Court: Man Can Sue Over Surprise Pregnancy

from JoeUser Forums
Court: Man Can Sue Over Surprise Pregnancy

CHICAGO (AP) - An appeals court said a man can press a claim for emotional distress after learning a former lover had used his sperm to have a baby. But he can't claim theft, the ruling said, because the sperm were hers to keep.
The ruling Wednesday by the Illinois Appellate Court sends Dr. Richard O. Phillips' distress case back to trial court.
Phillips accuses Dr. Sharon Irons of a "calculated, profound personal betrayal" after their affair six years ago, saying she secretly kept semen after they had oral sex, then used it to get pregnant.
He said he didn't find out about the child for nearly two years, when Irons filed a paternity lawsuit. DNA tests confirmed Phillips was the father, the court papers state.
Phillips was ordered to pay about $800 a month in child support, said Irons' attorney, Enrico Mirabelli.
Phillips sued Irons, claiming he has had trouble sleeping and eating and has been haunted by "feelings of being trapped in a nightmare," court papers state.
Irons responded that her alleged actions weren't "truly extreme and outrageous" and that Phillips' pain wasn't bad enough to merit a lawsuit. The circuit court agreed and dismissed Phillips' lawsuit in 2003.
But the higher court ruled that, if Phillips' story is true, Irons "deceitfully engaged in sexual acts, which no reasonable person would expect could result in pregnancy, to use plaintiff's sperm in an unorthodox, unanticipated manner yielding extreme consequences."
The judges backed the lower court decision to dismiss the fraud and theft claims, agreeing with Irons that she didn't steal the sperm.


... more at linked article


What a wild case!

This one has to be one of the craziest parental rights and obligations case I've ever heard of. Oh what a crazy world we live in.
politics
2,138 views 4 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
This sounds like a hoax. How did she keep the sperm alive?
That aside, this sounds like a crazy woman. That she could expect child support for someone with whom she had oral sex with is amazing. What's next, women scraping at the wet spot so they can have a kid?
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
This has to be a joke, because it's pretty damn funny (in a wierd way)
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Craig Ferguson mentioned the case in the opening monologue of the late late show.

I'm pretty certain this is not a hoax, but how exactly it worked, I'm not sure I want to know the details of.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
My wife and I were discussing (arguing a bit) over this case last nite.

I liken this to contract law.

Man and woman engage in act. If either party clearly stated in advance that desired outcome was no child, and other side agreed to same, then it seems that someone -- in this case "woman" -- clearly broke the original contract.

If woman had indicated at the time the contract was engaged in that she wanted to concieve a child, then man would have had opportunity to not enter into the contract.

Given the details as described in the article, it seems clear that the guy had no reasonable expectation that the raw materials he provided were going to be used to create a finished product. He believed he properly disposed of those materials in a manner that would not result in any further use of the materials. Unfortunately, woman seemed to have had other plans -- including seeking support for the product which was created.

I can imagine a case like this being discussed for years in Harvard law. Too bad Professor Kingsfield isn't around to teach it to his favorite student, Mr. Hart.