NY court: man must pay support for ex-wife's sperm-donor baby

Submitted by Matt on Sat, 2008-04-12 19:08

Story here. It seems in New York that despite whatever legal agreements signed and laws passed to moderate the abuse of men (what few there may be) in the context of reproduction, all that matters is that the state find a way to make sure baby-mama doesn't apply for welfare benefits. But if this man is the actual legal father of the child, despite him not being the "biological father" (and the required legal agreement not having been executed prior to her getting inseminated), shouldn't he also be eligible for joint custody-- or even try to get it? Not that it would matter. What happened here is that baby-mama wanted to have a kid and wanted to be sure her estranged soon-to-be-ex-husband got stuck with the bill. And, it worked. You go, girl!

Excerpt:

'ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- An upstate New York man is the legal father and must pay child support for the baby his ex-wife conceived through artificial insemination with another man's sperm near the end of their marriage, an appeals court ruled Friday.
...
The justices cited "a presumption of consent" by husbands and "the compelling public policy of protecting children" conceived through artificial insemination.

...
The couple were married in 1995, had two children, and he had a vasectomy. In 2004, Laura WW. became pregnant through insemination at a doctor's office. A few months later, the couple separated.
...
They also rejected the man's argument that he wasn't legally obligated since he had not signed the consent form specified under state Domestic Relations Law for authorizing his wife's insemination and claiming paternity.
...
"This common-law rule is shared by numerous jurisdictions which have held, even in the absence of statutorily required written consent, that 'the best interests of children and society are served by recognizing that parental responsibility may be imposed based on conduct evincing actual consent to the artificial insemination procedure.'"

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

It is the responsibility of a father (and mother!) to financially support his/her children. But it is also his right to set the amount to be paid in accordance with his financial resources rather than some political tyrant in a black sheet deciding what will be paid under threat of death and or imprisonment. The state's interest should be limited to the bare minimum it takes to support a child. College educations for adult children, orthodontic treatment, vacations, etc. are not the business of family courts.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Luek on Sat, 2008-04-12 19:19

Look up the term, if you are not familiar with it. Most states in the US have it embedded in family law. An article from 2006, here, discusses it fairly clearly. If you intend to marry, you need to be aware of this. This New York man's situation is the legally defined norm.

Back when DNA testing was not available and women were assumed not to have economic equality, it made some sense - at least it insured children some financial support. Nowadays, it's an archaism. Oddly, it's an archaism the more Progressive types concerned about "Equality Of Outcomes For All" don't seem interested in doing much about.

Regularly available DNA testing, an effective pill for men, and getting rid of Presumption of Paternity - that would be a good start.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by TomP on Sat, 2008-04-12 22:58

Oh yeah, it's that giant pile of bull crap known as the family court! Or should I say the FemCourt!?

Now I've heard everything. Apparently if you have a vasectomy, you still might end up having to pay for another child that's not even yours! There really is no such thing as male reproductive rights, is there?

Only a female would pull such a selfish, and canniving stunt. May karma bite her and all the other whores out there who have children as a means of extortion squarely in the ass.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by xtrnl on Tue, 2008-04-15 02:24

if she gets pregnant while you are married - been there, done that. I got the vasectomy, more than a year later she got pregnant, I expect you know who is paying. You can't fault the child - it's not like she had any say in the matter - but the law at the time assumed if we were married and she got pregnant, I was the father of record - presumption of paternity. That law, AFAIK, still holds in most states.

Get a male pill available soonest, use DNA testing to the max, and above all - DON'T GET MARRIED unless you are sure beyond the least shadow of a doubt your honey of today will be willing to take a bullet for you 5, 10, or 20 years down the road. You are putting your life in her hands when you marry. If she won't take that bullet for you, how can you be sure she wouldn't take your child, your home, your life and your money?

Feminism is all about "what's in it for women". Men need to ask themselves "what's in it for me?"

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by TomP on Wed, 2008-04-16 00:30

Just another reason to never marry. If she cheats on you and has a child by another man, you have to pay for the child she conceived while betraying you, and not to mention in a way which a lot of women believe would justify destroying someone's car. I sure would like to see a woman getting stuck with the tab for her spouse having love children for once.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by xtrnl on Wed, 2008-04-16 03:48