Would a promise by a friend to pay all of my child support for me for 18+ years in the event of a bilateral epididymectomy failure be legally binding?

[Futurist]

Would a written promise by a friend to pay all of my child support for me for 18+ years in the event of a bilateral epididymectomy failure be legally binding? I live in California, by the way. I'm thinking something along the lines of me giving them a one-time payment of, say, $100 in exchange for them making such a written promise. Obviously formal responsibility would remain on my own shoulders, but would I actually be capable of successfully suing them for indemnification later on? I mean, if we allow liability insurance, why not this as well? Or is the distinction here that a licensed insurance company is actually involved in liability insurance? So, a written promise by an insurance company to pay one's child support in one's place for 18+ years in the event of a bilateral epididymectomy failure would be legally binding but an equivalent written promise by another person, even if it was made in exchange for something of value, would not be legally binding?

Any thoughts on all of this? I know that in the Straub v. BMT by Todd case, in his dissent, Justice DeBruler argued that an offer by another party to pay one's child support should be considered legally binding, but of course the majority in that case disagreed with him on that. But the majority never actually bothered analyzing the arguments in Justice DeBruler's dissent, which is why their exact view on this is rather puzzling. Is child support insurance OK? What about a written promise by a third party (as in, someone other than the child's custodial parent) to pay one's child support in one's place, in exchange for something of value? Granted, I live in California rather than in Indiana, but court precedents in regards to child support have been rather similar everywhere in the US, unfortunately.

 

[Futurist]

As for why exactly anyone in their right mindswould actually agree to such an offer, well, it's because the risk of a bilateral epididymectomy failure is minuscule, especially if it is combined with a bilateral removal of the entire scrotal part of the vas deferens along with a bilateral removal of the entire epididymal and scrotal vas deferens sheaths and arteries. And of course both cautery and fascial interposition would be done on both sides of the remaining reproductive tissue (in the testicles and abdomen, respectively).

 

[zddoodah]

Would a written promise by a friend to pay all of my child support for me for 18+ years in the event of a bilateral epididymectomy failure be legally binding?

If it's supported by consideration, then yes, it could be enforceable. Of course, it's impossible to speak intelligently about the enforceability of a contract that we have no ability to read and which, in reality, is entirely hypothetical.

I'm thinking something along the lines of me giving them a one-time payment of, say, $100 in exchange for them making such a written promise.

Them? You mentioned "a friend" (singular). In any event, do you really have a friend who is dumb enough to enter into such an agreement?

would I actually be capable of successfully suing them for indemnification later on?

We have no way of knowing what abilities you have.

I know that in the Straub v. BMT by Todd case, in his dissent, Justice DeBruler argued

First, that case was heard by an appeals court in Indiana (one in which they have judges, not justices) and, thus, has no relevance to a California legal issue. Second, a dissent is not binding on anyone.

Is child support insurance OK?

It's ok with me. If you're asking whether a California court would invalidate the agreement as being against the public policy of the state, one would need to research California case law to address that.

Granted, I live in California rather than in Indiana, but court precedents in regards to child support have been rather similar everywhere in the US, unfortunately.

I highly doubt that, and California courts rarely find case authority from other states to be persuasive.

 

[adjusterjack]

So, a written promise by an insurance company to pay one's child support in one's place for 18+ years in the event of a bilateral epididymectomy failure would be legally binding

Well, if one could buy that insurance at all, it would be legally binding. But you would pay a hefty premium for it and you would be paying that premium year after year until the un-blessed event occurred. Lloyds of London (google it) might write a policy like that. Lloyds has been known to insure some pretty weird stuff. See:

16 Weird Insurance Policies Issued by Lloyd's of London | RealClear

an equivalent written promise by another person, even if it was made in exchange for something of value, would not be legally binding?

Depends on what that something of value is. Consideration typically has to have a reasonable relationship to the promise being made by the other party. Your $100 against 18 years worth of child support is not going to cut it. Besides, to whom would you make that payment? To the person you are having sex with? Why bother? That person would be obligated by law to pay child support anyway.

