Man Receives Oral Sex, Ordered to Pay Child Support

Rocket River · Mar 25, 2011

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2011/02/27/man-receives-oral-sex-ordered-to-pay-child-support/

I dunno if this has been discuss but . . it is disgusting to me on many levels.
In reproductive rights. . . men have seemingly no rights whatsoever.
All men have is . . PAY PAY PAY . . shut up and PAY!

Rocket River

Man Receives Oral Sex, Ordered to Pay Child Support
2011-02-27
By Sarah Berent

So, a man sued his ex-girlfriend for fraud and emotional distress after she secured a court order demanding he pay child support for their two year-old daughter. The reason? This woman saved his semen after performing oral sex and secretly impregnated herself. No, this is not a new plotline of absurd television show One Tree Hill but actual events that formed the basis of a 2005 legal battle in Illinois.

Although this case is six years old and garnered some media attention at the time, we recently came across it on Professor Jonathan Turley’s blog and couldn’t resist an opportunity to discuss it.

But before we get to the legal issues presented in this case, namely how a man can be ordered to support a child when his sperm was used without his knowledge, the soap opera-esque facts surrounding this situation deserve to be explained in greater detail. Trust us.

It all began when Dr. Sharon Irons (an internist) and Dr. Richard Phillips (a family practitioner) began dating in January 1999. Dr. Irons led Dr. Phillips to believe she was divorced and within a few months, they became engaged. According to Dr. Phillips, the two discussed the possibility of having children and he made clear his intentions: that he did not want children until after they were married and any pre-marital sex would require the use of condoms. Throughout the course of their relationship, they engaged in only three instances of oral sex: they never went “all the way.”

On one of these intimate occasions, Dr. Irons did something rather remarkable: After fellating Dr. Phillips, she held his semen in her mouth (where it was suitable to sustain viability) and then inseminated herself with it. She did not inform Dr. Phillips of her actions.

Dr. Irons also never informed her boyfriend that she was, in fact, still married. Five months into their relationship, she confessed to Dr. Phillips that she was not divorced and he decided to end their relationship.

Fast-forward to November 2000, when, surprise! Dr. Irons slapped her surely stunned ex-boyfriend with court papers to establish paternity and child support for “their” daughter.

To quote Justice Scalia in 1989’s Michael H. majority opinion (a paternity case also dealing with convoluted family relations, although not as entertaining as here), “The facts of the case are, we must hope, extraordinary.”

Extraordinary they are, indeed. And while Dr. Irons’ act of stashing semen away definitely made for attention-grabbing headlines, the media focused more on the sexy- slash-crazy angle and less on the actual law. We decided to explore the legal claims advanced by the parties and the reasoning behind Dr. Phillips seemingly unjust obligation to support a child whose existence was beyond the realm of expectation.

In his suit, Dr. Phillips alleged the unauthorized use of his semen constituted actionable claims of fraudulent misconception, conversion and intentional infliction of emotional distress. A lower court dismissed these grievances, and he appealed.

The Appellate Court of Illinois found that a fraudulent misconception claim was only available for “economic” wrongs, and so dismissed this claim. (Dr. Phillips was suing for physical and emotional harms he alleged that he’d suffered as a result of Dr. Irons’ actions).

The court next turned its attention to the conversion claim. Conversion is “an unauthorized act that deprives a person of his property permanently or for an indefinite period of time.” The arguments on both sides of the conversion claim are worth noting.

Dr. Phillips argued that his ex-fiancé took his property, his sperm, without his permission to conceive a child. Dr. Irons countered by asserting the sperm was a gift: Dr. Phillips delivered it to her with the intention that she keep it because if he really wanted to retain his semen, he would have put on a condom and “kept its contents”.

The court agreed with Dr. Irons: Dr. Phillips cannot claim he was deprived of his property because he did not intend that the semen be returned.

Finally, the court considered Dr. Phillips’ claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). To bring an IIED claim, the plaintiff must prove that 1) the conduct was “truly extreme and outrageous”; 2) the defendant had to intend, or be aware that, her conduct would cause severe emotional distress; and 3) the conduct did actually cause severe emotional distress.

The court stated that Dr. Irons’ conduct in deceitfully engaging in oral sex to procure the sperm necessary to impregnate herself would, according to any reasonable person, be considered “extreme and outrageous” conduct (Ed. Note: well, duh). Considering the nature of Dr. Irons’ actions and Dr. Phillips’ clear expression of not wanting a child out of wedlock, the second element of IIED was met. For the actual distress, Dr. Phillips claimed a whole slew of anguish including nausea, loss of appetite, interference with his profession, insomnia and more, which was enough to keep the case alive.

The final decision or current status of the case is unavailable which means that the case is still being litigated or the parties settled.

