007

*shrug*

I don't see anything wrong with it. Children have a right to be supported by their fathers, no matter how little their fathers want to do with them.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:49 PM on December 3, 2007