Is He Responsible?
Interesting paternity question raised in today’s NY Post (req required). Unable to conceive a child after five years of marriage, a couple went to the NYU fertility clinic. The husband provided a sperm sample in July 2002. Soon after, the marriage went south, and the husband left the wife. The wife went ahead anyway and conceived a daughter, to the alleged surprise of the husband, who says he had no knowledge that she was still trying to get pregnant and that she forged his name on the necessary papers. A court has ruled that the husband must pay child support, which raises a dilemma.
While the husband is the baby’s biological father, the baby was conceived without his knowledge or permission, assuming his claims are true. Should he be liable for child support? I don’t have the answer to this question. It’s another example of how technological advances are outpacing societal mores and norms. Science creates the ability to do something, yet morally, there’s disagreement and uncertainty over what the right course of action is. It played out most notably in the Terri Schiavo case and is on the front burner with stem cells. Science is black and white; philosophy and morality are gray.
In this case, based on statements from the father, I would say he should pay child support unless he can prove that NYU was negligent and should support his daughter through college. "I wanted to be there," he said. "I wanted to be in the delivery room. I wanted to raise that child. I want to be there for that child." Well, if that is true, then he can and should be there for his daughter by paying support.
Comments
Jon, you're much more big-hearted than I am. I'm not sure how the law comes down in regards to stored sperm in a sperm bank, but I'd think the sperm was the husbands property (came from his body)and that the wife 'stole' said property. NYU might find themselves in hot water if a smart lawyer could sway a jury to find them as a dealer in stolen property.
I also don't see this as a problem concerning science advancing past morality...I see it as something Family(?)or whichever court must deal with when the lawyers are dividing up the couples property. What would have happened if a husband stole eggs
that the wife may have saved for future 'harvesting'? I'm pretty sure a woman would consider her eggs her property, and I'm sure she'd raise hell in the courts if such a 'theft' took place. Although it's somewhat similar to the Terry Schiavo case, I'd hate to see that case brought up again.
Posted by: Randy | July 25, 2005 04:11 PM
He doesn't owe her a thing. But he should have the right to sue for custody of the child.
Posted by: Kathy K | August 5, 2005 10:15 PM