suboptimal information

Gold Digger as a legally established institution

December 5, 2007 on 2:06 am | In Needs less info |

Go google for “sperm donor child support” and read an article about a Nassau County court case from December 2007.

In the late 80s some doctor donates sperm to a colleague with the verbal agreement that he has no rights or responsibilities toward the child.  Ignoring the whole ambiguity of verbal agreements, it’s already established that paternal liability is a responsibility to the child and minors (or even pre-borns) cannot enter a legal contract and as such cannot be bound by a verbal agreement with the mother.  Now that the child is facing college tuition, the mother is seeking child support.

Here’s where it gets bad…

The court has denied the donor’s request for a paternity test to contest paternity.  It apparently doesn’t matter if he happens to not be the genetic father.  The court has accepted the mother’s legal argument that behavior in the early years of the child’s life - sending cards and gifts signed “Dad” - in essence behaving like a father, establishes paternal liability.

We know from previous court rulings that: factual paternity cannot be escaped by way of contract; that paternity does not stop in the face of fraud (case where a fertility clinic worker performed oral on a male coworker, inseminated herself, and then sued for paternity - he couldn’t contest paternity on the grounds of no expectation of a child from oral sex, only for emotional damages by fraud);  that a DNA match can establish ambiguous legal fact (rapist successfully used the “my twin brother might have done it” defense); and now that DNA is irrelevant in paternity.

Does this legally establish the institution of “Gold Digger”?

Since the male’s genetic paternity isn’t necessary, it’s probable that fact of maternity isn’t necessary.  Since we’ve gotten two people found liable for the same paternity (woman has sex with two twin brothers in short order, sues one for paternity, he claimed it was the brother, court eventually may find both liable) I suspect it wouldn’t be necessary for a woman to prove fact of birth.  Child support is an economic function, not a biological function, and this case shows that parental behavior is sufficient, therefore the plaintiff female merely has to play the role of mother.

Perhaps we need to establish a legal sperm guardian, since males obviously have no legal protection over their sperm, to establish properly binding legal contracts over the uncontrolled behavior of our species’ spunky swimmers.