> 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...
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...