According to the opinion for the court by Judge Michael E. Vigil, the mother came to know the donor through her same-sex partner, and the three became friends. Mother and her partner wanted to have children together, and tried for some years to persuade their friend to donate sperm for them, with the understanding that he would be a male role model for the child but would not have any legal or financial obligation. After resisting for several years, the donor finally agreed and donated sperm, leading to the birth of a child. The insemination was accomplished at home without the participation of a physician. Shortly after the birth of the child, the donor, mother and her partner executed a written agreement embodying their understanding. The donor established a relationship with the child.Mother and her partner separated, but mother wanted to have another child, and the donor agreed to donate sperm for a new insemination under the same terms, although there was no written agreement governing the second child. Again, insemination was accomplished at home without a doctor’s participation. The second child was born, and again the donor sustained a relationship, now with both children, as a male parental figure. Three years after the birth of the younger child, mother demanded that donor provide child support and, when he balked, filed a paternity action in court seeking a support order. Donor agreed to a stipulated amount, which was approved by the court, and the donor has faithfully made the payments. But then three years later, mother demanded an increase. (In the meantime, donor had married and had three children with his wife). Donor again balked and this time the case went to a hearing, which focused on the donor’s income and led to an order substantially increasing his monthly payments. He appealed. ...The first ruling is clearly the more significant, addressing a question of first impression on the enforceability of the agreement under which the donor had agreed to contribute his semen to the project of mother’s pregnancies. The court found that under the agreement could have been enforceable under New Mexico ’s adoption of the Uniform Parentage Act, but the failure of the parties to involve a doctor in the insemination process when there was a "known donor" took these conceptions outside the jurisdiction of the Act’s provision on donor insemination. What remained in the absence of the Act was the clear public policy of New Mexico that a biological father of a child has a legal obligation of support if he has held himself out as the child’s father, and any purported agreement to the contrary is unenforceable as a matter of public policy.
What a idiot, he agreed to be a part of the childs life and then he acts surprised that the mother is expecting child support... I am sorry my friend you should have got a kiss, cause you just got screwed!