Reader “Pat Riotic” emails me to take notice of a story in which a judge injects a modicum of sanity into a paternity case:
A woman who promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot renege on the deal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled. The 3-2 decision overturns lower court rulings under which Joel L. McKiernan had been paying up to $1,500 a month to support twin boys born in August 1994 to Ivonne V. Ferguson, his former girlfriend and co-worker. ”This court takes very seriously the best interests of the children of this commonwealth, and we recognize that to rule in favor of (McKiernan) in this case denies a source of support to two children who did not ask to be born into this situation,” Justice Max Baer wrote in the majority opinion issued last week.
“Absent the parties’ agreement, however, the twins would not have been born at all, or would have been born to a different and anonymous sperm donor, who neither party disputes would be safe from a support order,” Baer wrote.ÂÂ
Ferguson and McKiernan met while working together at Pennsylvania Blue Shield in Harrisburg and had a sexual relationship that had waned before Ferguson persuaded him to donate sperm for her. Courts found that the two agreed McKiernan would not have to pay child support and would not have visitation rights, but Ferguson later changed her mind and sued. Ferguson’s lawyer has disputed that the agreement existed in the first place, but courts have agreed with McKiernan on that issue. Between the time of the donation and when Ferguson sought support in 1999, McKiernan moved to Pittsburgh, got married and had a child.ÂÂ
A county judge called Ferguson’s actions despicable but said it was in the twins’ best interests that McKiernan be required to support them. In addition to monthly payments, McKiernan was also ordered to come up with $66,000 in back support, although he was not required to do so until the appeal was resolved.
So, a woman’s right to change her mind is apparently circumscribed, after all.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 1/6 @ 8:09 pm #
So, to avoid paternity, shoot into a cup instead of a c**t.
Comment by McGehee on 1/6 @ 8:28 pm #
Wait a minute. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court seems to be suggesting that it’s in the best interests of children that the courts uphold lawful contracts instead of tossing them out because one of the signatories has behaved “despicably.”
Maybe that Helen Thomas rift attempt did work, but it shifted the rest of us into a universe where things are as they should be.
Scary.
Comment by SPQR on 1/6 @ 9:06 pm #
Hopefully no one will be confused by this item, as many other states do not share the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s view.
Comment by Pablo on 1/6 @ 9:56 pm #
Not necessarily. And apparently, dying doesn’t even work.
Comment by andy on 1/6 @ 10:23 pm #
I wonder if the children could sue for support.
Comment by Pablo on 1/6 @ 10:24 pm #
No, children aren’t entitled to support. Custodial parents are.
Comment by andy on 1/6 @ 10:38 pm #
If the mother died, who would support that child?
Comment by B Moe on 1/6 @ 10:52 pm #
“If the mother died, who would support that child?”
Be raised by wolves, be my guess.
Comment by daleyrocks on 1/6 @ 11:07 pm #
The village, andy.
Comment by Sean M. on 1/6 @ 11:16 pm #
What’s an “irruption”?
Comment by Dan Collins on 1/7 @ 6:20 am #
A burbling up or through, as it were, Sean. An incursion into one space from another, usually distinct space.
Comment by JHoward on 1/7 @ 9:42 am #
Because, you know, child support is in the kids’ best interest like welfare checks are. A stellar decision couched in the usual myths, although the comment implying her intent was encouraging.
Actually, the State had money to make, sided with this trollop, and the rest is history.
No, no societal changes here, not by way of statist feminism, nosiree.
Who the hell cares? IOW, you want to lead with a bullshit non-starter, try dealing with it simply ain’t our concern. Prove it’s society’s concern, actard, to induce the whelping of hundreds of thousands or millions of dependents and to wreck natural responsibility. Do it.
Comment by Andrew on 1/8 @ 9:02 am #
Now JH, there’s no evidence that she’s a trollop.
She may simply be a psycho hose-beast.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 1/8 @ 10:02 am #
Use the space, andy.
Pingback by WebElf Blogroll News « The WebElf Report on 1/9 @ 6:19 pm #
[...] A JUDGE injects a modicum of sanity into a paternity case …. [...]