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?

New Jersey Rules for Gestational Carrier

If you follow my tweets (@surrogacylawyer) you know about the Superior Court judge in New Jersey's ruling that the gestational carrier who bore twins for her brother is now their legal mother.

As a follow-up, there is great piece today in the Huffington Post by Jacob M. Appel about this ruling and how New Jersey missed an opportunity to not only move away from the Baby M case and differentiate between traditional and gestational surrogacy, but also to allow women to make the decision if surrogacy is right for them. As Mr Appel says so eloquently, no one argues that men are being degraded or demeaned if they decided to become sperm donors. Why are surrogates any different?

And, if men were able to become surrogates, they would be applauded as entrepreneurs. I agree with Mr. Appel that women are perfectly able to make the decision for themselves and should be allowed to do so in every state, not just California, among others.

What say you?

So, What About Michael Jackson's Kids?

I thought since this issue was all over the web in the last couple of weeks that most people understood the issues involved, but just last week a neighbor came up to me and asked me that very question: So, what about Michael Jackson's kids?. I knew where he was going so I replied, just as I did for Tamera H. Bennett at her blog, Bennett Law Office, that in California, it doesn't matter if Michael used a sperm donor an egg donor and a surrogate for all of his children. Intent controls in California and as long as he had the intent to parent, and the third parties did not, he is the father. Of course, he would also have a judgment of parentage, signed and certified by the court, but my neighbor was satisfied with my response so he moved on to his next question.

What about Rowe?

Now, that's entirely different, as she is the legal mother of his two older children, Prince and Paris. Her name is on the birth certificate and remains so, so under CA law, she could have visitation and custody rights to them. The hearing is scheduled for July 20 and I will be following the case closely.

I do hope the judge who hears the matter takes into consideration the fact that the youngest child, Blanket, has never been separated from his two older siblings and to tear them apart when they have lost their father and the only home they have known, would, in my opinion, be very detrimental.

What do you think?

Children of Sperm and Egg Donors Seek Information

An article by Cheryl Miller posted today at www.reason.com raised questions on how the information should be handled, by whom and how much. In "Who's Your Daddy?" Cheryl discusses the plight of one young woman who has a rare stomach disorder. She is in her 20s when records were either destroyed or not kept at all. All she knows is that the sperm donor is of Scandinavian descent. She doesn't want to meet him, but she would desperately like medical information.

Today, most agencies and IVF centers that have their own in-house donor program keep detailed medical and biographical information on their donors. However, the industry is pressing for a national donor registry. I am a member of the American Bar Association's section on Reproduction and the Law and I can tell you that at the last meeting this issue was discussed. It is not going to go away, but I do believe that rather than have the government control and run it, those in the industry should create and control the registry, as the article proposed, with a board of directors as well as guidelines.

If not, we could have a situation like the UK, where couples wait two years, or longer, for a sperm or egg donor because donors cannot receive compensation and cannot be anonymous. One UK woman was able to work with a donor from the United States, but only on apeal from the government and only because her husband has ties to the United States.

I encourage you to read the article as it is in-depth, well-researched and proposes some solutions to this issue.