Comments | userillusion: article: Man can sue for distress over surprise pregnancy, but sperm were hers to keep

userillusion

article: Man can sue for distress over surprise pregnancy, but sperm were hers to keep

Feb 24, 2005 14:03

Followed the link from youphoric and just had to post this one. My apologies to anyone who reads the article. :)

Court: Man can sue for distress over surprise pregnancy, but sperm were hers to keep
Detroit Free Press [linkThursday, February 24, 2005 ( Read more... )

sharing time:articles, current events:news, cerebral:government:law, security:public

Comments 30

You're right. youphoric February 24 2005, 19:24:29 UTC

That's what the court ruled. They threw out the theft and fraud suits and keep the emotional distress suit. That's just so nasty.

Re: You're right. userillusion February 24 2005, 19:56:36 UTC

From the article, it doesn't sound like he sued for economic damages, which is different from suing her for theft and fraud. $800/mo is a lot! I wonder if he's planning to go back and sue for economic damages. Or maybe that's what he's really after in his emotional distress lawsuit.

Re: You're right. reynspirit February 24 2005, 20:44:57 UTC

I would not be surprised if they were having oral sex in the doctor's office-- so she probably had easy access to the requisite storage materials ( ... )

Re: You're right. userillusion February 24 2005, 20:59:17 UTC

Child support is a suit on behalf of the child. ...The courts have ruled repeatedly that moms cannot waive their child's right to support. Child support is the right of the child, regardless of behavior of the child's parents.
Right, but what I'm thinking is that he couldn't sue to get the child support payments dropped, because, like you said, that's for the child and is owed regardless of the behavior of the child's parents, but I would think he could sue for financial damages, in which case she would owe him $800/mo and he would still owe the child $800/mo in child support. He would still be liable for child support, so it wouldn't be a waiver, but she would be liable to him for the financial damages she's caused him. She owes him, he owes the child. I think that's an important distinction between suing for financial damages and suing to be released from responsibility for child support. Not sure it would work, but I think it would be worth trying.

Thread 17

pinterface February 24 2005, 22:25:27 UTC

Let me get this straight: if I give someone a gift, and they do something with that gift, they can hold me liable for their actions?

In this case it's sperm, and she impregnated herself, but what's to stop it from expanding to other cases? Soon, if I give someone a dog, and they beat said dog, I'll be liable when the dog bites them.

That is so wrong.

pinterface February 24 2005, 22:30:37 UTC

A second thought just occurred to me: does this mean that men who donate to sperm banks can look forward to paying child support when someone later uses their sperm to get pregnant?

If not, what's the difference?

reynspirit February 24 2005, 22:55:03 UTC

In short, courts have held donors liable for child support who have donated sperm without abiding by the laws of the state. Most state laws require that donors and donees use/consult a doctor throughout the process. Once you consult a doctor, you realize that there is paperwork involved. The paperwork basically will release the donor of all liabilities that a natural parent would be liable for. Men who anonymously contribute to sperm banks will sign the paperwork. But the process doesn't have to be anonymous at all. A woman can use her best male friend's sperm. However, if they fail to consult a doctor and sign the requisite paperwork (the doctor requirement is intended to avoid having to consult a lawyer), he can be held liable for child support. And courts have held male friends liable for child support despite the fact that he was under the impression that the mom wouldn't consider him a father ( ... )

pinterface February 25 2005, 05:26:43 UTC

::shakes head:: It sure is a crazy, mixed-up world we live in.

Whoa... black_berry623 February 25 2005, 03:09:11 UTC

How shady. Normally I'm very much for male responsibility. If he doesn't pay his child support garnish his wages, boot his car, tell his mama. But this...

How could a woman do something like that to your child? Imagine growing up and finding out "my mommy hid my daddy's sperm in her mouth and used it to have me."

It would be one thing if she just wanted a baby. But then to sue for child support! I hope he finds a way to prevail...

I wonder how it will turn out. I meanwhether he likes it or not he has a kid.

Oh and why is he representing himself? Hello! Get a lawyer!

Re: Whoa... userillusion February 25 2005, 15:14:09 UTC

Reminds of this one comedian (can't remember her name) who said something along the lines of "You know, sometimes I just stare at my kids and think to myself... 'if only I'd given head that night, I could have swallowed you!'"

valere February 25 2005, 04:11:18 UTC

Once it became her possession, couldn't she do with it as she pleased?

I think she could very well make sperm ice cream out of it so long as she doesn't come back and asks you for money for what she did with the sperm left with her.

black_berry623 February 25 2005, 07:50:37 UTC

But could he sue for a piece of the icecream profits? Afterall he contributed too... :)

is that a Ben & Jerry's flavor? userillusion February 25 2005, 15:17:42 UTC

I never thought this discussion would have ever led into sperm ice cream! But you know if anyone ever came out with some sperm ice cream, it'd have to be Ben & Jerry's! Hah!

there's more black_berry623 February 25 2005, 07:48:30 UTC

... The relationship ended, the suit said, when Phillips learned Irons had lied to him about being recently divorced and was still married to another doctor.

Irons, who practices internal medicine in suburban Olympia Fields, said in a telephone interview Thursday that Phillips knew she was still married during their affair, and also knew she was pregnant with his child.

"He was very supportive and very happy about it," she said. "He said, `You need to hurry up and get your divorce.'"

He promised to marry her and asked her to quit her job, she said, but several days before her last day at work, Phillips informed her that he "couldn't go through with it."

Nearly two years after their affair, Irons filed a paternity suit and Phillips was ordered to pay $800 a month in child support, said Irons' attorney, Enrico Mirabelli. ...

Does that change anything?

Re: there's more userillusion February 25 2005, 15:27:16 UTC

Where'd you find that?

Does it change anything? Hmm... I'd still say that it was unreasonable for him to expect her to do what she did. If the courts rule that his expectations of what she'd do with his sperm is relevant, I don't see how any of this changes that part of it. On the other hand, I think it might make it more difficult to argue that she's caused emotional damage if he was in fact, as she says, "very supportive and happy about it". But, regardless of whether or not there was any emotional damage as a result of this, I think there'd still be a case for financial damage, since her getting pregnant was neither consensual nor accidental, but a very deliberate act on her part done, presumably, without his knowledge.

Re: there's more black_berry623 February 26 2005, 10:25:56 UTC

yahoo Oddly enough but ofcourse I can't find the link now...

Re: there's more reynspirit February 25 2005, 16:18:06 UTC

I think so... means the case is hinging on a question of fact. That's why it was remanded so the trial court can figure out who's telling the truth and who's lying. He said/She said, I guess.