.jpg)
Sperm donor or father - Is it always black and white?
Categories: Pregnancy & Birth, Divorce & Custody, Money & Work
When Janna Mintz wanted to become a mother, she turned to her friend Kevin Zoernig for help. Zoernig agreed to donate his sperm, and through artificial insemination, a boy was born shortly after. Zoernig found himself caught up in fatherhood and the two soon worked out a visitation schedule. It was all going so well, that he agreed to be a sperm donor for Mintz a second time, and a daughter was born.
But when Zoernig wanted a voice in their children's upbringing, including where Mintz could live, things started to go wrong. Eventually, Mintz took Zoernig to court for child support, and after an eight year battle, the court ruled in Mintz's favor.
Good Morning America would have you believe that this case will be the death of sperm donations everywhere. I don't believe that to be true at all, and clearly this is a unique situation where both parties didn't feel like they could stick to the original agreement. Zoernig cared deeply for the children he helped create -- a feeling he possibly didn't anticipate. They called them dad, and he had visitation with them several days a week. But yet, when Mintz wanted him to contribute financially to their upbringing, conflict arose.
Do you think that the original contract, which named Zoernig as a sperm donor only and excluded him from any financial responsibility should have stuck? Or do you think that if he's going to play a dad, he needs to step up and be one by financially supporting his kids?
But when Zoernig wanted a voice in their children's upbringing, including where Mintz could live, things started to go wrong. Eventually, Mintz took Zoernig to court for child support, and after an eight year battle, the court ruled in Mintz's favor.
Good Morning America would have you believe that this case will be the death of sperm donations everywhere. I don't believe that to be true at all, and clearly this is a unique situation where both parties didn't feel like they could stick to the original agreement. Zoernig cared deeply for the children he helped create -- a feeling he possibly didn't anticipate. They called them dad, and he had visitation with them several days a week. But yet, when Mintz wanted him to contribute financially to their upbringing, conflict arose.
Do you think that the original contract, which named Zoernig as a sperm donor only and excluded him from any financial responsibility should have stuck? Or do you think that if he's going to play a dad, he needs to step up and be one by financially supporting his kids?
Recent Posts
- Reviews: What's New This Week (11/06/2009)
- Jim Carrey's "A Christmas Carol" Creepy in a Good Way (11/06/2009)
- Twitter Follow Friday on ParentDish! (11/06/2009)
- Babies Pick Up Mothers' Accents In The Womb (11/06/2009)
- Recall: Adventure Playsets (11/06/2009)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
DPearson 8-07-2008 @ 2:24PM
The contract was made in good faith, and should have been supported by the courts. The case hasn't been made that he acted in violation of the contract, so why shouldn't he be protected by it. At the same time, he shouldn't have had any legal say in the location, care or upbringing of the children, as those were rights he gave up under the contract as well.
Reply
Messed Up Mama 8-07-2008 @ 2:50PM
I think that if he wants to be a Dad he should step up and BE a Dad. Which includes paying child support. If he had remained a donor only, not visiting the children as their Father, then I believe that the original agreement should have been upheld.
Reply
Jenni 8-07-2008 @ 5:08PM
He was a sperm donor. They were friends. These two facts should not have crossed in this case.
Take the fact that he was a sperm donor; his opinion doesn't matter.
However, when he is a friend who is taking a parental role (being called dad and having visitations with them) he is now a father. Take out the fact that he was a sperm donor. If she had gotten someone else to donate the sperm and he decided to take on this fatherly role, the argument stands up. He would be as responsible as he made himself by becoming so involved that he has visitation.
Reply
bremarie03 8-10-2008 @ 12:25AM
Seems like he wants to have his cake and eat it too. If he was a sperm donor only, then he wouldn't be behaving like he was the kids' father and wanting input on their upbringing. If wants to be a father, then that includes financial support.
Reply
rebecca Biernesser 8-10-2008 @ 2:47AM
Seems to me that the contact became null and void when he stared acting like the Father figure, had visitation, etc. Like another poster stated, he wanted his cake and eat it too.
If he wanted to start helping with the rules and guidelines of the kids upbring and where they could and couldn't live, then he should be helping with the finanical raising of the kids. He quit being just a "sperm donor" at that point when he started doing all that.
Reply
luz 8-10-2008 @ 4:28AM
I agree that this holding is limited to these facts. However let's make sure that we get the facts straight. Mintz sued Zoernig in Family Court in 2000. She could have sued him in contract if he was really in breach (by demanding decision-making power). Instead, SHE looked to the courts to establish parentage. Under the radar of all the reporting is the fact that he has been paying support to her since 2001. Before that, as Mintz said on GMA, they spent weekends with him. So the real question is why'd she sue? And why did she try to have the support raised after she remarried? The Court of Appeals opinion notes her substantial income and trusts benefiting the children. What's the real story here? It can't just be about an involved, supportive dad...how boring. BTW the court didn't order him to pay (as he was current), but reversed the lower court's tripling of his obligation...Which begs the question: why is she now going on national television to flaunt her "victory" and how much has that opportunity cost?
Reply
daphne aberle 10-09-2008 @ 1:16PM
simple:
if he wants to assert full rights as a father... then, he should pony up and share responsibilities as well. otherwise his motives are selfish towards the children. obviously when the original agreement was made it was for a more loose relationship; if he wants to firm up the engagement, then mom can assert to change the game as well. given his new expectations of rights, she is within fairness to also have new expectations in return to exert her rights.
Reply