If he wanted to buy insurance from somebody else he might be able to find such a policy somewhere. But a person not licensed to insure against risk (lots of legal and financial requirements there) would not be permitted by law to do that without qualifying as an "insurance company" and any such contract would be void by law.

By the way, Straub v BMT by Todd is not even on point here. It's the reverse of what you are asking.

Read it at:

Straub v. BMT by Todd :: 1994 :: Supreme Court of Indiana Decisions :: Indiana Case Law :: Indiana Law :: US Law :: Justia

 

[Futurist]

If it's supported by consideration, then yes, it could be enforceable. Of course, it's impossible to speak intelligently about the enforceability of a contract that we have no ability to read and which, in reality, is entirely hypothetical.

Do you want me to offer you the text of this hypothetical contact?

Them? You mentioned "a friend" (singular).

"Them" can be used as a gender-neutral singular pronoun.

In any event, do you really have a friend who is dumb enough to enter into such an agreement?

Maybe; we'll see.

We have no way of knowing what abilities you have.

OK.

First, that case was heard by an appeals court in Indiana (one in which they have judges, not justices) and, thus, has no relevance to a California legal issue. Second, a dissent is not binding on anyone.

It was also heard by the Indiana Supreme Court and a dissent, while not being, could be used as inspiration for future majority opinions if judges believe that a past majority ever got a very important case wrong.

It's ok with me. If you're asking whether a California court would invalidate the agreement as being against the public policy of the state, one would need to research California case law to address that.

But there isn't any precedent to that effect, is there?

I highly doubt that, and California courts rarely find case authority from other states to be persuasive.

Are you sure?

 

[Futurist]

Well, if one could buy that insurance at all, it would be legally binding. But you would pay a hefty premium for it and you would be paying that premium year after year until the un-blessed event occurred. Lloyds of London (google it) might write a policy like that. Lloyds has been known to insure some pretty weird stuff. See:

16 Weird Insurance Policies Issued by Lloyd's of London | RealClear

I have previously contacted over 100 Lloyd's brokers to that effect. Not a single one of them was actually willing to take it.

Depends on what that something of value is. Consideration typically has to have a reasonable relationship to the promise being made by the other party. Your $100 against 18 years worth of child support is not going to cut it.

Actually, it's very proportional to the risk. Even if we're talking about $1 million child support payments in total (extraordinarily unlikely), the risk of my specific sterilization procedure above failing would be extraordinarily low. My hunch would be that the failure rate for it would be much lower than for a regular vasectomy due to the fact that:

1. You'd see the entire scrotal part of the vas deferens surgically removed. That's at least 7 centimeters of vas deferens and possibly even more.
2. You'd see the epididymis surgically removed as well. That provides a huge blow to sperm motility even if recanalization will ever subsequently actually occur since the epididymis is responsible for making a man's sperm motile. No epididymis = astronomically less sperm motility, assuming that the epididymis is actually fully removed on both sides, of course.
3. Fascial interposition would be done on both ends rather than only on one end like it's typically done with a vasectomy.

So, instead of a 1 in 2,000-4,000 male sterilization failure rate, we could be looking at a failure rate that's ten times or more less than that. (One doctor with whom I have corresponded told me that the risk of the failure rate for the specific sterilization procedure that I want would be, and I quote, "Less than one in one million.") So, maybe 1 in 20,000-40,000 or even less than that. Let's go with 1 in 30,000.

$1 million / 30,000 = $33.33. So, a payment of $100 would actually benefit the person whom I'm paying three times more than this deal would benefit me, since $100 = $33.33 * 3. And this payment can be increased from $100 to, say, $250 or even $500. Then the deal would be even more in the other person's favor.

Besides, to whom would you make that payment? To the person you are having sex with? Why bother? That person would be obligated by law to pay child support anyway.

Technically, I'd like to pay both them and a third party for the same thing. The payment to my sex partner would involve them making up for the shortfall in child support by spending even more of their own money on the child, assuming that they are able to do so. Something similar to the logic in Justice DeBruler's dissent in the Straub case. Basically, them assuming my share of child support in my place in addition to assuming their own share of child support for so long as they are actually capable of paying both shares; if not, then I'll have to pay instead.