Regardless, what confused us most about the case was that the child support obligation on behalf of Dr. Phillips was not contested. How could a father be forced to pay child support if the conception of the child was beyond (way, way beyond) a reasonable person’s expectation? The court itself stated that the mother’s actions were “extreme and outrageous”, after all.

The answer? Public policy. In a note for the Drake University Law Review, A Man’s Right to Choose: Searching for Remedies in the Face of Unplanned Fatherhood, author Adrienne D. Gross explained the general policy in law of looking out for a child’s best interest in both child support and paternity statutes. Undisputedly, a child’s best interest is to have the financial support of both biological parents, regardless of their marital status, and according to Ms. Gross, “the child should not suffer from a parent’s indiscretion concerning the events leading to conception.”

Basically, if you father a child and the paternity is established, you are on the hook for child support payments. (A father can sue for IIED, if the mother’s actions in the conception meet the requisite level of crazy, but there is no guarantee he will win.)

A 1983 paternity case sheds some light on how New York courts balance the best interest of the child with a father’s dealing with an unwanted pregnancy and child support obligations in unorthodox situations. The father, established by paternity tests, had been assured that the mother was on birth control. He alleged fraudulent misrepresentation and argued that he should not be responsible for child support. The court disagreed, and held that fraud and deceit have no bearing on determining child support obligations.

The court explained that the “primary purpose” of New York’s paternity statutes “is to ensure that adequate provision will be made for the child’s needs” and does not allow for the “consideration of the ‘fault’ or wrongful conduct of one of the parents in causing the child’s conception.” If the father really did not want to have a child, despite the woman’s assurance that she was on birth control, he should have used a condom during sex.

Decisions like this seem to signal, rather unfairly, we think, that a man can be held legally and financially responsible for any unilateral actions his partner takes to conceive a child, no matter how absurd or unforeseeable those actions are.

And Dr. Phillips seems to have been treated particularly unfairly. He didn’t even have intercourse which is the one and only act that, outside of fertility clinics, can foster a reasonable expectation of conceiving a child. In fact, without intercourse (and outside of fertility clinics) creating a life is, simply, impossible. There was no way, short of checking what his partner did with his semen after oral sex (do you know anyone who does that?) that he could have known that he could possibly father a child.

But the courts don’t care about how the egg was actually fertilized: because at the end of the day, there’s a child now involved. And the concern, from a legal perspective, is whether or not the child will be adequately cared for, regardless of its conception.

Lesson to be learned: If you don’t want any babies, use protection – and make sure your partner isn’t hiding a test tube under the pillow.
Click to expand...

dharocks · Mar 25, 2011

But the courts don’t care about how the egg was actually fertilized: because at the end of the day, there’s a child now involved. And the concern, from a legal perspective, is whether or not the child will be adequately cared for, regardless of its conception
Click to expand...

Child support has never been about what's fair.

Rocket River · Mar 25, 2011

dharocks said: ↑

Child support has never been about what's fair.
Click to expand...

Thing is . .. if you used the same arguments against Abortion [not meeting your natural obligations to protect a child in the womb] . . people go ape***** crazy.

A man don't want a child and does everything possible to not have one . . . he has little choice but to PAY PAY PAY
Woman doesn't want a child on a whim . . .we give her all kinds of ways out! [Abortion, adoption <can just drop them off at the firehouse got cripes sake>]

Rocket River

Mr. Clutch · Mar 25, 2011

Impregnating herself like that should be a crime.

Xerobull · Mar 25, 2011

There should be a compromise here. Like on demand, unlimited lifetime BJs for the guy.

Steve_Francis_rules · Mar 25, 2011

Xerobull said: ↑

There should be a compromise here. Like on demand, unlimited lifetime BJs for the guy.
Click to expand...

I don't think he would be able to afford all the child support payments.

xcrunner51 · Mar 25, 2011

Guy's worst nightmare ever? He's get the shaft when he literally didn't shaft her?

What a total b**** to ask for child support (thus giving away the charade) when she's already a doctor.

tamericus · Mar 25, 2011

b****es be crazy.

Bandwagoner · Mar 25, 2011

Rocket River said: ↑

A man don't want a child and does everything possible to not have one . . . he has little choice but to PAY PAY PAY
Click to expand...

He did everything possible to keep from having a baby?

Dei · Mar 25, 2011

IMO, they should let him win the fraud/theft claim and award him an amount equal to what he's expected to pay in child support. This way, he wins, b**** wins, and we still get to follow public policy.

jsonic6 · Mar 25, 2011

They doctors... She don't need no child support... Oh wait...

Rockets_4_life · Mar 25, 2011

Isn't this kind of like rape for a man. I mean she kinda of forced him to conceive, by inserting his semen into herself without his consent, kind of like having sex with the woman with out her consent aka "Rape".

