Hey, there! Log in / Register
Man ordered to pay child support for twins conceived through IVF after he had separated from his wife
By adamg on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 12:11pm
The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled today a Nigerian immigrant will have to pay child support for two children conceived with donor sperm and eggs even though his then separated wife had signed an agreement not to go after him for support payments.
The court said state law, which focuses on "intent to create a child," trumps Chukwudera B. Okoli's contention he never gave "consent to become a parent."
Okoli and his wife Blessing had used IVF unsuccessfully since 1992 to become parents. After they separated, the court's ruling says, Blessing asked him to consent to have his sperm, stored at a Boston facility, used for another attempt. Chukwudera said he agreed only because she threatened to withdraw her support for his application to become a citizen.
The court said Chukwudera's complaint failed to substantiate his claim of duress - the court noted he eventually won citizenship even after Blessing did withdraw her support - and so it had to consider only what the legislature intended with a law on artificial insemination:
Given a choice between consent to create a child and consent to become a parent, we conclude that consent to create a child is the standard intended by the Legislature in G.L. c. 46, § 4B. We conclude that this is the approach most closely supported by the decisions of our courts, the logic of cases from other jurisdictions with analogous statutes, the specific statutory language, and the public policy underlying the statute, which looks principally to the interests of the child. In this case, the judge found that the husband signed the consent forms knowing the anticipated result of the procedure was the conception of a child. The statutory requirement of consent under G.L. c. 46, § 4B, was therefore met.
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Sperm donor?
There's a law that needs some review. What makes this any different than if Mr. Okoli was simply an anonymous sperm donor? Especially because Ms. Okoli threatened him?
The difference is the whole point
In fact, based on the background in the ruling, it appears that neither the eggs nor the sperm for this successful implantation came from the couple. They had tried rounds of IVT with their own eggs and sperm and it did not work so this was an attempt via donor eggs and sperm that he consented to according to the ruling. That should help you see how it's different from him being an anonymous donor.
The system requires the "parents" (be they separated/divorced, homosexuals, or any other scenario) to give consent to the creation of the child. This sets up a very simple legal threshold to determine if the child will be supported by its parents. The law considers that the state is a protector of the child's needs and by consenting you can't then back out later and say "good luck, kid, you're on your own!" to a 6 month old. And you also can't say "sure, I consent, but I'm never going to pay, agreed?"...because the law says if you're the parent, then you agree to support the kid.
Now, did he consent? The duress argument was found to be unsupported. It appears the father could have used a lawyer (or a better one) because he basically gave the court no evidence of the duress (like the status of his citizenship application or even what difference the loss of her support for citizenship might have made). Even still, she did remove her support...and he got his citizenship anyways. The court found even if it had been briefed properly on the duress, it's hard to see how it was duress since his citizenship application stood up without her anyways. And the fraud arguments were based on things lacking any support either.
So, the court finds that he consented to be these kids' parent. That means he can't ignore or opt out of his obligations.
Turn the case on its head. Would you want men to be able to get women to sign a form that says "You agree that this sex is meaningless, therefore any kids that may result are not my problem."? Basically, the state makes it very simple. Once you agree to an act of procreation (whether it's consensual sex or IVT), you are liable for any kids' well-being that is the result.
So when someone donates sperm, they're not implicitly
consenting to the creation of a child from that sperm? Whence do such donors derive their exemption from child support obligations? Hopefully not from a mere contract, as such things clearly carry no water here.
Depends on the jurisdiction
For example, in the UK, the sperm donor is unable to be forced to identify or pay child support because the law has created a special class for anonymous sperm donors compared to the rest of the options for consenting conception.
In MA, that is not the case and there was a court case a few years ago where a mother wanted to obtain child support from an anonymous donor here in Boston. The end result was that she lost on appeal because the court case was between her and the sperm bank which meant that critical decisions on whether he was a party to the case could not easily be resolved...since they relied on whether the kids were even his (to be tested for paternity is usually something decided as a result of a case...not a prerequisite). As a result, the court found that it couldn't necessarily compel him to become a party to the case...and yet since the mother couldn't identify him in any way, she had no way to make him party to a case by suing him directly. She was caught in a catch-22 because of the anonymizing middle-man of the sperm bank being involved (less about any contracts signed).
