A world class bodybuilder from Texas met a woman and had sexual relations with her. Several years later, after asked, the man volunteered to provide semen for his former fling’s in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedure.
When the woman had children she later targeted the body builder for child support due to his paternity. The dispute left the man asking himself whether donating sperm was wise. Even after the court’s ruling in his favor the bodybuilder gave his answer: “Never donate sperm.”
When the pro athlete met the woman who later sued him for child support, they were involved but not married. Things didn’t last between them, but that didn’t stop the woman from seeing that her ex could be a good candidate for creating children. She solicited the bodybuilder for a sperm donation and became pregnant with triplets through IVF.
The bodybuilder was married and moved on in Texas, when in spring of 2008 he was sued for child support and ordered to start paying. He described being blindsided by the lawsuit. His shock, however, didn’t deter him from fighting against the child support order. The family law court judge in California ruled that the donor owed child support. That ruling was appealed, and the appeals court overturned it.
California state statutes (which are similar to those in Texas family law) allow women to accept sperm donations without the donor having the right to come back with a paternity lawsuit. The logic behind the ultimate decision in favor of the donor gets rid of the double standard that would have been at play if the donor were not protected by the same stipulation.
Source: The Associated Press, “California court says Texas sperm donor owes no child support,” April 12, 2012