The
Pennsylvania Supreme Court is currently considering a
legal
appeal that could set wide-reaching precedent for both child
support policy and fertility clinics in the United States. As
one
report
states, "sperm donors who thought they were getting $50 for
their genetic material" -- a standard clinic fee -- and nothing
more may be in for a real shock.
The
case involves sperm donor Joel L. McKiernan and his lover Ivonne V.
Ferguson. Ten years ago, they entered a verbal contract that a
three-judge panel of the Superior Court said was valid "on its
face." In exchange for McKiernan donating sperm that led to the
birth of twins through in-vitro fertilization, Ferguson released him
from any obligation toward offspring. (IVF involves fertilizing a
woman’s eggs with sperm in a lab dish and, then, placing the
fertilized eggs back in the aspiring mother’s uterus.)
Ferguson
denies that an agreement to release McKiernan from responsibility
ever existed. Nevertheless, she named her then-husband as 'father' on
the birth certificate. Five years after the twins' birth and in the
wake of divorce, she filed against McKiernan for child support.
The
tangled personal circumstances of this situation constitute a legal
nightmare and the sort of 'hard' case that makes bad law. And bad law
is exactly what may result.
Both
the trial court and the Superior Court
called Ferguson's
actions "despicable" and expressed sympathy toward
McKiernan. Yet both found him liable to pay over $1500 a month in
child support plus arrearages to the now-divorced Ferguson.
(McKiernan has married, moved, and now has two other children he is
raising.)
Why
was McKiernan considered liable? The original contract was deemed
unenforceable due to "legal, equitable and moral principles."
The main abrogating principle: biological parents cannot waive the
interests of a child -- a third party -- who has an independent
'right' to support from each one of them.
It
does not matter that a third party did not exist when the contract
was forged and probably would have never existed without the
contract. Nor does it matter that the law generally presumes a
husband to be the father of any child born during the marriage. The
donation of sperm alone makes McKiernan financially liable for the
twins until they reach adulthood.
Or
it will if he loses the Supreme Court appeal, which weighs the extent
of a sperm donor's liability. Presumably, the ruling would equally
impact women who donate eggs for another's fertility treatment.
Pennsylvania,
like most states, has not adopted a version of the
Uniform
Parentage Act,
which protects sperm or egg donors from the
responsibilities of parenthood. Many -- if not most -- donors merely
presume that anonymity provides such protection.
In
the case of Ferguson v. McKiernan, the identity of the sperm donor
was always known. But the principle sustained by the courts could
apply with equal force to anonymous donors.
Ferguson's
attorney argued that her case did not threaten sperm banks or
fertility clinics because such facilities had not been involved.
McKiernan's attorney noted that the contract in question was
virtually identical to the ones they offer: namely, anonymity or
non-involvement in exchange for a donation. If a mother or father
cannot waive the 'right' of a potential child to support, then it is
not clear how a fertility clinic could do so in its capacity as a
broker-for-profit between the two 'parents'.
The
danger this precedent would pose was
expressed by
Arthur Caplan, a professor and medical ethicist at the University of
Pennsylvania. Caplan explained that anyone who donates genetic
material on the basis of anonymity "ought to understand that
their identity could be made known to any child that's produced and
they could be seen by the courts as the best place to go to make sure
the child has adequate financial support." The prospect become
more likely if one parent is requesting support from a government
agency.
Sperm
banks are legally required to maintain a record of each donor's
identity, often indefinitely.
Pennsylvania
Supreme Court judge Ronald D. Castille was
more blunt than
Caplan in his assessment of the risk that donations would cease.
"What man in their right mind would agree to that [sperm
donation] if we decide this case in your favor? Nobody." What
woman in her right mind would donate eggs?
Estimates
on infertility in the United States vary but the rate is often placed at
about 15 percent,
even without including gay and
lesbian couples. That is, 15 percent of couples fail to conceive
after one year of regular, unprotected intercourse. If miscarriages
are factored in, the rate increases.
The
use of donated sperm and eggs is a common solution to infertility.
According to Dr. Cappy Rothman of the California
Cryobank, an estimated 150,000 to 200,000
artificial inseminations occur every year in the U.S. And that is
only one form of infertility treatment.
If
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court finds the sperm-donor to be liable for
child support, then many forms of infertility treatment in most
states could become less available and more expensive. Those donors
who step forward will want to be compensated for their increased
legal risk.
The
courts have pitted a child's "best interests" against the
rights of biological parents to contract with each other on the terms
of reproduction. They may have also opened a Pandora's box of
complications involving a child's claim on a sperm donor's data and
wealth.
But
the worst consequence may be the denial of life itself to children
who are desperately wanted by infertile couples. The law should not
obstruct their chances of conceiving.
Copyright © 2005 Wendy McElroy.