In the latest decision involving the liability of sperm donors, the New Mexico Court of Appeals says some sperm donors must pay child support. The case involves Kevin Zoernig who agreed to donate sperm for two children with Janna Mintz. Mintz is a lesbian who wanted a child with her partner in the mid 90s. It is one of a recent series of such decisions exploring the liability of both anonymous and non-anonymous sperm donors.
Mintz says that she demanded child support after Zoernig asked for visitation and parental privileges. He must now pay $250 a month under a new agreement.
The key to the ruling was that Zoernig was not an anonymous sperm donor. For the full story, click here.
This is only the latest case involving sperm donors, click here and here and here and here.
12 thoughts on “New Mexico Sperm Donor Found Liable for Child Support”
Maybe you are, maybe not, zakimar. You won’t know until and unless a dispute arises in your family that you just can’t settle on your own.
These people have an unusual, up until now, legally untested, arrangement to be sure. The children are a reality and the mutual investment of time, energy, emotion is a reality as well.
Hopefully, we can all learn something valid and lasting.
Relationships are important.
This ‘family’ has a genuine bond together
– perhaps something that was in many ways undefined before.
Fortunately, they had a place to go to get it straightened out.
And so they did! Yehhhhhh!
That is precisely why I am choosing to raise my children WITHOUT the requirement of an Appeals Court.
I guess it’s a matter of perception, then.
This man sounds like a consistently present, available, supportive ‘father’. I doubt she could have chosen a better donor.
Anonymously, these kids would not have their father ‘figuring’ in their lives while growing up.
Their mother is a ‘homo’ (emphasis added) who also wanted to have children. In the US, a lesbian, or any other ‘fruit loop’, for that matter, can do that.
It’s not our business, zakimar. You wouldn’t like it if strangers stuck their noses in your private family affairs, I’m sure.
My problem wasn’t with these people being homos, my concern was that added to the fact that all parties made a poor choice in potential parents. I feel that who you decide to mingle your genes with, is the most important decision any person can ever make. So if these fruit loops make such a happy family, this matter wouldn’t have required a decision from the New Mexico Court of Appeals.
RC – zakimar is just ‘on it’.
He would benefit from getting ‘off it’,
every so often – greatly!
Did you ever watch Jeff Dunham the ventriloquist? He has these dummy characters with ‘personalties’ – the whole routine. And at the end of the evening he packs them all up in a suitcase and heads ‘out’
– until the next gig.
zakimar would benefit greatly from reading the article. The issue seems to have come down to a matter of Zoerning wanting more visitation rights and Mintz granting them under condition of child support payments. Both parties agreed to the new deal and everyone, including the children, is happy.
That a mind can get so twisted that it would extrapolate that the children “have no chance for a normal life” or having their lives relagated to joining the military (yuck!) or a career at McDonald’s or Wal-Mart (double yuck!) indicates a profound need for professional help or at least getting back on one’s meds.
I don’t feel sorry for either “parent”, both are obviously losers. My sympathy is for the children who have no chance for a normal life and if they grow up straight will probably have to join the military. If they turn out like their “parents”, it’ll have to be McDonald’s or Wal-Mart.
I will read what you said and if I got the facts wrong I would like to apologize. I have to tell you though that ethically I still find this behavior repulsive. If you have the money to give to a child, you should give it. If you don’t have it, and can’t give it, it’s another story. A child deserves the best from the adults around them, financially, emotionally and intellectually. The only time money should not be given is when it is not there to give.
Mr. Zoernig did not sue for parental rights and he did not need to be taken to court to support his kids. The court agreed with him that the WAS supporting his kids (it was not a not a “new agreement”, but one entered into voluntarily in 2001). The opinion notes that he is current, that the mother’s income is substantial, and that there was no need on the part of the children for increased support: http://coa.nmcourts.gov/documents/opinions/July08.htm
I agree with you. And I also wonder why anyone should have to be taken to court to help with the financial costs in raising a child in this circumstance. What any ugly way to treat a child.
This guy wants parental privileges and doesn’t want to pay child support? The real issue here however, is that a “donor” should not have any parental rights unless stipulated in a contract before the “donation”.
Comments are closed.