Does anyone know of any cases of Reproductive Coercion where the male was duped into being a father? If so, how did the court rule?

TIE_pilot · 2010-03-15T01:38:29+00:00

In the US, or at least in Missouri, it has been deemed that once the semen leaves the penis the man has no more ownership over it. Like in my case, I slept with a girl, and used a condom. After I got out of the bathroom (where I threw it away) she went in to 'clean up'.

A few months later she tells me she's pregnant with my child. Couldn't be mine. I used a condom, as I always do when I tap the crazy. After the kid was born I demanded a blood test. And yes it was mine.

At the child support hearing it was revealed that she wanted a baby no matter what so when she went into the bathroom, she inserted and inverted the condom. I had spent my life savings on the lawyer I hired and he argued that her doing that was a form of theft and even a form of rape. But the judge ruled that since there was precidence for it, I did not own my sperm after they leave my body, but I still am financially responsible for the child.

I've spent another $3300 trying to get at least partial custody, but now I can't afford any more legal fees. Her father (he owns a Ford dealership) has been paying her legal fees and has far more money that I'd know what to do with. Working two jobs I pull in about $3k a month. Half of which is taken out for child support for a kid that I'm not allowed within 50 yards of.

I've been saving all my reciepts, legal documents, letters and I'm even writing a journal that I keep in a fireproof lockbox so when my son reaches 18 and wonders where I've been, I can show him.

kanuk876 · 2010-03-15T01:58:44+00:00

This is what you're looking for, including this gem:

Another case reaching the same result on facts that are, quite frankly, bizarre is S.F. v. Alabama ex rel. T.M., 695 So. 2d 1186 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). In that case, the father testified that he went to a party at the mother's house. He had been drinking for several hours before he arrived, and had in fact gotten sick on the way to her house. At the mother's house, the father continued to drink, and the last think he remembered was getting sick again and his brother putting him in bed at the mother's house. The next morning, the father awoke in that same bed with only his shirt on. The father did not remember having sex with the mother, and he did not knowingly and purposely have sex with her.

The father's brother testified as to the same facts. A friend of both the mother testified as to the same facts, plus the fact that about two months after the party, the mother said she had sex with the father while he was "passed out" and that it saved her a trip to the sperm bank. Another friend testified that the mother had said she had sex with the father, "and he wasn't even aware of it."

A physician testified that it is possible for a man who is intoxicated to the point of losing consciousness may nevertheless have an erection and ejaculate; they are not conscious, voluntary activities.

The father argued that because he did not have sex voluntarily with the mother, he was not liable for child support. The court disposed of the argument, comparing it to the arguments made in L. Pamela P. v. Frank S.: the wrongful conduct of the mother in causing conception did not obviate the father's support obligation. The court also compared the father's argument to the arguments put forth in the statutory rape cases, concluding that the "rape" of the father could not preclude a finding of liability for support.

The dissent would have held the father liable for child support, but would have deviated from the presumptive child support guidelines because "the mother's sexual conduct was reprehensible and is a misdemeanor. Because of the mother's inappropriate conduct, the trial court should have deviated from the guidelines." 695 So. 2d at 1191.

The lesson one can take from Frisard is simple: a man is strictly liable for where his sperm ends up when he voluntarily engages in a sexual act. The lesson one must take from S.F. v. T.M., however, is somewhat troubling: a man is strictly liable for where his sperm ends up even when he unknowingly and involuntarily engages in a sexual act. Instead of comparing the father's predicament with the mother's predicament in Division of Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Esther M. v. Mary L., No. 94-33812 (1994.DE.19031), where a mother was relieved of her child support obligation because she was raped, the court imposed a child support obligation because of the fact of paternity. This can only be termed a strict liability theory of sperm.

I think this article deserves a repost.

Ambush · 2010-03-14T23:09:28+00:00

In Australia, the rights of the child take precedence over the rights of either parent. If you are determined to be the biological parent of a child, then you are financially responsible regardless of the circumstances of conception.

Here is a very interesting article regarding a child conceived during a "business transaction" between a man and a prostitute.

strangersadvice · 2010-03-15T00:02:28+00:00

I was a sabotage baby. Except it was my mother who got duped. They're still married and now it's just a funny story to tell at cocktail parties.

Title	Does anyone know of any cases of Reproductive Coercion where the male was duped into being a father? If so, how did the court rule?
Author	strangersadvice
Upvotes	23
Comments	29
Date	March 14, 2010 10:26 PM UTC (16 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/bdcqn/does_anyone_know_of_any_cases_of_reproductive/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/does-anyone-know-of-any-cases-of-reproductive.1050346 https://theredarchive.com/post/1050346

Comments