Sperm Donor Ordered to Pay Child Support for 18-Year-Old

[GaryC 7]

By LUCY CARNE

December 2, 2007 -- A sperm donor who sent gifts signed "Dad" to his biological son has been slapped with a child-support order, 18 years after helping his friend get pregnant.

The Nassau County man donated his sperm to a work colleague, and included his name on the child's birth certificate, saying it would give the boy an identity, courts documents revealed.

He then blurred the lines between donor and full-time father by sending money, presents and cards signed "Dad" and "Daddy," and having phone chats with the now college-bound teen.

But the man's goodwill backfired: A court ruling says he is now liable for financial support of the 18-year-old, who lives with his mother in Oregon.

"It really is no good deed goes unpunished," said the man's lawyer, Deborah Kelly of Potrush and Daab in Garden City.

"When people do things they think are being done with good intentions and there is an agreement and one of the party reneges on the agreement, it is certainly disconcerting."

She said the time lapse was "unusual."

"He was assured that he would have no responsibility on his part and of course 18 years has elapsed where there hasn't been responsibility," she said.

"He did not anticipate this would happen now, when the child is almost an adult, that the mother would come forward for child support."

She said her client had requested a DNA test, "because we have no concrete evidence he is the father."

Nassau County Family Court judge Ellen Greenberg ruled Nov. 16 against a paternity test, saying it would have a traumatic effect on the child.

The child signed an affidavit stating that he has "never known anyone other than [the man] to be his father," according to court documents.

If payments were to go ahead, the child support would be determined based on the mother's earning capacity; the reported income of her partner, who is also a doctor; and the father's income.

Because of privacy concerns, all parties remain unnamed.

The mother is identified in court papers as P.D., the alleged father as S.K., and their son as K.K.

The donor was a married doctor at a Nassau County hospital when he donated his sperm to a hospital resident and her female partner in the late 1980s.

At the time of the boy's birth in 1989, the man orally agreed he would not have any rights or benefits in the child's upbringing.

The father said he had contact with the child from his birth until 1993, when the lesbian couple and his son moved to Oregon, according to court documents.

From then the contact dropped to seven phone calls in the past 15 years and one meeting for a few hours three years ago.

Calls by The Post to the mother's attorney, Jeffrey Herbst, were not returned.

About 1 million American children are the product of sperm donors - the majority of them being anonymous fathers - with 30,000 more born each year.

Court rulings over parental rights from artificial insemination remain murky. Similar cases across the country have varied.

The Washington State Court of Appeals ruled in 2004 that a donor isn't bound to pay child support, unless he and the mother have a signed contract.

But earlier this year, a Pennsylvania judge held a sperm donor liable for support, noting he had spent thousands of dollars on toys and clothing for two children that he helped a lesbian couple conceive.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12022007/news/...onor_901096.htm

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't get why he wouldn't have financially supported the boy if he wanted a parent/child relationship? Obviously, the guy wanted to be more than just a sperm donor.

[Misty1979 0]

Appalling. I can understand the ruling I guess, since he was sending presents, making phone calls, and generally acting like a father to the child, but I'm just shocked that the mother would go after child support after all these years. Given the fact that her partner is a doctor, you wouldn't think she would be needing financial support either, so it makes me wonder what the heck the father did to pi$$ her off.

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

why am i not surprised?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

All my excess sperm goes on a Kleenex.

[Jasman0717 9]

Once you assume the position the court will let you keep it

[ivona 0]

It surprises me most that the court ruled on child support without concrete proof that the man in question is in fact the father.

That's messed up

[camifree 2]

What's the legal limit age for a child to receive financial support?

[Nessa 23]

it depends on the deal.

[GaryC 7]

What's the legal limit age for a child to receive financial support?

I heard on TV that the "mothers" are seeking 18 years of back support. But if they don't get that the child would get support until he is 21 if he is in college.

[eric&gen 0]

Better him than me lol.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It surprises me most that the court ruled on child support without concrete proof that the man in question is in fact the father.

That's messed up

The man's not disputing his paternity but I'm sure he could request a paternity test if he wanted to contest that he is the biological father.

I'd be interesting to read what the court actually said about this case, but a contractual agreement between two parents over the custodial rights and financial responsibility is never written in stone. For example, even if you could get the other parent of your child to agree that she will never ask you for money to raise the child does not remove your financial responsibility if family court says otherwise.

Edited December 3, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

It surprises me most that the court ruled on child support without concrete proof that the man in question is in fact the father.

That's messed up

The man's not disputing his paternity but I'm sure he could request a paternity test if he wanted to contest that he is the biological father.

I'd be interesting to read what the court actually said about this case, but a contractual agreement between two parents over the custodial rights and financial responsibility is never written in stone. For example, even if you could get the other parent of your child to agree that she will never ask you for money to raise the child does not remove your financial responsibility if family court says otherwise.

the court retains the right to override any agreement between parents when it comes to child support.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It surprises me most that the court ruled on child support without concrete proof that the man in question is in fact the father.

That's messed up

The man's not disputing his paternity but I'm sure he could request a paternity test if he wanted to contest that he is the biological father.

I'd be interesting to read what the court actually said about this case, but a contractual agreement between two parents over the custodial rights and financial responsibility is never written in stone. For example, even if you could get the other parent of your child to agree that she will never ask you for money to raise the child does not remove your financial responsibility if family court says otherwise.

the court retains the right to override any agreement between parents when it comes to child support.

I think the lesson here is if you want to just be a sperm donor...then keep the relationship at that level - no contact with the child, the child's mother, no gifts, nothing.

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

It surprises me most that the court ruled on child support without concrete proof that the man in question is in fact the father.

That's messed up

The man's not disputing his paternity but I'm sure he could request a paternity test if he wanted to contest that he is the biological father.

I'd be interesting to read what the court actually said about this case, but a contractual agreement between two parents over the custodial rights and financial responsibility is never written in stone. For example, even if you could get the other parent of your child to agree that she will never ask you for money to raise the child does not remove your financial responsibility if family court says otherwise.

the court retains the right to override any agreement between parents when it comes to child support.

I think the lesson here is if you want to just be a sperm donor...then keep the relationship at that level - no contact with the child, the child's mother, no gifts, nothing.

will make some think twice before being a donor, that's for sure.

Edited December 3, 2007 by charlesandnessa