But oh well, whats done is done, the guy was tricked into this situation. It isn't fair, but neither is life. I feel for the kid, she's gonna know that she was just a part of a ploy to trick her biological father into taking his money.... "Man, b****es be Tripping".. SMH

Steve_Francis_rules · Mar 25, 2011

CaseyH said: ↑

He did everything possible to keep from having a baby?
Click to expand...

He didn't do everything possible, but he certainly did everything that one could reasonably be expected to do to keep from having a baby (i.e., abstaining from intercourse).

da_juice · Mar 25, 2011

We can never seem to strike a balance in this country, we always go from one extreme to another. We went from people carelessly ****ing and ditching their kids, to basically making everyone who's had premarital sex pay child support.

v3.0 · Mar 25, 2011

The woman should just swallow her pride and make this case disappear.

mylilpony · Mar 25, 2011

i dont know why but im reminded of this clip

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2mWPtMGYdKA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Shroopy2 · Mar 26, 2011

dharocks said: ↑

Child support has never been about what's fair.
Click to expand...

WHO WINS out of
1) Hard working sincere dad who doesnt make any money but LOVES fatherhood.
2) Stay at home dad. Who really is underachiever who doesnt want to work. But he's around his child.
?

ANSWER: Neither. It hardly matters. All that matters is if the WOMAN is okay with the arrangement.

If hard working sincere father #1 doesnt agree to marry the woman when she wants, if he gives an indefinite answer she'll break things off and enact Man is Deadbeat Clause, make him pay child support, AND will cut short his visitation with his own kid to urge him to pay his Monthly Visitation Fee. And within 12 months will probably lure in another man to marry her.

Lazy stay at home dad #2 doesn't even care about kids. But his wife is okay with the arrangement since she makes a decent living.

The main difference between the two is #1's woman cares about what SHE can get (more what she COULDNT secure for herself, but accepted compensation) #2's wife is actually is thinking about the kid loving that daddy is around.

Shroopy2 · Mar 26, 2011

Rocket River said: ↑

Thing is . .. if you used the same arguments against Abortion [not meeting your natural obligations to protect a child in the womb] . . people go ape***** crazy.

A man don't want a child and does everything possible to not have one . . . he has little choice but to PAY PAY PAY
Woman doesn't want a child on a whim . . .we give her all kinds of ways out! [Abortion, adoption <can just drop them off at the firehouse got cripes sake>]

Rocket River
Click to expand...

Its all about weaving the influence of The Power of the Womb. The Womb decides what remains and what is blocked, and people must adhere. Penis has lost its privileges.

Whats surprising to me is how easy a guy can get put in Deadbeat Zone and how DEEP and non-recoverable that label is. I know some good guys who get snickered and sneered at by the community cuz somehow the woman got the support of the people behind her, darn near slandering the guy's name to do it. And its surprising how little people try to contest the negative label.

Woman + Baby = Always the "right" thing in mind. Even infanticide can get justified sometimes.

Even more is women are having FAR LESS kids than ever, have C-sections, drugs, far less dangers, pain and stress in childbearing than in decades past. But its almost like we're treating Woman + Baby as a special endangered species, and not treating it as women having influential control over matters. I said "Power" intentionally, cuz in the end it is a power struggle and less to do with equality whether anyone admits to it or not.

Oski2005 · Mar 26, 2011

Whether he wanted the kid or not, it is here and it is his. He ought to be suing for custody.

QdoubleA · Mar 26, 2011

Oski2005 said: ↑

Whether he wanted the kid or not, it is here and it is his. He ought to be suing for custody.
Click to expand...

No, he shouldn't. I see what you mean, get the kid away from that psycho blow job ninja, but I highly doubt after this he's ready/wants to take care of a kid 24/7.

Forums

Man Receives Oral Sex, Ordered to Pay Child Support

Rocket River Member

dharocks Member

Rocket River Member

Mr. Clutch Member

Xerobull ...and I'm all out of bubblegum
Supporting Member

Steve_Francis_rules Member

xcrunner51 Member

tamericus Member

Bandwagoner Member

Dei Member

jsonic6 Member

Rockets_4_life Member

Steve_Francis_rules Member

da_juice Member

v3.0 Member

mylilpony Member

Shroopy2 Member

Shroopy2 Member

Oski2005 Member

QdoubleA Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Man Receives Oral Sex, Ordered to Pay Child Support

Rocket River Member

dharocks Member

Rocket River Member

Mr. Clutch Member

Xerobull ...and I'm all out of bubblegum Supporting Member

Steve_Francis_rules Member

xcrunner51 Member

tamericus Member

Bandwagoner Member

Dei Member

jsonic6 Member

Rockets_4_life Member

Steve_Francis_rules Member

da_juice Member

v3.0 Member

mylilpony Member

Shroopy2 Member

Shroopy2 Member

Oski2005 Member

QdoubleA Member

Share This Page

Xerobull ...and I'm all out of bubblegum
Supporting Member