Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Media Misses Mark in "Sperm Donor" Paternity Case

Just as I recently post on my Facebook page, Ari Ezra Waldman and others got it wrong in the recent paternity case between Karen B and Daniel H. As Daniele's attorney David Pisarra clears up the misconceptions in his article, Media Misses Mark on Story:

This case turned on one issue, whether or not she knew what she was doing when she signed a Voluntary Declaration of Paternity (VDP). The VDP is a simple, one-page form that is prepared by the hospital when a child is born to unmarried parents. It is written in language a sixth grader can understand. Primarily it is used to lock fathers down to paternity for child support. In California, if you don't contest the document within 60 days, it is considered a judgment for all purposes.

But evidently, if you are a woman, you can wait two years, all the while collecting child support from the presumed father, and then you can change your mind. You can claim that when you signed it, three days after giving birth, that you were too drugged and tired to know what you were signing. Not one woman I have asked about this believes she didn't know what she was doing three days after birth. Categorically their response is, "she knew."

As this case so clearly illustrates, anyone can sue anyone for anything in this country. It doesn't it make it accurate or true. There was a time when the media checked their facts and attempted to get the story straight. It looks like this time was not one of them.

Comments?

6 comments:

Surrogacy said...

After reading your blog, I thought your articles is great! I liked your articles and Photographs. Your blog is very useful to me. Here you are providing such a greatful information.

Thanks for sharing.......

Anonymous said...

David Pisarra was a poor loser who attempts to malign the mother in this case with lies and misinforamtion. Stephanie, you do a disservice to the turth and justice to re-post his vengeful diatribe. Furthermore, Pisarra violoates the state bar of ethics by revealing the name of the woman in a confidential family law case and then makes untrue claims, such as that the women accepted child support, which she did not. Also, the mother allowed the sperm donor to visit every time he asked for it and offered more, but he said he did not want more. She offered to go with him to Brazil with her child so the child could meet the sperm donor's family, but the sperm donor insisted he did not want a "chaperone." He was always a sperm donor but he was treated with kindness and respect by the mother. It was the sperm donor who turned the situation ugly with a custody lawsuit which stole $60K from the future of the child -- wasted in legal fees. The sperm donor's attorney then goes on a rampage to try to ruin the mother's reputation, and by giving audience to him you are helping him in his unethical and hateful mission. The woman generously gave the sperm donor visitation even after this awful ordeal, which she did not have to do. The judge had ruled in a 13-page decision that the sperm donor was not the father because he had signed a sperm donor agreement giving away all rights. The sperm donor tried to use the birth certificate against the mother though it was NEVER intended that he have parental rights, even if his name appeared on the birth certificate, and this was spelled out in the sperm donor contract. This was a simple case of a man non honoring his agreement and then trying to use all the kindness and generosity the mother had exhibited toward him against her. Please don't be a party to more hurt and harm to a mother who just wanted to do the best by her child by giving the child the knowledge of who was the biological father. This man, met on Craigslist for the purpose of donating sperm, was never meant to co-parent the child.

Anonymous said...

Furthermore, your comment that "anyone can sue" makes it sound lliek the mother initiated this lawsuit. The sperm donor in fact sued her for custody. Also, the case did not hinge on the VDP or birth certificate as David Pisarra would like you to think. The judge relied heavily upon the agreement the mother and the sperm donor wrote up together, which the sperm donor showed to a family laywer before he signed and the lawyer told him, in writing, "she has all the rights to the baby." He knew this yet went into the arrangment with the apparent intention of being a full father no matter what he promised and signed. The judge threw out the VDP for good reason -- because even if the mother had signed it without the influence of drugs it still would not have been meant to trump the written agreement between her and the sperm donor, and also the VDP is not intended to be used in such a way. It is meant to be applied in cases where there are competing fathers claiming paternity. It is put in place to make sure dads pay up when it comes to child support. Pisarra attempted to misuse this document to prove his case, which the judge found was without merit.

Anonymous said...

Lastly, the "child support" the sperm donor contributed was a total of $1,300 in the lifetime of the child, which amounts to approximatley what the mother spends in one month for child care. This money was given as a gift to the child in accordance with the sperm donor agreement which provided that the donor was not requested or required to, but if he wished to, he could make contributions to the child. He was to play an "unlce" or "Godparent" role in the child's life and visit on occassion, but he had no child support obligation. That was spelled out in the agreement. By the way, the donor has not given a penny to the child since he filed the lawsuit against the mother, which certainly makes it seem that any money he gave was actually a tactic to help his case for custody and not truly for the benefit of the child.

Anonymous said...

P.S. Did you read Pisarra's articdle that mentions you? He criticises you saying you and lawyers like you are to blame for surrogacy, which he feels is wrong. Read for yourself below. Read some of his other posts. He is not a man who likes women, in fact I would say he is a classic misogynist. He even defends Mel Gibon's behavior in the wake of Gibson's horrific telephone messages to his ex.


I don’t see this happening any time soon, or ever frankly. The judicial system views pre-conception rights as separate from those of post-conception, and this not likely to change. But as we see more and more people avail themselves of surrogacy, using lawyers like Stephanie Caballero, we can be sure that there will be more conflicts, unless people use highly skilled attorneys to prepare their agreements.

Stephanie Caballero said...

I believe that one of the purposes of a blog is to create a dialog and in that spirit I have posted the comments that anonymous left regarding this post and article.

I posted this article because I felt that all the articles previously published did not show both sides, and as we know, there is always two sides to every story, as this commentator has shown.

Bottom line, when creating your family using a third-party honesty and consistency as well as good legal advice and legal agreements to clearly define the relationships are essential to preventing disputes down the road.

It's not a guarantee that the parties won't find themselves in court, but it does help.

There was an error in this gadget