Can someone sign a legally binding contract without giving away their identity? I'm a known sperm donor, donating to women via Artificial insemination who want to have a child but want to know something about the donor or avoid the cost; I also advise many women I'm not donating for. Most women want to get a contract signed saying the donor will have no legal rights after birth. In the USA there is one state that respects these contracts a very small number that don't, and the vast majority have no clear precedence either way. I tell women they are generally better off having a contract just in case it may be respected and so they should probably get one even if it's actual enforceability is unknown; plus there are some indirect benefits of the contract even if it never is used in court. Many potential donors won't sign such contracts, and for good reason. Given the contracts may not work the donors prefer to protect themselves from potential child support by hiding their identity behind untraceable contact information and making it so the recipient, or the government, can't find them to force child support. Thus they really don't want to sign their full legal name on any contract. I don't really like women using those sorts of donors because of risks that are associated with using a donor you can't properly screen, but plenty still do. So the question is rather one can have their cake and eat it to. What's the best way to both ensure that a donor's full identity is not revealed and yet make as clear and explicit as possible that the donor agrees to the full contents of such a contract and want it enforced if someone ever comes hunting them down for paternity and manages to find them? I know in theory just having an e-mail saying &quot;I don't want parental rights&quot; is effectively a contract, but something like that is even less likely to be enforced then a full contract in a state without existing precedent, and it's unlikely to ease the concerns of a recipient. What's the cleanest option to give as much confidence to both sides the contract is agreed to and enforceable even if a donor refuses to give away their full legal name? For instance could the donor sign a contract using his 'donor name', whatever name he uses when advertising themselves as a potential known donor? with the idea being if you have already associated that name to him to show up for child support then you have proven that name is his and thus the signature is binding? I'm not including a specific state since I advise women in states all over the USA.
There is no requirement to name the parties to a contract I just bought a cup of coffee. I did not give my name to the other party to that contract and while I know the name of the shop, I do not actually know the legal entity I contracted with. Nevertheless, we have a binding contract and, for example, if that coffee gave me food poisoning, I would have legal recourse under that contract. Similarly, there is no difficulty signing a contract under a pseudonym - it still creates a legally binding relationship. The practical difficulties While there is no legal problem, there is an evidentiary one - if someone enters a contract and later disclaims doing so, how do you prove that they did? Or vice-versa, if someone alleges that it was you that entered the contract, how do you prove that you didn’t. What you need is some way of definitively but anonymously tying the person to the contract. I can think of lots - a fingerprint, DNA, public key cryptography, a trusted third-party intermediary to name just a few. This is essentially a technical problem rather than a legal one.
Pursuant to well-established law in the US, the person carrying the fetus (conventionally, the mother) has the right to an abortion. Doing so might be a breach of contract. Some jurisdictions flat out ban surrogacy contracts (Arizona, D.C), perhaps even penalizes (Michigan, NY), or declares void (Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska). In California, surrogacy contracts are legal and enforceable. One possible challenging scenario is that the mother refuses a requested abortion, the other is that one or both of the intended parents seek to block the mother from getting an abortion. The former case in the case of Melissa Cook, where there was an attempt made to reduce the number of pregnancies from three – Cook carried the fetuses to term despite a contrary request from the intended parents (no action was filed to attempt to force an abortion). There has apparently been no attempted case to force a mother to carry a fetus to terms because of a contract (i.e. order for specific enforcement). Under present US law, the woman carrying the fetus has the exclusive right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. No statutes or case law suggest that a surrogacy contract will override that right, and some laws explicitly deny the ability to force a mother to have an abortion (Utah Code Ann. §78B-15-808(2) &amp; (3), Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §160.754(g), Fla. Stat. Ann. §63-213(3)(b)). A mother could be sued for breach of contract if she terminates a pregnancy – the intended parents may have suffered a financial loss from that decision, but that depends on the state.
should you tell the third party to sign it using the standards of the U.S.? In most cases signing a contract is not subject to country-specific standards. All that matters is that it can be ascertained from the contract who the parties are as well as and their willful, informed formation of that contract. It is more typical for a contract to specify that it is governed by the laws of country X and/or jurisdiction Y. That places on the counterparty(-ies) the burden of ensuring that they know the legal framework that underlies the contract at issue. Lastly, note that a party entering a contract is &quot;by definition&quot; not a third party. At most, a third party might sign a contract in a witness capacity, not than in the capacity that implicates rights and duties pursuant to that contract.
