Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Superior Court holds sperm donor responsible for child support for children of separated lesbian couple

Are you kidding me?

Posted on Pennlive.com:

In what legal experts are calling a precedent, a three-judge panel of the state Superior Court has ruled that a York County man must pay child support for two children of a lesbian couple for whom he acted as a sperm donor.

Quoting an earlier court decision, Senior Judge John T.K. Kelly wrote that "stepparents who have held a child out as their own are liable for support; biological parents who have exercised the rights appurtenant to that status can be no less bound."

Overturning a Dauphin Common Pleas judge's ruling in the case, Senior Judge John T.K. Kelly Jr. cited a 2004 ruling by Dauphin Common Pleas Judge Scott A. Evans
Jodilynn Jacob and Jennifer L. Shultz-Jacob were a couple who lived in York County and who had undergone a commitment ceremony in Pittsburgh and a civil union in Vermont.
The couple cared for four children, two of whom were adopted nephews of Jacob's and the other two who she had with Carl Frampton, a longtime friend of Shultz-Jacob's who had agreed to act as a sperm donor. Frampton is also named as an appellant in the case.

In February 2006 Jacob and Shultz-Jacob separated, with Jacob moving from York County to Dauphin County. The separation was followed by Shultz-Jacob asking a York County judge for full legal and physical custody of all four children.

Later, Jacob asked a Dauphin County judge for child support for two of the children from Shultz-Jacob, arguing that Frampton was "essentially a third parent" to two of the children. Frampton died from a stroke earlier this year.

Kelly noted in his opinion that Frampton had held himself out as a stepparent to the children by being present at the birth of one of the children, contributing "in excess of $13,000" over the last four years, buying them toys and having borrowed money to obtain a vehicle in which to transport the children.

"While these contributions have been voluntary, they evidence a settled intention to demonstrate parental involvement far beyond merely biological," wrote the judge.

For more on this story, see tomorrow's editions of The Patriot-News.

1 comments:

Anonymous said...

I would agree that this decision is troubling. Having had a chance to skim the Superior Court's opinion, though, I think that there is a pretty good argument that the court's conclusion is not really a departure from existing law. The problem really is, I think, that once we let the proverbial genie out of the bottle in the form of the unfettered use of advanced reproductive technologies and post-modern family arrangements, nutty results like this were bound to follow. My guess is that it wil only get messier as technology advances still further, and as those involved in ever more unorthodox relationships demand the imprimatur of "family."