Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Poesia [ ] T


Recommended Posts


The above cases have demonstrated that either intent to have sexual intercourse or an

intent to impregnate a woman will result in child support liability. Can a man escape this

liability if he has neither the intent to have sexual intercourse nor the intent to make a

baby? The answer is no. So long as a man engages in an intimate sexual act resulting in

his depositing of his sperm with a woman who then becomes pregnant, he is liable for child support.

In State of Louisiana v. Frisard, 694 So. 2d 1032 (La. Ct. App. 1997), the mother and father

of the child for whom support was sought met in a hospital while the father was visiting

an ill relative. The mother was a nurse's aid who has access to a variety of medical equipment.

The mother offered to perform oral sex on the father, and, in the words of the father,

"as ... any male would, I did not refuse[.]" 694 So. 2d at 1035. The mother had the father

wear a condom. The mother then removed the condom for the father, and unknown to the

father, she inseminated herself with the father's sperm using a syringe.


The Louisiana court, noting that the probability of paternity was 99.9994%, held the father's

testimony that he "had some sort of sexual contact with the plaintiff around the time frame

of alleged conception, although he denied that they had sexual intercourse" was sufficient

to prove paternity. 694 So. 2d at 1036. This fact of paternity obliges a father to support

his child. 694 So. 2d at 1034. In essence, because the father intentionally engaged in a

sexual act resulting in his deposit of sperm with the mother, he is liable for child support.


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.


Where will the strict liability theory of sperm lead? Consider the following fact situation that

is currently before the trial court in Kansas: Two couples go to the local lover's lane in one

car, one couple in the front seat, and one couple in the back seat. They discover that among

them all, they have only one condom. The couple in the back seat engage in intercourse

using the condom, and then give the condom to the couple in the front seat. The gentleman

in the front seat, not wanting to spread disease, turns the condom inside out. The couple

in the front seat then engage in intercourse. One month later, the lady in the front seat

discovers she is pregnant. After the birth of the child, DNA tests reveal that the father is

the gentleman from the back seat. Clearly, the gentleman in the front seat engaged in an

intimate sexual act with the mother of the child. Yet, it is the sperm from the gentleman

in the back seat who impregnated the mother. Who is on the hook for child support?


Should the court impose a "joint enterprise" theory of liability?


Or is the gentleman in the back seat "strictly liable" because it was his sperm?




Whole Article.





Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hot sauce in the dick hole will take care that rape thing.


It sounds so strange to hear a man getting raped.


All my exes 'raped' then.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the title, i had NO idea what this was going to be about.


There's bound to be a "your mom's face" joke somewhere around here...



That shit is wack. rubber up

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
this was being dicussed on howard stern today. howard remarked that whenever he's done he flushes his jimmy hat down the toilet


thats a good way to clog pipes

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

they were talking about this on Leykis today. Mentioned something about a Boston Legal episode as well.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now