So, at least here in MA, they are exempted as a practicality of the paperwork and legal rights by being anonymous, essentially. It really is something best legislated one way or the other however...we just have never done so.
This reminds me...
Of a news story wherein a nurse got herself pregnant through oral sex, and sued the doctor she was hooking up with for child support. I wish I could find the news story again, it was among the funniest and saddest things on the internet.
https://www.google.com/search
https://www.google.com/search?as_q=oral+sex+pregna...
I've heard the story ...
Lots of times.
Unfortunately, I have never seen the actual refrence to an actual news story or anything verifying anything like that.
If you think about it, it sounds possible, yet there are a lot of reasons why such an event would be difficult in reality to pull off.
File under: apocryphal
The case in question
Phillips v. Irons, 354 Ill. App. 3d 1164
Not what it sounds like
http://thestudentlawyer.com/2011/09/12/third-party...
Either you cited the wrong case, or there are vastly different elements to this story than to the apocrypha stated above.
First of all, they were both doctors. Secondly, they were married at the time the sperm was collected.
More importantly, HE SUED HER for emotional distress - she didn't sue him for child support.
file under: boring - still
file under: boring - still
So let me get this straight
"Blessing" decides she wants to be a single parent, purposefully gets pregnant completely of her own free will and choice via an artificial, intentional procedure.
She extorts him for access to reproductive material (forced consent is not consent.)
She violates an agreement that specifically bars her from seeking child support, probably because the guy's lawyer foresaw this happening.
Then she has the audacity to go for child support? And the courts support this? If you can't support a child on your own, DON'T PURPOSEFULLY CONCEIVE THE CHILD. Women have MANY choices for controlling whether they get pregnant these days - many moreso than men who have only two options - surgical castration or condoms. Women have the power to prevent pregnancy up to a few days later with the morning-after pill. They have numerous abortion options after fertilization. So why are women, who have the most control, automatically getting into men's paychecks?
I'm all for gender equality, but this is NOT. This is as bad as the women who rape men getting child support. Or how about when you have oral sex with a condom, and the woman inseminates herself with the sperm - bam, child support. How about all the statutory rape cases where suddenly a boy who couldn't give consent to have sex magically IS able to give consent to parenthood? How about women who lie about their birth control usage for the purpose of getting pregnant...bam, child support. 15 and raped by a woman twice your age? BAM, child support..when you're still not the age of consent!
This entitlement to men's paychecks needs to END.
Whoa there...
You had me until you extrapolated that Blessing = ALL women. Let's stop that nonsense right there.
This is a really terrifying example of the letter of the law being woefully distorted from the intent of the law. And it sucks. But, that's it. Your argument goes south pretty quickly when the misogyny kicks in.
What Anon is missing here ...
Access to contraceptives for women is under attack.
"Surgical castration or condoms?" LOL, Anon! Where did you learn biology and sex education? Men have some great ways to protect themselves from participating in a pregnancy - and should use them all the time if they don't intend to become a father. This is known as "acting like a grown up". One is abstinence, another is condoms, and a third is vasectomy. A vasectomy is *not* castration.
I'm sorry if you don't like condoms, but that isn't a wise dislike for a man who isn't chosing to have kids, even though they are much easier to get than morning after pills. They also protect you from diseases, too - because we all know that if a man or woman is a liar, they will probably lie about diseases, too.
Not all diseases
They are better than nothing though.
Misogyny?!
I bet you don't shave your armpits or legs.
...
The Herald comments section is that way --->
I guess contract law doesn't mean anything in MA nymore
First the will up in Ipswich, now this.
Payne's will
That case isn't settled yet. The judge could easily rule on the side of Payne's will being sacrosanct.
Also, contracts can't let you out of your legal responsibilities. I can't legally recover money from you for a contract that says "If the police ask you where I was today, then you agree to lie to the police" if you tell the police the truth and I'm damaged by that. The law says if you consent to being a parent, then the kid gets your support. You don't get to agree with the other parent to the first part but not the second.
Chukwudera ?
?
overturn it
from reading that article i would have to say he shouldnt be forced into paying for the kids based on her threats, whether or not he can prove she did threaten to not help him basically stay and become an american, she was just using him for the sperm,, so in reality he can have the case overturned as just a sperm donar, as if she went to a sperm donar bank, and dropped as legal guardian and sign off all rights to fatherhood for those 2 kids...