We talked about the case before, here. Patric, you may remember, was not a typical sperm donor, but he was not the mother's husband. That put him in an ambiguous intersection of 2 California statutes.
ADDED: Here's the PDF of the opinion.
Our holding that a sperm donor is not precluded from establishing presumed parentage does not mean that a mother who conceives through assisted reproduction and allows the sperm donor to have some kind of relationship with the child necessarily loses her right to be the sole parent....
In this case, Jason was denied the opportunity to present evidence to show that he is Gus’s presumed father...
Posts
10 comments:
Why I prefer the 20th century to the 21st. I'd even take the 19th.
For better or worse, the consequences of technological change will need to be addressed. I suggest we begin the reconciliation process with the primary principles: natural order (i.e. fitness), individual dignity, and intrinsic value.
Sharpening a double-edged sword...
What a mess of an opinion. By the court's own reasoning the matter turns on the scope of the section 7611 presumptions -- but does not get around to presenting the actual content of that section for 10 or eleven pages. Which I guess is no surprise since the enumerated circumstances do not include Jason's.
This is an example of outcome-based jurisprudence; the court came the outcome it wanted by misapplying the in pari materia rule of construction. It then applies, not the actual language of section 7611 - but an over broad statement of its purpose instead. It seems to this reader that the clear meaning of the specific terms of section 7613 should control over the more general (and inapplicable) presumptions of 7611. Jason appears to have just changed his mind after the child was conceived or born.
This muddled opinion will only create confusion and destroy any predictability of outcome. It seems like every time a legislature tries to create a fairly bright line rule the courts undermine it.
What's the difference between a sperm donor, and a one-night-stand?
One of the kid's great grandfathers is none other than Reginald Van Gleason III!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4VUCZRasLs
A sexually active couple want to have a child, but they don't want the father to have any legal rights or responsibilities for the child. They can do this by going through a sperm bank, while continuing to have protected sex. Why make them pay to go through a sperm bank? Why not just a written agreement? Or, make the default "no rights, no responsibility" and have some sort of legal arrangement where the father has rights and responsibilities. Maybe all this "marriage".
Was he being held liable for child support?
Every sperm needs a lawyer. For a sperm it is a winner take all world.
What about an individual's right to kinship on the paternal side. I want "your baby", but I don't want you.
Selfish adults.
Thank you to all the adults who may be separated/divorced but do not deny their children half of who they are.
Post a Comment