Can sperm donors be charged child support?
I can’t categorically answer that question, nor can any lawyer or judge, because it depends on the facts of the case and which legal jurisdiction you’re in. But several recent cases have raised red flags for potential donors. In other words, the answer isn’t always “no.”
Some courts have held sperm donors liable for child support, although that’s more likely to happen in cases where the donor has an involvement with the child (see article here).
In this week’s case du jour, Anthony of North Carolina agreed to provide sperm for Ericka of Virginia, who wanted to raise a child with her partner. After the child was born, the partnership broke up, and Ericka moved to California with the child, where she went on welfare. Going on welfare automatically triggers a child support referral.
Back in the 1960s, the federal government began requiring states to collect child support for kids on welfare, in an effort to reduce welfare costs. The basic idea is that parents, not taxpayers, should support dependent children whenever possible. This later was expanded to include all kids, whether on welfare or not, and all states have federally-funded child support agencies. The details of support liability, however, are set by state law, and vary among states.
Now back to Anthony and Ericka. With Anthony in North Carolina, and the kid on welfare in California, what happens next is California asks North Carolina to colelct child support from Anthony, and the latter state’s child support agency proceeds to do so. It “went to court to get [Anthony] to pay child support to [Ericka], stating he was the child’s father.” But Anthony’s lawyer argued that “under Virginia law, a sperm donor is not a conceived child’s parent.” That, however, isn’t the rule in North Carolina; and the North Carolina judge applied North Carolina law to a North Carolina resident, and ruled that Anthony had to pay child support.
A North Carolina appeals court threw that ruling out, saying Virginia law, not North Carolina law, governs the situation. That’s because the sperm donation and child’s birth occurred in Virginia, and the mother and child lived in Virginia. Read story here.
This is what’s called a “choice of law” problem. In a system of 50 states with their own legislatures, courts, and legal rules, conflicts are bound to arise. And when legal disputes cross state lines, and their laws conflict, judges have to decide which rules to apply. This is different from which state’s courts have jurisdiction (“choice of venue”), or whether federal law supersedes state law (“federal supremacy”). And as Anthony’s and Ericka’s case illustrates, it’s not as simple as saying, “If you live in North Carolina, and you’re being sued in a North Carolina court, then North Carolina’s laws govern.”
What’s obvious here is that California can’t apply its laws to a resident of North Carolina who’s never lived in California. But people move around a lot and it’s not unusual for parents and their children to live in different states. There’s a well-oiled system in place for states to ask each other to collect child support from their respective residents.
Usually this is pretty straightforward; if the parents got divorced in Texas, and then the father moved to Pennsylvania and the mother moved to Alabama, a Pennsylvania court enforces the Texas court order and sends the money to Alabama. But complications can arise when there’s no court order and judges have to figure out which state’s laws apply. In this case, the mother was in California, the father was in North Carolina, but Virginia’s laws applied.
Judges and lawyers get paid to figure this stuff out.
“Choice of law” problems aren’t limited to child support cases. They arise in nearly all areas of law. For example, if two travelers from, say, Oregon and Idaho get in a traffic accident in Washington, and there are issues of fault and damages, probably Washington law will determine those issues because that’s where the accident happened.
Some things are pretty obvious. If a California resident visiting Seattle robs someone, he’ll end up in a Washington jail. If an Australian citizen is arrested in Indonesia for drug trafficking, he’ll be shot by an Indonesian firing squad, and the fact Australia doesn’t have a death penalty is of no help to him. But at least Indonesia, as a humane gesture, will hand over his bullet-riddled dead body to the relatives in Australia.
This is something to keep in mind if you travel. When you go to a foreign country, you’re subject to their laws. So don’t try exercising your free speech rights in Russia or Saudia Arabia, because you don’t have any there. If you drive in New York City, don’t make a right turn on red, because that’s illegal there — know the traffic laws where you’re driving, because they aren’t the same everywhere.
So now you know a little bit about “choice of law,” right? Just enough to know that if you live in North Carolina, and California is suing you to support a child born in Virginia, you’d better hire a North Carolina lawyer who knows Virginia law.
Actually there is another adult involved who should be considered to receive the bill. Erika’s former partner. It is not clear if they were married. If they had been and the partner male the state would have gone after the partner, even if the man wasn’t the biological father.
Why do you assume Ericka’s (not “Erika’s”) partner is male? The story doesn’t say that. That’s an unknown fact in this case.