Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
How does he prove he isn't? In this case not only is there a contract (which appears not to include the required stuff but that shouldn't all of a sudden make the donor a father, as I said the consequences far exceed the infraction, and I thought law was supposed to take that into account. You don't go to jail for life for littering.
There's also the way the parties were acting, so even if the contract runs afoul of the doctor requirement, the actions of all the parties demonstrates their intent; that the man be a donor, not an active participant.
I agree, to say this guy should bear the burden just because he happens to have similar genetic code is silly.
Things change with time, technology changes, social structures change, laws should adapt, their intent is what's important, not how new things happen to fit into existing wording.
Lol my first reply was going to be:
Why does the line have to be drawn there? If all it is is a letter printed by one of the people that they all signed, that's still a legally binding contract and should be considered so, shouldn't it? People make legal agreements all the time without involving lawyers.
Or at the very least the court should take that into consideration in determining the intent and thereby the guy's responsibilities.
|
Any one can make up or tear up a contract and claim anything, at the end of the day unless there is a third party involved (clinic, notary, lawyer) then the only proof here is he's the father.
Put it the other way, you get a girl pregnant and want to be part of your childs life, she then claims you were only the sperm donor and should have no part of the kids life.
On some level there has to be a baseline of conclusive proof, not he or she said, genetics are conclusive, as is a proper contract.