Ferguson v. Mckiernan

940 A.2d 1236 (2007)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

F and M agreed that F would furnish his sperm in an arrangement that, by design, would feature all the hallmarks of an anonymous sperm donation: it would be carried out in a clinical setting; F's role in the conception would remain confidential; and neither would F seek visitation nor would M demand from him any support, financial or otherwise. During M's pregnancy, F and M remained friends, visited regularly, and spoke frequently on the phone, although as noted their relationship was no longer sexual or romantic in character. M went into labor prematurely. 'In a panic,' as the trial court characterized it, M contacted F and asked him to attend the birth. Believing that she had no one else to turn to, F joined M in the hospital. Even during the birth on August 25, 1994, D maintained his anonymity regarding his biological role in the pregnancy, an effort M affirmatively supported when she named H as the father on the twins' birth certificates, and reinforced by the fact that F neither was asked, nor offered, to contribute to the costs associated with M's delivery of the twins. After the twins were born, F saw M and the boys on a few occasions in the hospital. Approximately two years after the births, F spent an afternoon with M and the twins while visiting his parents in Harrisburg. F never provided the children with financial support or gifts, nor did he assume any parental identity. F had no further contact with either M or the children until May 1999 when M randomly obtained F phone number and subsequently filed for child support. M had occasion to contact F's office for business purposes. She discovered F's name and number as a consequence of that interaction and proceeded to call him seeking support, claiming that welfare officials had pressured her to do so. In the years after M gave birth to the twins and before M sought child support, F moved to Pittsburgh, met his future wife, married her, and had a child with her. At no time prior to conception, during M's pregnancy, or after the birth of the resultant twins did either party behave inconsistently with this agreement, until approximately five years after the twins' birth, when M filed a motion seeking child support from F. The trial court found that the best interests of the twins rendered the agreement unenforceable as contrary to public policy. The court imposed on F an ongoing support obligation of $1384 per month effective retroactively to January 1, 2001, with a corresponding arrear of $ 66,033.66 due immediately upon issuance of the order. F appealed. A panel of the Superior Court affirmed the trial court's ruling in a unanimous opinion that echoed the trial court's ruling. F appealed.