Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
Children win share of sperm donor's estate
Submitted by ItsDan on Fri, 2007-03-16 03:47
Article here.
I hope stuff like this keeps happening, the sperm donor pool is going to entirely dry up. Not that I have any issue with sperm donations, but we need to reestablish the lines that are slowly being erased.
Excerpt:
'THREE children have won a share of the estate of a man said to be their sperm donor father after using tweezers to pluck his eyebrows for DNA testing as he lay dead in a hospital morgue.
In a landmark decision, the NSW Supreme Court yesterday granted administration of Willem Wijma's estate to one of those children, ruling against his family's wishes.'
- Log in to post comments
Comments
Isn't quite the precedent it seems from the headline
I agree it's bad. But it isn't quite the precedent is appears to be from reading the headline. The word 'donor' sort of implies that there was a legal structure at work, paperwork signed and notorized, and anonymity presumed. That wasn't the case in this instance. The donor donated via the old-fashioned way, via sexual intercourse. That is different from doing so via IVF. Similar cases have come up frequently before and the courts have generally held that 'illegitimate' children have as much claim to a man's estate as his 'legitimate' children. I don't see much difference here except in that the woman was married at the time to someone else, and it seems from the article that the man she was married to knew about what was happening.
Don't get me wrong, I think the whole thing represents an injustice ultimately to the dead man and/or his other children. But it's just that this ruling really doesn't set a new legal prcedent as far as I can tell around sperm that is donated via a third party (ie, a sperm bank) with the usual anonymity guarantees, etc.
But it does underscore the importance of avoing situations like this. If a woman ever asks you to "help her get pregnant" and "she won't bother you about anything", run the other way-- fast.
Right - the "I don't want anything from you" statement
Very famous - and does not stand up in court.
If a woman ever says this to you - get away as fast as possible!! She is a USER!!
oregon dad
I had to assume the author
I had to assume the author of the article knew more about australian law than myself, and she explicitly brought up that it could have ramifications for other sperm donators, but I do hope you're right and that his only would apply to illegitimate children which is entirely different.
However you imply the husband knew what was going on, yet directly from the article:
He then fathered three children – Julie Mougalis, Jeffrey Sullivan and Scott Sullivan – with Constance Sullivan, whose husband, Ed, was infertile but did not know it.
The children grew up believing Ed Sullivan was their father until their mother told them the truth in 1995 after Mr Sullivan died.
Mr Sullivan also believed he was their father.
Part of my issue here is that I'm sure the children were entitled to inheritance from a man who wasn't there father (but I'm sure wanted them to have his belongings), and now want additional inheritance from a man who was their biological father, but had nothing to do with the family for most of their life.
I do wonder if the author of the article though understands her own gender's inherent power. That there IS a legal difference between sperm donations from someone you know (regardless of if they go through a donation center, since it's been ruled that isn't enough if the donor isn't anonymous) versus a stranger. A lot of women legitimately don't seem to know just how much their cronies have lopsided the laws.
Good points
'The children grew up believing Ed Sullivan was their father until their mother told them the truth in 1995 after Mr Sullivan died.'
Yep, you're right. You make some good counterpoints and observations. Well I just hope this ruling doesn't spill over to those who have donated sperm for IVF and gone through the legal process of paperwork and anonymity. Alas I don't put anything past "the legal system", wherever it happens to be.