This is pretty Kafka-esque... a man sleeps with a woman and has oral sex. She wants to have his child, so she saves the semen in her mouth and then secretly impregnates herself later. And afterward the baby is born, she secures a court order demanding he pay child support for their daughter. No, it's not the plot of some wild television court drama... it's real life.
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 - 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 had intercourse.
On one of these rare occasions, Dr. Irons perpetrated the act: 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.
Now, fast-forward to November 2000, when, Dr. Phillips gets served with court papers to establish paternity and child support for “their” daughter.
In his suit, Dr. Phillips – the man who was wronged - alleged that the unauthorized use of his semen constituted actionable claims of fraudulent misconception, conversion and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The State of Illinois found that a fraudulent misconception claim was only available for “economic” wrongs, and so dismissed this claim. 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. Attorneys for 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). The court found 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 and is still being litigated.
Regardless, what is most confusing 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 a reasonable person’s expectation? The court itself stated that the mother’s actions were “extreme and outrageous”, after all.
Well, the answer lies in 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.” These laws exist 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 either parent in causing the child’s conception. So basically, if you father a child and the paternity is established - and pretty much the circumstances don't matter, you are on the hook for child support payments.
This means that in our society, 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. This case of Dr. Phillips is especially poignant, because he didn't even have intercourse!
Lesson to be learned: it ain't necessarily a man's world, baby.
Source: Men's News Daily
