March 14, 2005
COMIN' DOWN IN THREE PART HARMONY:
Man claiming stolen sperm ordered to double child support (CHRIS HACK, March 14, 2005, Chicago Sun-Times)
A Cook County family court judge has ordered Chicago doctor Richard Phillips to double his child support payments, and he'll soon start building a relationship with a 5-year-old daughter he's never met.Posted by Orrin Judd at March 14, 2005 10:48 AMBut he won't give up a pending civil lawsuit accusing his old flame, Olympia Fields doctor Sharon Irons, of a "calculated, profound personal betrayal" after a brief tryst in 1999. Phillips insists the pair never had intercourse and that Irons "harvested" his sperm after oral sex to impregnate herself.
Phillips won a victory in the case last month when an appeals court ruled -- if he can actually prove he was the victim of a sperm scheme -- Irons can be held liable for inflicting emotional damages.
Irons insists she got pregnant "the old-fashioned way"...
IIRC, tennis champ Boris Becker was also the unfortunate victim of a paternity suit that 'resulted' from a Lewinsky given in a broom closet or some such.
Sooner or later, simply leaving your hair, saliva, or other DNA sources will be sufficient to produce a child with your DNA, given the determination to clone humans and the determination of some to do evil. And you may not have had any contact *whatsoever* with the woman, never mind a Lewinsky, further still the 'old-fashioned' joining together that results in pregnancy!
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at March 14, 2005 12:30 PMIts not a defense. First nobody is going to believe you. Second if you do not want to become a parent, you can prevent accidents by the simple expedient of keeping your pants zipped.
Bruce. I wouldn't worry about the science fiction future. If he had never been with the woman while he was not fully dressed, this would not be in the papers.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at March 14, 2005 2:16 PMMy wife is a family law attorney in Illinois. It in no way matters how you father a child. The court is interested only in the best interests of the child and that means the father provides support.
Posted by: Rick T. at March 14, 2005 3:32 PMRick T -
Yes, you're right; the interests of the child are paramount.
Robert -
I expect the scenario I outlined will occur in my lifetime. It would only be worth it to attach paternity to extremely wealthy/notorious/famous men, so I am at least relieved of that worry.
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at March 14, 2005 4:55 PMBruce:
"I expect the scenario I outlined will occur in my lifetime."
Yes but the scenario that really occured in the Sun Times article, is as old a story as there is.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at March 14, 2005 6:18 PMIs a 4th dog ever needed?
Posted by: ghostcat at March 14, 2005 8:28 PM"Is a 4th dog ever needed?"
Only if you are trying to feed more than 12 people.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at March 14, 2005 11:37 PMHenny Youngman got nothin' on us.
Posted by: ghostcat at March 15, 2005 12:12 AMCat: Now do you want to explain the question.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at March 15, 2005 2:23 AMRobert (if you're still checking this thread)-
OJ's typically clever headline (sub-tagline, whatever) alludes to "Just An Old-Fashion Love Song" by Three Dog Night. A "three dog night" is one so cold you need triple canines at the foot of the bed for warmth. I was wondering if the current cold spell in NH might call for a 4th mutt.
"Irons insists she got pregnant "the old-fashioned way"..."
Posted by: oj at March 16, 2005 7:41 PM