Hmm, apparently that's because his wife used the sperm he donated for artificial insemination - at the clinic they both ran. That feels problematic, if they didn't disclose where it was coming from.
That said, now that I'm thinking about this, I'm actually a little surprised that some famous individual hasn't decided to sell sperm at a premium with a contract releasing them from all liability. Given the obsession with fame a lot of the population seems to have, I'm sure there's a market. :/
"contract releasing them"
I am no lawyer, but this can be a grey area. Because the child born of such an arrangement can not consent to the terms of the contract - and some judges will interpret the court's responsibility to ensure both biological parents are supporting the child to mean the sperm donor (a.k.a: the father) does have responsibilities to the child.
Keep in mind you'll have more than 18 years from the time of donation until the child reaches adulthood. there are going to be unexpected anomalies within some legal jurisdictions in that time. It's inevitable.
Consider this case from california [1]. now ask: would an famous individual selling sperm at a premium establish presumption of parenthood?
maybe, maybe not.
but what is the likelyhood there'd be a lawsuit about it?
> and some judges will interpret the court's responsibility to ensure both biological parents are supporting the child to mean the sperm donor (a.k.a: the father) does have responsibilities to the child.
Then how do anonymous sperm donations work? Is it purely the anonymity that allows it? I would think a court could easily just order a sperm bank to openit's records to get child support then.
> Consider this case from california [1]. now ask: would an famous individual selling sperm at a premium establish presumption of parenthood?
That seems somewhat specific to the situation, where the sperm donation only happened that way because of a vasectomy, and the father was present at birth and acted as a parent. That's a far cry from contractual release of liability ahead of time.
That said, I do agree that future legal precedents can give cause, but likely to the same degree as any sperm donor. Then again, in reality someone famous (and likely wealthy) selling their own sperm is more likely to be a target, so interesting precedents might be set...
> Moulay Ismaïl is alleged to have fathered a total of 867 children, including 525 sons and 342 daughters by 1703, with his 700th child being born in 1721. It is estimated that he had 2,000 concubines.
