According to the Seattle Post-Intellligencer, Washington state has a statute protecting sperm donors from child support claims. Despite that, the paper reports, not surprisingly, Supreme Court: Man must pay child support for in vitro children.
This case is just another illustration of how a court may not apply a statute according to its literal terms in a paper vacuum. Although the man in this case was a sperm donor, the facts demonstrate that he was also much more. The children here were conceived out of a long term affair and the man had very much played the part of the children’s father.
The court evidently felt that this man was not whom the legistlature intended to protect with the statute. And, therefore, didn’t protect him with the statute.