Advertisement
Mr. Hendrix donated his genetic material to attorney Samantha Harrington,who conceived their twins who are now three years-old. The case explores vastuncharted territory in the law where there have been inconsistent rulings onthe rights and obligations of sperm donors from one court to another in thisnation. "This case will have significant ramifications on the future offathers' rights and reproductive technology. When we reach a point in societywhen a father has been reduced to nothing more than a genetic vending machine,then we have reached a point of hopelessness for our children. We should beencouraging fathers to be constant figures in their children's lives insteadof legally baring their fundamental human right to parent," states Leving, "wemust not forget that any man's loss of his children diminishes mankind," headded.
Advertisement
Mr. Hendrix initially petitioned the Shawnee County District Court inKansas to afford him parental rights and provide for his son and daughterfinancially. Ms. Harrington countered by filing a paternity action. Mr.Hendrix testified that he and the mother, Ms. Harrington, had an oralagreement to co-parent their children together. Both of those cases weredismissed by a district court judge, prompting Hendrix to appeal the decisionin the Kansas Supreme Court. The Kansas Supreme Court decided, 4-2, that asperm donor must have a written agreement with the mother in order to exerciseany parental rights. That decision annihilated Daryl's inherent rights as afather and treads dangerously on redefining fatherhood.
On Monday, March 17, 2008, attorneys for Hendrix appealed to the UnitedStates Supreme Court, asking for the ruling of the Kansas Supreme Court to beoverturned. This appeal will clearly be a landmark case that will determinethe future of reproductive technology, alternative child conception, andadvancement of fathers' rights. "Mr. Hendrix's case deserves to be heard inour nation's highest court and their decision can guide the future ofreproductive technology. We want to make sure that Mr. Hendrix's children knowthat they have a father who loves them, who will support them emotionally andfinancially. We want the children to know that they have a father who willspend time with them and help to raise them and that they did not just springout of a test tube," states Andrey Filipowicz, co-counsel with Jeffery M.Leving.
In a similar case in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruledthat the verbal agreement between the sperm donor and the mother was "valid onits face" and that 'Biological parents cannot waive the interests of a child-- a third party -- who has an independent "right" to support from each one ofthem.' The Court ordered the sperm donor to pay over $1500 a month in childsupport, even though he was not named as the father on the birth certificateof the children. A British Court had a similar finding in the case of a manwho donated his sperm to a lesbian couple.
Attorney Jeffery M. Leving states, "The legal system has not kept currentwith science and reproduction technology and its effects on the changingAmerican family. The U.S. Supreme court now has the opportunity to correctthis flaw in our judicial system and protect an important relationship betweena loving father and his children." Leving is a nationally renowned litigator,advocate or fathers' rights and founder of dadsrights.com.
For more information on the case and all media inquiries, please contactCarrie Klepzig at 312-807-3990, ext. 255 or 312-730-5864 (mobi
