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

[Angel Heart]

http://www.silive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/news-25/120793555157340.xml&storylist=simetro

NY court: man must pay support for ex-wife's sperm-donor baby
4/11/2008, 4:07 p.m. EDT
By MICHAEL VIRTANEN
The Associated Press

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 Appellate Division of State Supreme Court unanimously upheld the decision last year by a Delaware County trial court, although the man had never signed a formal consent for his wife's insemination using an unknown donor and their separation agreement said he was responsible only for supporting their two biologically shared children.

The justices cited "a presumption of consent" by husbands and "the compelling public policy of protecting children" conceived through artificial insemination.

More...

 

[Gunny]

http://www.silive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/news-25/120793555157340.xml&storylist=simetro

Dude kind of sinks his own boat by admitting that had the couple remained together he would have raised the child as his own.

I still disagree with the court's ruling based on a "presumption of consent." That's WHY they have a consent form.

 

[Dogger]

The courts always look to the best interest of the child, and they try to avoid creating bastards. The consent form serves a valid purpose, but it isn't the sole consideration. No judge would condemn an innocent child to life without support over a technicality or negligence in securing the proper paperwork.

The guy helped her create a baby. He can't just walk away.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The courts always look to the best interest of the child, and they try to avoid creating bastards. The consent form serves a valid purpose, but it isn't the sole consideration. No judge would condemn an innocent child to life without support over a technicality or negligence in securing the proper paperwork.

The guy helped her create a baby. He can't just walk away.

How, exactly, did he help?

 

[Dogger]

How, exactly, did he help?

It's in the story.

 

[dread]

The courts always look to the best interest of the child, and they try to avoid creating bastards. The consent form serves a valid purpose, but it isn't the sole consideration. No judge would condemn an innocent child to life without support over a technicality or negligence in securing the proper paperwork.

The guy helped her create a baby. He can't just walk away.

The story says the guy had a vasectomy, and his wife went without his consent to get inseminated with another mans sperm...Now...How did he create this third child?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The story says the guy had a vasectomy, and his wife went without his consent to get inseminated with another mans sperm...Now...How did he create this third child?

Here it is.

The justices then rejected Peter WW's arguments that he repeatedly told his wife he didn't think insemination was a good idea, and that she coerced him by threatening to leave if he didn't agree. They noted that he did sign a "frozen donor semen specimen agreement," faxed it to a California sperm bank, paid for it with a credit card and knew what his wife was doing.

"Significantly, he acknowledged in his testimony that had the couple stayed together, he would have accepted the child as his own," Spain wrote.

The insemination occurred before they split and he was involved in it to a degree. In fact he only became disagreeable when the marriage failed. I guess the Court made the right decision, though I dislike it.

 

[Ravi]

Here it is.



The insemination occurred before they split and he was involved in it to a degree. In fact he only became disagreeable when the marriage failed. I guess the Court made the right decision, though I dislike it.

Yep. The guy was a moron.