But I have severe doubts that this agreement would actually be held up in spite of the rather sound logic of Justice DeBruler's dissent (which can be used by a different state court decades later to build a majority opinion). Hence the backup option to find and pay a third party $100 or $250 or $500 in exchange for them assuming this risk in my place for so long as they are able to. Think of an indemnification agreement. This third party can be someone close to my future female sexual partners--a friend, relative, and/or acquaintance of theirs. The risk is minuscule and they get free money, so anyone who says that I myself am too paranoid about this should be more than willing to take up my offer in regards to this and to actually put their own money on the line in regards to this.

If he wanted to buy insurance from somebody else he might be able to find such a policy somewhere. But a person not licensed to insure against risk (lots of legal and financial requirements there) would not be permitted by law to do that without qualifying as an "insurance company" and any such contract would be void by law.

So, in other words, any such written contract/agreement between two people would not be valid since the person offering insurance (or quasi-insurance/pseudo-insurance) wouldn't actually be an insurance company and since one cannot legally sell insurance without a license?

By the way, Straub v BMT by Todd is not even on point here. It's the reverse of what you are asking.

Read it at:

Straub v. BMT by Todd :: 1994 :: Supreme Court of Indiana Decisions :: Indiana Case Law :: Indiana Law :: US Law :: Justia

I've read that case and I was specifically talking about Justice DeBruler's dissent in it. His dissent is relevant because it talks about why he believes an agreement by someone else to pay one's share of child support in one's place should be valid so long as the other party is indeed capable of paying this.

 

[Futurist]

Just how frequently do US state courts cite opinions from other US state courts, anyway?

And Yeah, back to my logic about dissents, one time's dissent could form the basis for a future time's majority opinion.

 

[LdiJ]

Just how frequently do US state courts cite opinions from other US state courts, anyway?

And Yeah, back to my logic about dissents, one time's dissent could form the basis for a future time's majority opinion.

It is fairly rare for US state courts to accept citations of opinion from other US state courts. It does happen sometimes, but it is fairly rare and is only treated seriously when the laws of the two states in question are basically the same.

 

[not2cleverRed]

This has been asked and answered before by this poster.

Posting hx is a MUST:
https://forum.freeadvice.com/threads/child-support-after-a-doctor-screws-up-with-surgical-castration.619337/

https://forum.freeadvice.com/threads/question-about-an-open-marriage-and-child-support.619333/

 

[adjusterjack]

Actually, it's very proportional to the risk. Even if we're talking about $1 million child support payments in total (extraordinarily unlikely), the risk of my specific sterilization procedure above failing would be extraordinarily low.

Yet your contact with over 100 Lloyds brokers appears to suggest that your presumption is wrong.

If you think the risk is so small you are welcome to assume the risk yourself.

I've read that case and I was specifically talking about Justice DeBruler's dissent in it. His dissent is relevant because it talks about why he believes an agreement by someone else to pay one's share of child support in one's place should be valid so long as the other party is indeed capable of paying this.

Keep telling yourself that.

Bottom line: You make a baby you pay child support.

Thinking of ways to not pay child support is delusional.

Considering your posting history, it's likely that this thread will be locked soon.

 

[quincy]

This has been asked and answered before by this poster.

Posting hx is a MUST:
https://forum.freeadvice.com/threads/child-support-after-a-doctor-screws-up-with-surgical-castration.619337/

https://forum.freeadvice.com/threads/question-about-an-open-marriage-and-child-support.619333/

Futurist has been talking about surgical castration since 2015. If he waits much longer, his child(ren) will have aged out of the system and there won’t be any child support to pay.

 

[adjusterjack]

If he waits much longer, his child(ren) will have aged out of the system and there won’t be any child support to pay.

He would owe any arrears that he hasn't paid.

 

[quincy]

He would owe any arrears that he hasn't paid.

Yes. Futurist ultimately is responsible for the child support regardless of any agreement he makes with his friend.

 

[Futurist]

Yes. Futurist ultimately is responsible for the child support regardless of any agreement he makes with his friend.

But can the friend indemnify me like an insurance company would? Or is that only something that insurance companies are legally allowed to do?