Am I correct in arguing that the LHD never really had implied consent to begin with? In other words, does the failure to honour the express refusal inform us about the legitimacy of prior claims of implied consent? No. They had implied consent and had not intent at the outset to dishonor it. They have violated the patient's privacy right when consent was expressly withdrawn, and they discovered that they cannot easily comply and therefore did not comply. The fact that they have made it expensive for themselves to comply with their legal obligations going forward does not imply that they lacked implied consent at the outset, so they should have no liability for the time period from when the training materials started to be used until the time when implied consent ended. They are only responsible going forward for their failure to honor the patient's wishes. It is not at all exceptional for a legal obligation to turn out to be more difficult to comply with when it arises than was anticipated when the systems that make the legal obligation difficult to comply with were implemented. Health care companies aren't expected to be prophets who can foresee the complex confluence of factors that has painted them in a corner, particularly when a situation has never come up before the current one. It is likely that no one person was ever even simultaneously aware of all the facts necessary to know that this could happen. Someone in the IT department will often not be intimately familiar with what is going on in the training part of the operation and what the privacy rules that apply are and even if someone was, that someone may have been in no position to do anything about it at the time. Health care providers aren't supposed to be evaluated with 20-20 hindsight. Given that they almost surely did not and could not easily have known that they had made a future express withdrawal of consent very difficult to effectuate, scienter can't be attributed to it. And, honestly, they are in more than enough trouble simply trying to deal with the problem post-express withdrawal of consent when they did start to violate privacy laws.
In the UK, the law applicable to liability for child maintenance does not restrict it to children conceived in 'normal', conventional, or ongoing relationships. A biological parent has specific legal rights, AND a duty of ‘parental responsibility’ to look after the child. Mothers automatically have parental responsibility. A father has parental responsibility if he is married to the child’s mother, or is named on the birth certificate. Unmarried fathers do not have automatic parental responsibility, and neither do step-parents or grandparents. A proven biological father may not have parental responsibility, but will certainly have financial responsibility. In most cases fathers will have parental responsibility or can easily acquire it by way of an agreement or a court order. Unless there are compelling reasons, the courts are unlikely to refuse it. If a DNA test shows that the child is yours, then you are liable for the usual contribution to care at CSA rate of 15% of take home pay. When the baby is born the mother can apply to the CSA for maintenance naming you as the father. You will have a limited time within which to ask for (and pay for) a DNA test if you wish to challenge the issue. The cost is repaid if the child is not yours. Financial liability applies whether or not money has changed hands in return for the sex that led to the child's conception. The issue of casual sex leading to parenthood is a perennial one, and this page is as good as any: Dating site babies (Leiper Gupta Family Lawyers) Also in the UK, if you donate sperm through a Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) licensed clinic, you will not: be the legal parent of any child born have any legal obligation to any child born have any rights over how the child will be brought up be asked to support the child financially be named on the birth certificate If you use an unlicensed clinic to donate sperm, or an informal method, you will be the legal father of any child born from your donation under UK law. Legal rights for egg and sperm donors (UK Government)
The primary question is whether remaining silent would constitute a breech of medical ethics. The pertinent ethical principle is AMA Opinion 2.15 One of the requirements is that the donor be assigned an advocate team whose interest is the donor, not the patient, and these should generally be distinct individuals in order to avoid conflict of interest. Assuming that the donor's team is aware of this fact, they have a duty to disclose it, since it materially affects the donor's willingness to donate the organ. The ethical opinion does not specifically address &quot;patient breaking up with a directed donor&quot;, but there is a general obligation to share information, and it would probably be found to be a breach of medical ethics to suppress relevant non-medical information. The ethics of directed donation from live donors is not well-developed. I will mention that Potential donors must be informed that they may withdraw from donation at any time before undergoing the operation and that, should this occur, the health care team is committed to protect the potential donor from pressures to reveal the reasons for withdrawal. If the potential donor withdraws, the health care team should report simply that the individual was unsuitable for donation. From the outset, all involved parties must agree that the reasons why any potential donor does not donate will remain confidential for the potential donor’s protection. In situations of paired, domino, or chain donation withdrawal must still be permitted. Physicians should make special efforts to present a clear and comprehensive description of the commitment being made by the donor and the implications for other parties to the paired donation during the informed consent process. Neither team can tell the patient that the reason the girlfriend withdrew was because they ratted him out (anyhow, we can suppose she said something to him on her own). The hospital knows this fact, and has both a duty to the patient to solve a medical problem but also to the donor to be sure that the consent is informed. The hospital would be suppressing a fact relevant to the donor's willingness to undergo the operation, which is a breach of duty. This fact is not protected by HIPAA, or any other California statute, so does not supersede the obligation to reveal relevant facts.
Signing as a witness binds you to nothing. Do not sign if you do not qualify as a witness (e.g. Time known, occupation) but otherwise go for it. It is unlikely that anyone would check your bona-fifes but if they did a statutory declaration would probably be satisfactory. Remember, the point of witnessing is to show the form was actually signed by the person.
I am a notary public in Vermont and have had to deal with people who had name variations. Readers of Law StackExchange like to citations to reliable sources; I'm not going to do that, just describe my experience. Many states do indeed allow a person to adopt a new name through usage. Government agencies and large commercial agencies don't like that, and they can and do thwart the law by imposing their own administrative procedures. If you don't like their procedures, fine, give a lawyer a $20,000 retainer, have the lawyer sue, and wait three years. And after spending all that money, the court might find that although it isn't a crime for a person to change their name by usage, there is no law requiring the administrative agency to accept it. If you don't have tens of thousands of dollars to waste or years to wait, you have two choices. Get married, and use the marriage license as evidence of your name change. The format of marriage licenses is different in every state, so how well this works depends on the state. The other option is to get a court-ordered name change.