mgraham333 Posted February 24, 2005 Report Posted February 24, 2005 Sperm: The 'gift' that keeps on giving Court dismisses man's theft claim against lover who kept semen The Associated Press Updated: 2:39 p.m. ET Feb. 24, 2005CHICAGO - An appeals court said a man can press a claim for emotional distress after learning a former lover had used his sperm to have a baby. But he can’t claim theft, the ruling said, because the sperm were hers to keep. The ruling Wednesday by the Illinois Appellate Court sends Dr. Richard O. Phillips’ distress case back to trial court. Phillips accuses Dr. Sharon Irons of a “calculated, profound personal betrayal” after their affair six years ago, saying she secretly kept semen after they had oral sex, then used it to get pregnant. He said he didn’t find out about the child for nearly two years, when Irons filed a paternity lawsuit. DNA tests confirmed Phillips was the father, the court papers state. Phillips was ordered to pay about $800 a month in child support, said Irons’ attorney, Enrico Mirabelli. 'Trapped in a nightmare' Phillips sued Irons, claiming he has had trouble sleeping and eating and has been haunted by “feelings of being trapped in a nightmare,” court papers state. Irons responded that her alleged actions weren’t “truly extreme and outrageous” and that Phillips’ pain wasn’t bad enough to merit a lawsuit. The circuit court agreed and dismissed Phillips’ lawsuit in 2003. But the higher court ruled that, if Phillips’ story is true, Irons “deceitfully engaged in sexual acts, which no reasonable person would expect could result in pregnancy, to use plaintiff’s sperm in an unorthodox, unanticipated manner yielding extreme consequences.” The judges backed the lower court decision to dismiss the fraud and theft claims, agreeing with Irons that she didn’t steal the sperm. “She asserts that when plaintiff 'delivered' his sperm, it was a gift — an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee,” the decision said. “There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request.” Phillips is representing himself in the case. He could not be reached for comment Thursday. “There’s a 5-year-old child here,” Mirabelli said. “Imagine how a child feels when your father says he feels emotionally damaged by your birth.” Source: MSNBC Quote
RDK Posted February 24, 2005 Report Posted February 24, 2005 Funny and sad all at the same time. She's got a lot of nerve demanding child support. Still, the courts will generally rule on what's in the "best interests of the child." Quote
Rooster_Ties Posted February 24, 2005 Report Posted February 24, 2005 (edited) Wow, that really blows. Edited February 25, 2005 by Rooster_Ties Quote
AllenLowe Posted February 24, 2005 Report Posted February 24, 2005 that's like the old joke - women says: "I'll never get pregnant; I can't stand the taste of the stuff." Quote
JSngry Posted February 24, 2005 Report Posted February 24, 2005 So what, she kept the semen in her mouth and then put it where, and then did what when to impregnate herself? Can semen survive such transport over such time? Quote
RDK Posted February 25, 2005 Report Posted February 25, 2005 JSngry said: So what, she kept the semen in her mouth and then put it where, and then did what when to impregnate herself? Can semen survive such transport over such time? Take it from me - er, - it can survive an hour in a cup on its way to the doctor's office. I've got two little ones to prove it... Seriously, though, I'll bet they were having "safe sex" and she neglected to "toss the evidence." Quote
mgraham333 Posted February 25, 2005 Author Report Posted February 25, 2005 I'm almost afraid too.... but I'll keep checking FindLaw.com for Illinois Appellate court documents that may include additional facts. Quote
tonym Posted February 25, 2005 Report Posted February 25, 2005 couw said: Man with the Golden Arm said: You beat me to it. Quote
Man with the Golden Arm Posted February 25, 2005 Report Posted February 25, 2005 but didja clik? Quote
RDK Posted February 25, 2005 Report Posted February 25, 2005 tonym said: You beat me to it. So did she apparently... Quote
Rooster_Ties Posted February 25, 2005 Report Posted February 25, 2005 (edited) An amazing quote from the article... the lower court decision said: “She asserts that when the plaintiff 'delivered' his sperm, it was a gift — an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee,” the decision said. “There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request.” Sure is quite quite a mouthful too, so to speak. THE QUOTE, THE QUOTE!!! -- is quite a mouthful. Edited February 25, 2005 by Rooster_Ties Quote
Jazzmoose Posted February 25, 2005 Report Posted February 25, 2005 Man with the Golden Arm said: but didja clik? Ah. Now I see... Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.